Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Proposition 8 Backers Denied Reconsideration in Gay Marriage Ruling

Proposition 8 Backers Denied Reconsideration in Gay Marriage Ruling

By Lucy Ma

2-minute read

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today denied a request by Proposition 8 backers to reconsider a ruling made earlier this year that found California's 2008 gay marriage ban unconstitutional. The court's decision opens the door for the challenge to be heard before the Supreme Court.

In a 2-1 decision made earlier in February, a three judge panel of the Federal Appeals Court invalidated Proposition 8 in a narrowly crafted decision which fell short of finding a constitutional right for same-sex couples to legally wed. The ruling essentially stated that in passing the ballot ban on same-sex marriage a minority group had their rights stripped without justification.

Outside of California, the February ruling would have had very limited effect, as it was based on the fact voters repealed a right minorities already enjoyed- gay marriage was legal for six months in California prior to the passage of Prop 8. More than 18,000 gay and lesbian couples were allowed to marry before voters approved the gay marriage ban in November of 2008, and those marriages remain valid under California law.

The court's decision today to deny Proposition 8 backers a chance to rehear the case with a special 11 judge panel came as expected. Many of the court's 25 full-time judges were appointed by the Clinton and Obama administrations, and for the most part are considered to favor upholding the prior ruling which struck down California's gay marriage ban. There were only three votes from judges in favor of rehearing the case: Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Carlos Bea and Jay Bybee.

This does not mean that same-sex marriages are legal again in California. The Federal Appeals Court decision is still subject to a 90 day stay pending the filing of a petition for "writ of certiorari" from the United States Supreme Court.

Proponents of California's gay marriage ban have already vowed to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and today's move has cleared the way for them to do so.

According to the Associated Press:

Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Proposition 8 backers "absolutely" would take the case to the high court now that it has run its course at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He did not know if the Proposition 8 defense team would take the entire 90 days they have to petition the Supreme Court.

If the U.S. Supreme Court does indeed decide to take up the case, it won't be until sometime later next year. However, if the Supreme Court denies to review the case and allows the lower court's ruling to stand, same-sex marriage will again be legal in California.

The court's majority decision has been released on its site and is available here: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Proposition 8 Backers Denied Reconsideration in Gay Marriage Ruling

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us