Equality Forum: Legal Panel (Part I): Chewing Over Prop 8

The New Civil Rights Movement’s John Culhane is the official blogger for Equality Forum, Philadelphia’s internationally known and always interesting cavalcade of events that celebrates, informs and provokes on all (or many, anyway) things LGBT. John will be sharing reports daily over the next few days. Read all John’s Equality Forum posts here. 

You could tell that National Legal Panel had some serious heft: The event (like the National Politics Panel, which followed) was held in the Constitution Center on Friday, and introduced by a public relations/education leader there. And then there was the way the panelists filed in — in single file, from stage right, while being announced like the day’s contestants on Jeopardy!

The credentials and background of the panelists, along with the absurd depth of their knowledge, justified this folderol. Moderator Jennifer Pizer is the Legal Director at the Williams Institute (LGBT research initiative) at UCLA; William Eskridge is a Yale law professor who has written extensively on many issues related to the LGBT community, but perhaps especially about marriage equality; Hayley Gorenberg is the Deputy Director of Lambda Legal and has litigated many high-profile cases; and Janson Wu is a staff attorney for the Gay and Lesbian Legal Defenders (“GLAD”) who has also been successful in cases brought in New England to secure LGBT rights — especially with regard to the vile Defense of Marriage Act.

In fact, the panelists had so much to say that one post can’t do the panel justice. In this Part I, let’s talk about Eskridge’s analysis of the Prop 8 litigation. (Stay tuned for a second post in a day or two.)

Pizer’s effective style was to get each panelist to catch the audience up on recent developments by asking a series of provocative, yet open-ended questions. Eskridge began the discussion by asking us how many thought there’d be full marriage equality in the U.S. within five, then ten, then twenty years. When he moved from ten to twenty years, the “yes” vote jumped from about half to almost all. And, as it turned out, that’s what Eskridge thinks, too. Instead of saying that directly, he used the progress of the Proposition 8 litigation to make his point. He’s hoping for a narrow win that would toss out Prop 8 — and thereby restore marriage equality to California — but leave other anti-equality laws intact.

As we know, Prop 8 is now before the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. The Prop 8 opponents (our side!) have won in both the federal district (trial) court and before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Next, the judges are soon to decide whether to rehear the case en banc (in a group of twelve judged), or decline to do so, in which case the matter could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court right away. (The Court would not be obligated to hear the case; in that event, the decision by the Ninth Circuit that Prop 8 is unconstitutional would stand).

The most interesting aspect of Eskridge’s presentation was his discussion of the narrow basis on which the Ninth Circuit had decided the case — a basis, it turns out, that Eskridge had advocated in an amicus brief he filed with the court. Instead of asking the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s broad ruling that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is a violation of both their right to equal protection under the law and of the fundamental right to marry, the Eskridge brief, asked the court to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional only because it bears a close resemblance to another Supreme Court case, Romer v. Evans. In Romer, the court ruled that an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prevented localities from providing gays and lesbians with legal protections was a violation of equal protection of the law in the most fundamental way. Eskridge drew three clear parallels between that case and Prop 8:

(1) Voters took away a fundamental right from a discriminated-against minority (before Prop 8, same-sex couples had a right to marry that the California Supreme Court had identified from principles in the state’s constitution);

(2) The rationalizations for Prop 8 sweep too broadly. Let’s put this in terms non-lawyers can understand, by using an example. One of the procreation arguments advanced to justify the measure is that marriage is needed to increase the chances that opposite-sex couples who “accidentally procreate” will stay together. But how  is this end served taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry?

(3) The campaigns and the effect of the initiative was to “effect a status denigration” on a particular class — in express defiance of Romer.  For example, ads emphasized that school children might now draw the inference that same-sex relationships were just as good as opposite-sex ones. Well, they should, if gays and lesbians are equal citizens. So these ads and the whole tenor of the campaign, then reflected in the vote, was in part to create a sort of forbidden caste system. That’s in defiance of Justice Kennedy’s quote in Romer that “the Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Why pitch your legal tent on such a narrow piece of land? Eskridge, like many, thinks that Justice Anthony Kennedy’ vote will be decisive. And since Kennedy wrote Romer and might be reluctant to issue a ruling that would decide the marriage equality issue once and for all, this laser-focus might make sense.

We’ll see, but probably not too soon. This case probably has another year or two of twists and turns before the last word is spoken.

Were he born 10,000 years ago, John Culhane would not have survived to adulthood; he has no useful, practical skills. He is a law professor who writes about various and sundry topics, including: disaster compensation; tort law; public health law; literature; science; sports; his own personal life (when he can bear the humanity); and, especially, LGBT rights and issues. He teaches at the Widener University School of Law and is a Senior Fellow at the Thomas Jefferson School of Population Health.

He is also a contributor to Slate Magazine, and writes his own eclectic blog. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter if you’re blessed with lots of time.

John Culhane lives in the Powelton Village area of Philadelphia with his partner David and their twin daughters, Courtnee and Alexa. Each month, he awaits the third Saturday evening for the neighborhood Wine Club gathering.