Hollingsworth v. Perry
Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown ) is a case before the Supreme Court of the United States to the unconstitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriage in California . The trial began with a lawsuit in the San Francisco Federal District Court against Proposition 8 , a successful referendum that changed the California Constitution to state only marriages between a man and a woman. In their motion, the plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 violates the rule of law and the principle of equality of the federal constitution. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that opponents of same-sex marriage in California were not entitled to sue; thus the original judgment of the district court of first instance applies in this state and thus the right for homosexuals to marry.
background
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in “In re Marriage Cases ” that the existing legal prohibition on same-sex marriage was contrary to the California Constitution. In their ruling, the judges found that regulations that treat people differently on the basis of their sexual orientation had to meet “the strictest legal requirements”. According to settled case law, this includes a convincing state interest in the goal pursued by the law, a close orientation of the regulation to it and the restriction to those means with which the least possible restrictions of the persons concerned are connected. The judges were convinced that Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which only recognized marriages between a man and a woman in California, does not meet these strict requirements. The law is no longer allowed to be applied, which gives the California authorities the freedom to enter into same-sex marriages.
Following the ruling, opponents of same-sex marriage organized a referendum that was held on November 4, 2008, along with the presidential , congressional and other elections. The aim of the referendum was to enshrine the prohibition of same-sex marriage in the constitution and thus overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court. The necessary majority voted in favor of the referendum, so that the constitutional amendment came into effect immediately. Since then, same-sex marriages have been banned in California.
On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court took the Strauss v. Horton and two other lawsuits aimed at invalidating the referendum. After an oral hearing on March 5, 2009, the judges ruled on May 26, 2009 that Proposition 8 did not violate the California Constitution and that the constitutional amendment was therefore valid. The ban is only not applicable to the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that have already been concluded. Treat them like all other marriages. The standard of review for the court was solely the constitution of California, not the superordinate federal constitution.
Filing a lawsuit
On May 23, 2009, three days before the court announced its decision, the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed a suit against Proposition in the Northern California Federal District Court on behalf of two same-sex couples (including Kristin Perry, after whom the case is named, and her partner) 8 a.
The opposing parties named in the proceedings were officials from two counties, as well as the then Governor of California , Arnold Schwarzenegger , Attorney General Jerry Brown and two officials in the California Department of Health. Brown refused to defend Proposition 8 on the grounds that the constitutional amendment violated the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and should therefore be declared null and void. Schwarzenegger also denied the defense, but stated that the courts should conduct the proceedings because important constitutional issues needed to be resolved.
After the legal representatives of California spoke out against a defense of Proposition 8 , the organization ProtectMarriage.com , initiator of the referendum, applied for the state to act as an opposing party in the proceedings. The responsible judge Vaughn Walker granted the application.
Proceedings in the first instance (Perry v. Schwarzenegger)
The oral hearing was scheduled for January 11, 2010. In addition to the direct issue of same-sex marriage, the applicants and respondents were commissioned to answer questions about bringing up children in same-sex families, how same-sex marriage affects the marriage of couples of different sexes, the history of discrimination against homosexuals and the effects of prejudice against homosexuals prepare.
At the hearing, the applicants argued that marriage is a fundamental right, that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is harmful to homosexuals and their children, and that there is no reasonable reason or societal benefit for the prohibition. Further arguments against the ban were cited that historically, marriage was never understood solely as a bond between a man and a woman, that religion in American history was never decisive for the definition of marriage, and that marriage restrictions, on the other hand, have repeatedly been seen as punishments for unpopular people Groups were used, that traditional gender roles were largely abolished in the 20th century and that the historical development of marriage was primarily characterized by eliminating inequalities. The applicants also went into the historical “demonization” of homosexuals as “ dangerous sexual deviants and child molesters ” (German: “dangerous sexual abnormalities and child abusers ”). In doing so, they also referred to materials circulated by supporters of the referendum claiming that failure of the ban would place the United States in the "hands of the devil" and that " gay agenda officials " would be next for would fight the legalization of intercourse with children. Furthermore, economic, psychological and political arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage were presented.
The opposing side argued primarily that the prohibition of same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation of the partner, but rather a restriction of certain, well-defined behavior, that marriage was traditionally understood as a bond between man and woman because there was a stable unity for them Reproduction and child-rearing show that the widespread dissemination of registered partnerships and homosexual characters in the entertainment media are signs against systemic discrimination against homosexuals and that homosexuals have sufficient influence to enforce their interests through political channels, so that the courts do not intervene to protect minorities would be necessary.
After the hearing ended on June 16, 2010, Judge Walker announced his decision on August 4, 2010. In it he declared Proposition 8 to be incompatible with the federal constitution. There would be no reasonable basis or interest for California to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into marriage:
“An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives. "
“A referendum that was accepted by the electorate calls for great restraint. The thoughtful views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts rarely outweigh the beliefs of voters. However, if challenged, these beliefs need at least some support in the facts. That is all the more true when those beliefs enact a law that divides people into classes. Guesswork, speculation and fears are insufficient. Still less is the moral disapproval of a group or class of citizens enough, regardless of the size of the majority who hold that view. Beyond serious consideration, the facts show that Proposition 8 draws its support from such rejection alone. In this respect, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of voters or their representatives. "
In his decision, Walker also stated that Proposition 8 was based on traditional conceptions of marriage and moral rejection of homosexuality, neither of which were acceptable bases for legal discrimination. The right to marry is a fundamental right that California has a duty to protect. Accordingly, the California authorities are ordered to no longer apply Proposition 8 and thus allow same-sex couples to get married.
Proceedings in the second instance (Perry v. Brown)
On August 12, 2010, the representatives of the referendum initiators approved by Walker appealed against the decision to the 9th Federal Court of Appeal. They also petitioned for a restraining order against the implementation of the ruling to prevent the California authorities from re-marrying. The application was granted on August 16, 2010. The applicants were instructed to explain why the appeals should not be dismissed immediately for lack of legal standing . The question arose because the actual opposing side in the proceedings, the legal representatives of the state of California, had refused to defend Proposition 8 . According to American jurisprudence, however, only the parties directly named in a proceeding can appeal, not any third party. Attempts to force the governor or attorney general to defend Proposition 8 in court previously failed in the California Supreme Court.
The oral hearing before the three-member panel took place on December 6, 2010 after a previous request for bias against one of the judges had been rejected. After the former Attorney General Jerry Brown was elected governor in November 2010, the trial was now called Perry v. Brown . On January 4, 2011, the judges asked the California Supreme Court whether the initiators of the referendum had a sufficiently specific interest under California law to represent the state in court, even though the actual representatives of the state had refused to defend the referendum . The question was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court on November 17, 2011 on the grounds that initiators of referenda had the right to take part in legal proceedings against such referenda in previous cases.
The Court of Appeal thereupon announced on February 7, 2012 its decision, which was reached with a majority of two to one, that Proposition 8 was indeed unconstitutional. The reason for this, however, was based on a much narrower argument than in the first instance. According to the majority author, Judge Stephen Reinhardt , Proposition 8 served no other purpose than degrading the status and dignity of homosexuals in California and officially reclassifying their relationships and families as inferior to those of couples of different sexes. He cited the United States Supreme Court decision in the Romer v. Evans and stated that the federal constitution simply does not allow such kind of laws. The findings on the principle of equality and systemic discrimination presented in the first instance would not have to be checked in the second instance. The decision in the second instance could be made solely on the basis of the fact that Proposition 8, by way of a constitutional amendment, removed a right from a minority that they had before: the basic right to same-sex marriage declared by the California Supreme Court in 2008.
The further examination by the appellate court is then limited to whether the goals put forward by the initiators of the referendum can serve as sufficient legitimation for the abolition of this fundamental right. This test was negative, because Proposition 8 had no influence on raising children due to the lack of provisions on custody or adoption rights, nor would it influence the reproductive behavior of couples of different sexes. The goal of a more cautious introduction of same-sex marriage mentioned in the hearing was also rejected in view of the absolute prohibition of the recognition of such marriages inherent in Proposition 8 . Whether the United States Constitution requires that states also allow same-sex couples to marry is not relevant to the decision of the present case. Rather, what matters is that the Constitution forbids a state from depriving a disgraced population of the right to marry if it was previously granted by the state.
The initiators of the referendum requested a new hearing on February 21, 2012 before the full 29-member appellate court. The application was rejected on June 5, 2012.
Proceedings before the Supreme Court (Hollingsworth v. Perry)
On July 31, 2012, the losing party, the initiators of the referendum, led by then California Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, applied for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal. The motion was granted on December 7, 2012 and both parties were asked to comment on the question of the extent to which the initiators of the referendum were actually authorized to defend Proposition 8 before the Court of Appeal in place of the legal representatives of the state of California.
The oral hearing was scheduled for March 26, 2013. The verdict then fell on June 26, 2013. In it, the presiding judge John Roberts declared for a majority of five judges that the opponents of same-sex marriage were not entitled to appeal against the judgment of Judge Vaughn Walker. So his judgment is the last word on this question. On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals followed the ruling of the Supreme Court and canceled its "stay" (the original order to wait before the ruling until the case has been dealt with in all instances and become final) with immediate effect ( "effective immediately" ). Same-sex couples remarried in California that same day.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Ronald M. George : Strauss v. Horton. (PDF; 495 kB) California Supreme Court , May 26, 2009, accessed March 26, 2013 .
- ↑ Maura Dolan, Carol Williams: Jerry Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down. In: Los Angeles Times. June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009 .
- ^ Maura Dolan: Schwarzenegger decides against defending Prop. 8 in federal court. In: Los Angeles Times. June 13, 2009, accessed February 8, 2012 .
- ^ Lisa Leff: Defense lawyers rest case at gay marriage trial. KPBS-FM, January 27, 2010, accessed February 22, 2012 .
- ↑ Shannon Minter: NCLR's Legal Director Shannon Minter on Perry v Schwarzenegger Proceedings, Day 2. In: Out For Justice. National Center for Lesbian Rights, January 12, 2010; accessed February 22, 2012 .
- ^ Vaughn Walker: Perry v. Schwarzenegger. (PDF; 351 kB) (No longer available online.) In: 704 F.Supp.2d 921 at 940 (ND Cal. 2010). August 4, 2010, archived from the original on March 16, 2013 ; Retrieved March 26, 2013 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ a b Stephen Reinhardt: Perry v. Brown. (PDF; 494 kB) In: 671 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). February 7, 2012, accessed February 22, 2012 .
- ↑ (Order List: 568 US) Certiorari granted. (PDF; 48 kB) United States Supreme Court, December 7, 2012, accessed March 26, 2013 .
- ↑ Full text of the judgment of the Supreme Court (PDF; 173 kB), supremecourtus.gov, accessed on June 29, 2013
- ↑ Gay Couples Who Sued in California Are Married , New York Times online, June 29, 2013
