Civil and Human Rights

Prop. 8: At West Hollywood bar, all eyes on Supreme Court

By Marisa Gerber

 

By 9:30 a.m., Todd Barnes, general manager at The Abbey in West Hollywood, said he had already fielded several phone calls from customers asking if the well-known gay and lesbian bar was doing anything special for Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing of arguments over California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.

 

“Because The Abbey is what it is, people will probably trickle in all day,” Barnes said as he walked to a TV at the front of the bar and tuned it in to C-SPAN. “I think I need to call in another bartender.”

 

As a customer sipped his morning coffee and watched C-SPAN’s morning coverage of a “March for Marriage,” he shook his head and rolled his eyes.

 

Then a banner introducing Rev. Dr. Wanda Rolon, a prominent pastor from Puerto Rico, flashed across the screen.

 

Rolon’s voice boomed, almost as if she was singing a hymn, as she described marriage as “the union between one man and one woman.” The televised crowd at the march clapped and cheered.

 

Barnes, who supports gay marriage, laughed softly at her decree and another employee joked that it sounded like sports announcers at a soccer game.

 

“It’s too much,” Barnes said. “Too much.”

 

CHEAT SHEET: Your guide to Prop. 8 and DOMA 

 

The Times’ David G. Savage reported that the justices sounded closely split, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested during oral arguments that the court should strike down the California ban without ruling broadly on the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

Twice Kennedy questioned why the court had even voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” he said at one point.

 

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down as ruled by by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Minutes after the conclusion of arguments, Constitutional Accountability Center Vice President Judith E. Schaeffer released the following statement:

 

“When pressed by the justices, the lawyer defending Proposition 8 could not come up with any legitimate reason for excluding gay and lesbian couples from the freedom to marry. The justices, while uncomfortable with Proposition 8, seemed hesitant to rule on the merits, but as Justice Kennedy noted, there was concern about branding the families of nearly 40,000 children in California as second-class.

 

“One important question Justice [Antonin] Scalia asked former Bush Solicitor General Theodore Olson, who defended marriage equality, was when it became unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. The answer is 1868, when the American people added the 14th Amendment’s universal guarantee of equality to the Constitution.”

 

Gay marriage foes expressed confidence that the court would uphold the state’s ban on same-sex unions after hearing arguments on the law Tuesday.

 

“I think we are going to win this case,” Andy Pugno, lawyer for Proposition 8 campaign. “We definitely  represented the winning case today and the justices asked good thoughtful questions and we were able to say everything that we wanted to get in front of the court today.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: Ignoring constitutional history and original meaning, conservative majority allows city governments to punish people for sleeping in public even if they have nowhere else to go

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 11, 2024

The People Who Dismantled Affirmative Action Have a New Strategy to Crush Racial Justice

Slate
Last summer, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck...
By: David H. Gans