Justice Opinion on Hollingsworth v Perry - Essay Example

Justice Opinion on Hollingsworth v. Perry Overview The Perry v. Schwarzenegger, now recognized as Hollingsworth v. Perry, is a case that became filed by attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson on behalf of two homosexual couples; raising a preliminary order hindering proposition 8 (Rosky 943). The case emanates from the legislation, Proposition 8 that became passed in the year 2008 by the ballot criterion in the state of California. Facts: presently, California State has altered its constitution to describe marriage as an association between one woman and one man. In the year 2000, the state of California conceded Proposition 22, which became an initiative ruling reaffirming that understanding. Proposition 22 became invalidated by the Supreme Court which demanded that marriage should be redefined to involve homosexual couples (Eskridge 96). Some six months later, the citizens of California took on Proposition 8 that amended the Constitution of California stating that; only heterosexual marriage is valid and can be the only one recognized within California. Perry, et al sued this proposition claiming that it was violating the rights of equal protection under the 14th Amendment (Egan and Sherrill 203). Outcome In an outstanding, although conceivably transitory, victory for equality in marriage, a state appeal panel of the Court invalidated the infamous Proposition 8 of California, an initiative at the ballot that had overturned homosexual marriage within the state. The 9th Circuit made Romer v. Evans the controlling precedent. In a majority opinion, it could be affirmed that, Proposition 8 plays no plausible, legitimate interest of the state and the only rationale of the initiative’s upholders would be to declare the immaterial worth of lesbians and gays as a category and could humiliate a disfavored class publicly (Eskridge 127). Of course, the proponents of Proposition 8 disputed that, the constitution has no marriage mention in any way thus; states are obligatory to characterize marriage within the 10th Amendment (Horne, Rostosky and Riggle 362). These proponents also uphold the view that customary marriage definition is rationally linked to the vital interest of the society in necessitating the distinctive procreative possibility of heterosexual relationship in enhanced, stable unions for the principles of procreating and bringing up the coming generations. However, the court argued that, Proposition eight was only trying to uphold anti-equality models in the state. The 9th Circuit majority affirmed that Proposition 8 undermined the equal protection clause within the United States’ Constitution (Eskridge 95). Syllabus The legal provisions being appealed in this case involve the 14th and 10th Amendments, the strict scrutiny test, and Proposition 8 that became passed by the California citizens. Under the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, the equal protection clause offers that any state whatsoever must not deny to any individual within its command the equal defense of the statute. The 10th Amendment signifies that, states have the authority to control marital matters. The federalism system dictates the powers of policing that the state must possess. In other words, the proponents of Proposition 8 signified that the constitution has no marriage mention in any way thus; states are obligatory to characterize marriage within the 10th Amendment (Lannutti 43). That is; in this docket of power, states have generally had jurisdiction to control marriage. Although, the opponents of Proposition 8 declare that, the 10th Amendment must not be platform used to jeopardize the citizen’s right of equal protection as affirmed under the 14th Amendment. In the argument regarding the 14th Amendment, it became clarified if the states can amend their constitutions to recognize marriage as the union of one woman and one man and whether it violated the equal protection provision. In this case, Proposition 8 cannot withstand strict scrutiny. That is; the proponents fail to affirm that the availability of marital partnerships satisfies the fundamental right of the plaintiff to marry; these proponents uttered that, there exist a significant emblematic disparity between marriage and domestic partnership. For that rationale, upholding Proposition 8 is a violation of the fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The opinion of the majority provided here was that; there was no compelling or substantial state interest that could support the outlawing of marriage between homosexual partners. In a precedent justification; it became ruled out that, outlawing same-sex marriage within the state would be like singling out a minority group that would be disfavored or rather categorized as not deserving protection (Nagle 23). In the most popular argument of the Proposition 8 proponents; it would be stated that, gays must be excluded from the society for they cannot engage in procreation and that their exclusion would be like upholding the moral standards of the upcoming generation. This is an opinion that became counteracted by the majority opinion. The opponents of Proposition 8 highlighted that, a lot of homosexual couples in California are bringing up children; denying them the right of marriage would be like providing the children involved a weak unified, or rather unstable family environment. In fact, under the state policy of California, domestic couples bringing up children are provided similar legal protections like those who are married. Via failing to identify the homosexual couple’s marital status, the state would be undermining its objective of maintaining a stable rearing environment for children involved. It is indisputable that, the ideas in support of traditional matrimony becomes weakened whenever an individual takes into account the mounting rates of divorce occurring in heterosexual relationships. Judges In a 3-2 vote majority opinion in favor of scraping off Proposition 8, Judge Rowell D offered the court’s opinion that, upholding Proposition 8 in the state would be doing harm to the Amenders of the U.S. Constitution because this proposition violated the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. It is an opinion that was supported by Justice Rawlings P. I concurred with the majority’s opinion. Judge Arnold C and Marshall P dissented. The dissents upheld the traditional view of marriage basing their views on the moral standards of the society. Opinion In regard to whether or not the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment becomes violated by Proposition 8, I concur with the ninth circuit. There appears to be no legal grounds why individuals must be denied their marriage rights just for the rationale that they are of the same sex (Eskridge 94). I state that; Proposition 8 became passed, with the full backing emerging from the religious right organization. This was not long after the supreme court of California affirmed that a right to marry could not be denied to homosexual couples. In this case, such denial would be like violating the equal protection rights of gay and lesbians. There are key premises upon which proposition 8 became presented. That is; denial of marriage to homosexual couples safeguards marriage. Denial of same-sex marriage enables lesbians and gays to live in secrete without requiring children to acknowledge or identify the reality of same-sex couples. In other words, proponents argued that this key premise was trying to protect children (Herek 98). Another key premise stated that, marriage becomes different in nature in regard to the spouses’ sex, and a same-sex couple marriage is inferior to the heterosexual one. In other words, this premise signified that, marriages of same-sex couples redefine marriages of heterosexual couples (Chauncey 89). In my analysis of these key premises, there is no pointless in affirming that Proposition 8 became amended in the state constitution so as to bar homosexual marriage on some weak grounds. In fact, Proposition 8 operated a singular and hindered change to the state constitution of California. It stripped the homosexual couples of the right to possess their devoted relationships identified by the State at the heart of marriage designation, which the constitution of the state had previously guaranteed them. Indeed, these were rights plus responsibilities, which could be identical to those defining married spouses. They shaped an integral portion of the relationship in marriage. Proposition 8 brought about a dishonorable rule of the state, which safeguarded marriage just for straight couples. That is; in taking up the amendment, individuals merely took the marriage designation away from a durable homosexual partnership, plus with it the State’s endorsement of that authorized status and shared approval that accompanied it. The freedom to marry someone of an individual’s choice is an essential right safeguarded by the Due Process Clause. Proposition 8 is an infringement to this essential right since it bars every plaintiff from marrying someone of her or his choice. It is within the 14th amendment that the marriage partner choice becomes sheltered (Rosky 967). This is from the unwarranted usurpation of the state about that choice. In the domestic partnership provision of California, a position offering homosexual couples the responsibilities and rights of marriage devoid of giving marriage does not enable plaintiffs an ample substitute for marriage. Via disabling plaintiffs from wedding someone of their choice, covetously discriminate, without rationalization, against plaintiffs plus others who seek out to wed somebody of the same sex. I concur that; Proposition 8 is termed unconstitutional since it rebuffs a fundamental right to plaintiffs without a justifiable (much less convincing) motive. I am emphasizing that; after a passionate analysis of the Equal Protection Clause, Proposition 8 does not hold up rational basis appraisal. In fact, not too much can Proposition 8 tolerate the strict scrutiny obligatory by the due process claim of the plaintiff. The negligible evidence presented by proponents fails to meet the weighty burden of production required to demonstrate that Proposition 8 is intently tailored to a forceful interest of the government. In this case, Proposition 8 cannot withstand strict scrutiny. In fact, the proponents fail to affirm that the availability of marital partnerships satisfies the fundamental right of the plaintiff to marry; these proponents uttered that, there exist a significant emblematic disparity between marriage and domestic partnership. For that rationale, upholding Proposition 8 is a violation of the fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. I will uphold that; initiating Proposition 8 would be of sex and sexual orientation discrimination (Nagle 54). I do join the Plaintiff in challenging Proposition 8 that it is a violation of the 14th Amendment. This is on the basis that, Proposition 8 discriminates on both sex and sexual orientation. In other words, sexual orientation discrimination takes after sex discrimination. For instance, here, Perry has been outlawed to marry Stier, a fellow woman. That is; if Perry would be a man, she would not be barred by Proposition 8 from settling their marriage. It can be affirmed that; Proposition 8 functions to prohibit the choice of Perry in relation to her partner of marriage just because of her sex. Also, Proposition 8 operates to hinder the choice of Perry due to her sexual orientation; Perry’s wish to marry a fellow woman comes to surface just because she is a lesbian. In regard to the confirmation within the court, there is no pointless in affirming that, this trial demonstrates how homosexual couples experience discrimination founded on baseless prejudices and stereotypes attached to sexual orientation. It is evident that; lesbians and gays are a target group for discrimination simply due to their sexual orientation. From the Perry’s and other plaintiff’s case, it is obvious that sexual orientation and sex are essentially interconnected. As the choice of an individual of intimate, or romantic partner founded on sex, is a no ignorable part of what explains a person’s sexual orientation. Perry’s case demonstrates how sexual orientation discrimination could be phenomenon different from, but rather related to sex discrimination (Nagle 74). I dissent from the proponent’s opinions that marriage can be defined from only the traditional view. I affirm that, traditional alone cannot present a rational source of law. The evidence in this court illustrates that; the tradition of barring the choices of an individual in regard to marital partners based on gender cannot judiciously promote a state interest regardless of its ancient lineage. In fact, this evidence in Perry’s case demonstrates that the gender restrictions traditions mounted when spouses could be lawfully demanded to adhere to given gender roles; but, California has eradicated all the lawfully mandated gender roles excluding the condition that marriage comprises of one woman and one man (Egan and Sherrill 23). I affirm that, in such actions Proposition 8 enshrines within the Constitution of California a gender constraint that this evidence illustrates to be nothing above an artifact of an inevitable impression that women and men execute distinguished roles within civic life. The tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples does not promote any interest of the state. Of course, the evidence in the court reflects that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interests in terms of equality since it commands that women and men must be rated differently based on discredited and obsolete notions of gender. It can be stipulated that, the argument of the proponents that tradition desires heterosexual couples than homosexual couples generates the likelihood that heterosexual relationships are just better than homosexual relationships. In my opinion, I dissent from this proponent views. Tradition only cannot justify this purported interest. There is enough evidence to stipulate that the state had an interest of preferring heterosexual couples to homosexual couples. In this case, the state was disadvantaging a popular minority among the majority group of the society. I affirm that; opposite-sex and same-sex relationship are for all purpose pertinent to the law of California, and are accurately the same. In the court’s opinion, the evidence in this court demonstrates conclusively that the religious and moral standpoints structure the basis for a conviction that homosexual couples are unlike from their counterparts, the heterosexual couples. This evidence fatally demoralizes any purported interest of the state in treating couples on different grounds; therefore, these interests offer a baseless rational supporting Proposition 8. Besides, proponents seem to allege that Proposition 8 moves the interest of the state forward in slackening administrative burdens linked with recognizing and issuing marriage licenses. In regard to precedents like Craig v. Boren, “directorial convenience and ease” are not essential objectives of the government. Still assuming that the state was to possess administrative ease and convenience, Proposition 8 generates an administrative trouble on California since the state must uphold an analogous institution for homosexual couples in order to offer equal benefits and rights to married couples. California must decide whether to eliminate domestic partnerships or to retain them in the nonexistence of Proposition 8. This court believes, however, that so long Proposition 8 is still operating; the marital unions plus the accompanying directorial burdens will remain. Thus, Proposition 8 hinders more willingly than advancing administrative convenience. I sum up; Proposition 8 falls short to provide any rational grounds in singling out lesbians and gay men for rebuff of a marriage license. Without a doubt, there is sufficient evidence to rule that Proposition 8 instills nothing more than enshrining the notion that heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples under the California Constitution (Rosky 980). For the rationale that, California lacks interest in singling out or discriminating against same-sex couples and since proposition 8 bars the state from fulfilling its constitutional mandates to provide equal basis to marriages, the court brings to a close that Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment; hence, held unconstitutional. Works Cited: Chauncey, George. Why marriage? The history shaping today’s debate over gay equality. NewYork, NY: Basic Books, 2004. Print. Egan, Patrick, and Sherrill Kenneth. California’s Proposition 8: What happened, and what does the future hold? Washington, DC: The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), 2009. Print. Eskridge, William M., Jr."The Ninth Circuit’s Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality". Stanford Law Review 64.1 (2012): 93–98. Print. Eskridge, William M., Jr. "The Supreme Court's Regime-Shifting Opinion in Romer v. Evans (1996)". Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America 1861-2003. New York: Viking, 2008. Print. Herek, Gregory. Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York, NY: Springer, 2009. Print. Horne, Sharon, Rostosky Scales, and Riggle Ellen. Impact of marriage restriction amendments on family members of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: A mixed-method approach. Journal of Social Issues 67.1 (2011): 358 – 375. Print. Lannutti, Pamela. Examining communication about marriage amendments: Same-sex couples and their extended social networks. Journal of Social Issues, 67.1 (2011): 264 – 281. Nagle, Jeanne. The Debate. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. 2010. Print. Rosky, Clifford. "Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the Future of Same-Sex Marriage Law". Arizona Law Review 53.3 (2011): 913–983. Print. Read More