Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review. Submitted by Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson. Date of service: 09/24/2010. --[COURT UPDATE: Corrected docket text to reflect content of submission. 09/27/2010 by RY] (KKW)
Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants-Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Civil Case No. 09-CV-2292 VRW (Honorable Vaughn R. Walker) BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, ROBERT P. GEORGE, SHERIF GIRGIS, AND RYAN T. ANDERSON, IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL AND THE INTERVENING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Kristen K. Waggoner Steven T. O'Ban ELLIS, LI & McKINSTRY PLLC 2025 First Avenue, Penthouse A Seattle, WA 98121-3125 Telephone: (206) 682-0506 Fax: (206) 625-1052
Attorneys for Amici Curiae, Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson
Table of Contents Page Table of Authorities............................................................................ii Identity and Interest of Amici Curiae.........................................................1 I. II INTRODUCTION......................................................................2 ARGUMENT............................................................................3 A. Legitimately Related to Morality.............................................3 1. 2. Moral vs. Other Purposes...............................................3
Legitimate Moral Purposes....................................................7 3. 4. Inevitable Moral Purposes..............................................9 Inevitable Moral Purposes and Social Utility......................15
Consistent with Lawrence....................................................20 1. 2. 3. Majority Opinion and Concurrence..................................21 Dissent...................................................................25 Lawrence, Casey, and Judge Walker................................27
III. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................28
Table of Authorities Cases Page(s) Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)....................................................................4 Bob Jones University v. United States, 461U.S. 574 (1983)....................................................................8 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)...................................................................13 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)...................................................................14 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) ............................................................passim Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).....................................................................4 Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super.)(unpublished opinion), aff'd, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. App. 2005) ...................................................18 Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429 (1984)..................................................................7 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)...........................................................passim Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) ...............................................................6, 7 Standardt v. Superior Court ex rel County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. App. 2003)......................................................26
Table of Authorities (Continued) Page(s) United States Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973).....................................................................6, 7 Statutes Cal. Const. art. I § 7.5......................................................................2 Miscellaneous Alan Wolfe, Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation (University of California Press 1989)....................................................19 David Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies (Aldine De Gruyter 1988)........................................19 Isabel V. Sawhill, "Families at Risk" in H. Aaron and R. Reischauer, eds., Setting National Priorities: the 2000 Election and Beyond (Brookings Institution Press 1999)......................................................19 Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Susan M. Jekielek, M.A., and Carol Emig, M.P.P., Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002 ............................................................................16 Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 33 (2004)....................................................................17 Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? (Center for Law and Social Policy 2003) .......................................................16
Table of Authorities (Continued) Page(s) Michael Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? 256-57 (Farrar, Straus & Giroux 2009)...........................................................10 Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics ch. 6 (Cambridge University Press 2008).....................17 Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue, and Ron Haskins, "Introducing the Issue," The Future of Children vol. 15, no. 2 (2005).................................16 The Witherspoon Institute, ed. Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (The Witherspoon Institute 2008)....................................16 Wilcox et al. Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences (2nd ed. Institute for American Values 2005)......................16
Identity and Interest of Amici Curiae Robert P. George (B.A., Swarthmore College; J.D., M.T.S., Harvard University; D.Phil., University of Oxford), a legal philosopher and constitutional scholar, is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. Sherif Girgis (A.B., Princeton University; B.Phil., University of Oxford-Rhodes Scholar) is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Princeton University. He focuses on moral, political, and legal philosophy. Ryan T. Anderson (A.B., Princeton University), editor of the on-line journal of law and ethics, Public Discourse, is a Ph.D. political science candidate at the University of Notre Dame, where he concentrates in political theory and American politics. Amici have studied, written and published on the moral, political, and jurisprudential implications of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions and have expertise that would benefit this Court. This brief is being filed with the parties' consent.
The district court's decision asserts that California's Proposition 8, Cal. Const. art. I § 7.5, relies on moral judgments in illegitimate and unconstitutional ways: first, that it rests on bare tradition, or on animus toward a class of citizens, or on moral disapproval of homosexual acts or same-sex partnerships, thus depriving some citizens of the fundamental right to marry and equal protection; and second, that it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). As we will show, a closer look at constitutional principles regulating the law's reliance on morality reveals that Proposition 8 is consistent with all of them. Indeed, those constitutional principles themselves reflect moral and value judgments and distinctions, as would any policy that set parameters on which arrangements could be recognized as marriages. Far from unconstitutional, the law's reflection of such judgments is frequently desirable and, in any event, inevitable. The moral dimensions of marriage law are linked with and perhaps inextricable from the less controversial state interests that it is enacted to advance. In this case, the Court is charged with judging not the soundness of any particular practical, moral, or value judgments about marriage, but only whether California voters may consistently with the Constitution of the United States amend their state constitution to reflect them. Now any principle that would deny Proposition 8's legitimacy because of its reliance on morality would count equally against laws that recognize same-sex partnerships, and against many longstanding, important, and 2
uncontested features of our law. The district court's decision should be overturned, and Proposition 8 should be upheld as a constitutionally valid exercise of policymaking authority by the people of California. II. A. ARGUMENT
Legitimately Related to Morality The district court begins its analysis by stating that the "state's interest in an
enactment must [...] be secular in nature," that the state has no "interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose." E.R. 8. By the end, that court has declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in part for embodying "a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest," E.R. 85, and, in the process, denying some citizens the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection of the laws. In the meantime, the district court has artificially constrained Proposition 8's range of possible moral purposes, and erroneously elided the distinctions between moral norms and ideals and judgments of value on the one hand, and sheer tradition, bias, animus, and disapproval of persons on the other. In fact, Proposition 8's accordance with moral or value judgments is inevitable for marriage law, as it is for law in most other areas, and for many rights protected by our Constitution. Clearly, then, it is constitutionally legitimate. 1. Moral vs. Other Purposes
The district court's contrast between "private moral or religious beliefs" (impermissible basis for legislation) and "secular purpose[s]" (permissible basis for 3
legislation) implies either that moral goals cannot be ascertained apart from appeals to religious authority, or that they can but are not legitimate state interests. But what is the evidence for either claim? The district court provides none. Nor could it: there are secular public moral norms that apply to marriage law just as there are secular public moral norms that apply to many other aspects of our nation's law. Some confusion to the contrary may be eliminated by considering that "private morality" is an ambiguous expression. It could mean "moral judgments about private conduct," or it could mean "private (i.e., personal) moral judgments about public morality"--i.e., those moral dimensions of public life that our law has always recognized as belonging (along with public health, safety and welfare) to the state's police powers. See, e.g., Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991) (plurality). Perhaps the district court means that laws may not be enacted simply to give legal force to moral judgments about private conduct. But marriage is a "social relation subject to the State's police power." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 7, 87 (1967). So the law regarding marriage--a social institution, recognized and regulated for public purposes--involves the kinds of value judgments about the common good that can be found throughout our law (however "privately" such judgments begin in citizens', legislators', or reformers' minds) and that can be ascertained without appeal to religious authority. For laws are instituted to preserve justice and secure the conditions under which individuals and communities can thrive or flourish. But questions about 4
justice--a matter of rights and obligations--and about what serves or disserves human flourishing (what is inherently good or bad for people) are inescapably matters of morality and basic values. Yet we need not appeal to religious principles to identify, understand, or prudently enforce people's rights to, say, privacy, religious freedom, life and safety, fair wages, and so on. Likewise, we need not rely on theological claims to reason about human goods like solidarity, education, art, sport, and family, or to work to promote them by creating public institutions--or publicly supporting and protecting private institutions--that serve them: peace agreements and humanitarian missions, schools and research grants, museums and art funding, sports associations, and civil marriages. The wise implementation of each of these requires considering the requirements of the common good: value judgment and moral reasoning. Of course, religions have moral teachings, and many of these coincide with sound secular public morality. Many of the major world religions condemn racism, just as sound public morality does, and our nation correspondingly uses the law to fight, for example, racial injustice. Likewise, many religions have ceremonies for recognizing marriage and teach that it is the union of one man and one woman. And surely many people are motivated to support Proposition 8 for reasons that include religious ones. But neither fact disqualifies this view of marriage from legal enshrinement, just as the fact that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, and other great civil rights leaders were 5
inspired and motivated by religious teachings did not disqualify their views from legal enshrinement. In this respect, Proposition 8 supporters are no different from many of its opponents. After all, some religious communities today teach, and motivate people's advocacy of, the view that marriage is primarily an emotional or romantic union without any connection to sexual complementarity or procreation, and that the state should legally recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. That a moral position is supported by a religious tradition, however, is not sufficient to disqualify it from consideration in policy debates or enshrinement in law and public policy. If the first view of marriage would be disqualified for this reason, so would the second. Perhaps sensing this, the district court sometimes resorts to the charge that Proposition 8 embodies an illegitimate sort of moral view. That court variously implies, conjectures, or asserts that Proposition 8 enshrines or is motivated by: "a belief that a relationship between a man and woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women," E.R. 132; (b) "moral disapproval of homosexuality," E.R. 132; (c) "tradition alone," E.R. 124; (d) "private biases," E.R. 132; (e) "animus towards gays and lesbians," E.R. 132; "the purpose of disadvantaging [a] group," E.R. 132 (citing Romer v. (f) Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634-35 (1996)); (g) a "bare [...] desire to harm a [...] group," E.R. 132 (citing United States Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973)). Factor (c) is no independent reason for a law's continued existence. And factors (d) through (g) fail to rise even to the level of mistaken moral principles: they (a)
represent increasingly definite and egregious forms of purely emotional repugnance. They are not ideas (whether true or false) about moral rights and wrongs; instead, they are or stem from irrational reactions to certain people. Perhaps some of these factors motivate some people's support for Proposition 8. But that is irrelevant to the constitutionality of Proposition 8 unless these are the only possible policy motivations. Determining whether they are requires considering the alternatives. 2. Legitimate Moral Purposes
Two questions must therefore be considered: Are (a) and (b) legitimate bases for legislation? And are there other, legitimate moral purposes served by Proposition 8? An affirmative answer to either question refutes the district court's insistence that any moral considerations reflected in Proposition 8 must be illegitimate. We believe the answer to the first question is very likely "yes." But this Court need not resolve that question to reject the district court's analysis, for the answer to the second question is undoubtedly "yes." The three cases that the district court cites against the legitimacy of (a) and (b) as bases of legislation--Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. at 633, Moreno, 413 U.S. at 534, and Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984)--actually rule out factors (e), (f), and (c), respectively. But (a) and (b) are not reducible to the irrational emotional responses represented by the latter three factors. Concluding that some types of relationships are better than others, or that some types of acts are morally wrong, need not involve any
animus or bias against the people who participate in such relationships or acts. For example, someone can believe that personal friendships are inherently better (and worth celebrating more) than business partnerships--without thereby harboring animus against, or a desire to harm or disadvantage, businesspeople. And someone can morally disapprove of, say, anti-Semitic art--and even work to prevent the government from encouraging it by public funding--without being motivated by sheer animus against its creators or intending to harm or disadvantage them, however central to their self-expression they may consider such art. In this context it is worth noting how this case exemplifies an important distinction that we will revisit: that the government can decline to sponsor, fund, or otherwise promote anti-Semitic art, without criminalizing it or otherwise violating anyone's First Amendment right to produce it. Likewise, the state could seek to promote a particular type of sexual relationship or family structure without criminalizing any behavior and without being motivated by any animus toward anyone. Even Lawrence, which strikes down criminalization of certain intimate sexual conduct, does not rule out (a) or (b) as a basis for all forms of legislation. See discussion infra Section II, B. Indeed, there are very close parallels in other areas of law, where the state refuses to encourage by positive legal structures and incentives that which it would be unconstitutional for it to criminalize. Thus, in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the revocation of Bob Jones 8
University's tax-exempt status, which had been motivated by the private university's refusal to admit students known to engage in interracial dating or marriage. Here the state was declared constitutionally entitled to revoke support of immoral practices that it was not constitutionally entitled to criminalize. This would seem to vindicate (a) and (b) as legitimate grounds for determining which unions to incentivize and recognize as marriages. In passing Proposition 8, as in revoking some of Bob Jones University's legal privileges, the people are entitled to act on their best judgment about the relevant moral principles--even where these same principles alone may not justify legal prohibitions. 3. Inevitable Moral Purposes
In any case, we can set aside the question of whether (a) and (b) are illegitimate purposes of legislation, for there are other moral or broadly normative (value-based) purposes to Proposition 8, and they parallel purposes that any marriage law would serve. There is no value-neutral marriage policy: the question is not whether marriage law will send moral messages, but which moral messages it will send. The question is not whether marriage law will be shaped by principles of value, but which principles will shape it; not whether civil marriage will serve certain ends, but which it will serve. See also Br. of Def. Intervenors at 110-11. Unless the implementation of these moral messages, principles, and ends violates the Constitution, it falls to the legislature or (as with Proposition 8) the people--not the judiciary--to settle which to implement. 9
Harvard political theorist Michael Sandel, who, as it happens, supports as a matter of policy legally recognizing same-sex unions, eloquently explains why morally neutral marriage law is a fantasy: [T]hose who defend a right to same-sex marriage often try to rest their claim on neutral grounds [...] on the ideas of nondiscrimination and freedom of choice. [...] But autonomy and freedom of choice are insufficient to justify the right to same-sex marriage. If government were truly neutral on the moral worth of all voluntary intimate relationships, then the state would have no grounds for limiting marriage to two persons; consensual polygamous partnerships would also qualify. In fact, if the state really wanted to be neutral, and respect whatever choices individuals wished to make, it would have to [...] get out of the business of conferring recognition on any marriages. [...] The real issue [...] is not freedom of choice but whether same-sex unions [...] fulfill the purpose of the social institution [...]1 As Sandel argues, legally recognized marriage is a moral and social institution. But institutions are defined by their ends or purposes: the institution of parenthood, for example, is for children's development into maturity; and a university is constituted for the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and understanding. Legal recognition and regulation of institutions involve setting apart, honoring, and encouraging certain activities and patterns of life in accordance with those institutions' purposes. This is true for any public institution: In establishing a public school system, for example, the state communicates the worthiness of knowledge; and in regulating its educational curriculum (e.g., by excluding discredited scientific
Michael Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? 256-57 (Farrar, Straus & Giroux 2009). 10
theories or nationalistically revisionist histories), the state stakes a position on what really serves the human good of knowledge and what is a mere counterfeit of it. Just so, legal recognition of certain relationships as marriages necessarily involves taking a position on at least two questions, both inescapably normative, having to do with morality or basic values: (1) the purposes or ends of the institution of marriage, and (2) the moral worthiness of adherence to the norms of marriage so conceived--adherence which is, after all, honored and encouraged by state recognition. Hence there are two ways in which moral or value-based concerns may motivate opposition to changing the legal structure of marriage. As the district court points out, one might object on the premise that expanded recognition honors and encourages what one regards as immoral sexual conduct. But there is another ground, ignored or overlooked by the district court, which corresponds to question (1): One might think that same-sex relationships, whatever their moral status, simply are not marriages, because they cannot fulfill the ends of marriage. One might even think that, like ordinary friendships and business partnerships, same-sex relationships are morally valuable and good but different--incapable as such of realizing the specific purposes or ends of the institution of marriage. This would be a value judgment--a conclusion about the structure of a public good--but it would state nothing about the morality of sexual conduct between same-sex partners.
Because any marriage law will imply a position on these two normative questions--the structure (or ends) of marriage and the morality of pursuing those (now state-endorsed) ends--those who support legally recognizing same-sex unions as marriages make just as many implicit moral and value judgments as those who oppose doing so. Thus, if Proposition 8 were struck down, the state of California would honor and privilege as marriages enduring and monogamous same-sex unions--but not, for example, (1) by-design temporary, (2) polygynous, (3) polyandrous, or (4) polyamorous unions. Even if the state recognized all of these, it would continue to distinguish non-romantic or non-sexual unions as incapable of realizing the purposes of marriage--e.g., by declining to recognize and endow with benefits cohabiting adult brothers or sisters, or a man caring for his elderly aunt. Far from unjust, the fact that some arrangements are left out is a feature of any legal system that distinguishes marriages from other, non-marital forms of association (romantic or not). So before one can conclude that some marriage policy violates a fundamental right to marry or equal protection, or some other moral or constitutional principle, one must determine what marriage actually is (i.e., its specific ends and purposes) and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will reveal which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize marriages. It will tell us, in other words, when, if ever, it is marriage that is being denied legal recognition, in a violation of the fundamental right to marry and equal protection, and when what is excluded is something else 12
entirely. But the task of making that controlling value judgment about the purposes or ends of marriage belongs to the people and their elected representatives, not the judiciary. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 175 (1976) (plurality) ("In a democratic society legislatures, not courts, are constituted to respond to the will and consequently the moral values of the people."). Because that value judgment is logically prior to the question of whether the fundamental right to marry or equal protection has been denied, the Court cannot determine that Proposition 8 violates the fundamental right to marry or the Equal Protection Clause without usurping the people's right to decide for themselves a substantive normative matter like the nature of marriage. In other words, because any marriage policy would embody a view about which types of relationship we should honor and encourage, and about which of many possible honorable purposes are integral specifically to this institution (and hence, which are not), the question before the Court is simply this: Does the Constitution itself settle--and thus remove from the forums of democratic deliberation and decision--the substantive value judgment of what the ends or purposes of marriage are? Once the dust of extraneous arguments settles and this question is brought clearly into focus, the answer is straightforward: The Constitution does not resolve this issue but leaves it to the people to deliberate and resolve. One can and should recognize the soundness of this answer quite irrespectively of one's own normative judgments about the nature of marriage or the best marriage policy. 13
Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the fact that there is no morally or valueneutral marriage law hardly sets marriage apart from other matters of public concern. Many other important policy issues engage controversial moral views and value judgments (including ones on which religions have different positions): for example, immigration, poverty relief, capital punishment, and torture. See also Br. of Def. Intervenors at 110-11. That does not mean that the state should not take a position on these issues. Indeed, many of the most fundamental features of our law--including the very right to privacy on which so much of our jurisprudence about these matters, Lawrence included, relies--presuppose, and are inexplicable apart from, certain moral commitments to the dignity of persons and the value of their autonomy and liberty within certain spheres; and to the special value in this regard of marriage itself. In this connection, it is worth recalling the inexorably value-laden--even quasi-religious-- language of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), a case foundational in this realm of the law: Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. Id. at 486.
Inevitable Moral Purposes and Social Utility
Finally, although many would (and district court's opinion at several points does) dismiss it as a "purely moral" matter, the state can reasonably claim a strong practical interest in preserving a sound public understanding of the ends of marriage as it sees them. For the effects of obscuring the public understanding of an institution's purposes or ends--even if the revised ends are not immoral--could in some cases do significant damage to the common good. Many supporters of Proposition 8 make just this claim about marriage. It is not the burden of this brief--or the task of this Court--to determine whether such claims are correct. But it is worth exploring their structure, to see how a law's moral purposes may be regarded as so continuous with its other, uncontroversially legitimate goals as to put it beyond constitutional challenge on rational-basis grounds, and squarely within the purview of the people's elected representatives or the people themselves. Advocates for Proposition 8 argue that there is a tight connection between what the law communicates about the ends of marriage, and the wellbeing of children and society more generally. On this basis, they argue that obscuring the purposes of marriage would appreciably harm the common good, independently of the moral status of homosexual conduct. The first premise in such an argument is that social science has shown that children fare best on virtually every indicator of health and wellbeing when reared by 15
their married biological parents; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; that boys and girls tend to need and benefit from fathers and mothers in correspondingly different ways. See Br. of Def. Intervenors at 78-82.2 The second premise is this: marriage is the kind of relationship in which it is (as a rule) morally and socially most appropriate for people to bear and rear children together. So by extending marital recognition to same-sex partners, the state would convey one or both of two messages: (a) Marriage does not intrinsically have anything to do with bearing and rearing children; and/or (b) A household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for childrearing, so that it does not matter (even as a rule) whether
For relevant findings and studies, see also Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (The Witherspoon Institute 2008) signed by some 70 scholars, which offers extensive evidence from the social sciences about the welfare of children and adults (available at http:/www.winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf (last visited on September 23, 2010); Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Susan M. Jekielek, M.A., and Carol Emig, M.P.P., Marriage from a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do About It? Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002) (available at http://www.childtrends.org/files/MarriageRB602.pdf (last visited on September 23, 2010)); Sara McLanahan, Elisabeth Donahue, and Ron Haskins, "Introducing the Issue," The Future of Children vol. 15, no. 2 (2005) (available at futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/20_02_01.pdf (last visited on September 23, 2010)); Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? (Center for Law and Social Policy 2003); Wilcox et al. Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences (2nd ed. Institute for American Values 2005). 16
children are reared by both their mother and their father (or by a parent of each sex at all). But the currency of these views, Proposition 8's supporters have argued,3 would significantly weaken the extent to which the social institution of marriage provided social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and children. And the less children were reared by both parents, the more they would suffer in the ways identified by social science: physically, psychologically, socially, educationally, etc. It has also been argued that legally redefining marriage would undermine people's adherence to marital norms more broadly. For many supporters4 of Proposition 8 hold that (a) opposite-sex couples are capable of real bodily union (in mating, whether or not conception can or does occur); that (b) this makes it possible for such couples--and only such couples--to form and consummate the kind of relationship intrinsically oriented to procreation and childrearing; and that (c) only if marriage inherently involves bodily union and its corresponding orientation to children can one fully make sense of the other marital norms of permanence, exclusivity and monogamy, annulability for non-consummation, etc.
See e.g., Maggie Gallagher, (How) Will Gay Marriage Weaken Marriage as a Social Institution: A Reply to Andrew Koppelman, 2 U. St. Thomas L.J. 33 (2004).
See, e.g., Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics ch. 6 (Cambridge University Press 2008). 17
On this view, then, legally redefining marriage would convey that marriage is fundamentally about adults' emotional unions--not bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined. Since emotions can be inconstant, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would be likely to increase marital instability--and it would blur the value of friendship, which is a union of hearts and minds. More importantly for the common good, since there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like ordinary friendships should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these marital norms would make less and less sense. (See Morrison v. Sadler, 2003 WL 23119998 (Ind. Super. Ct.) (unpublished opinion) at 7: "There is no inherent reason why their theories, including the encouragement of long-term, stable relationships, the sharing of economic lives, the enhancement of the emotional wellbeing of the participants, and encouraging participants to be concerned about others, could not equally be applied to groups of three or more.") Less able to see the point of such norms, people would be likely to feel less bound to live by them, especially as time wore on and the original understanding of marriage grew more remote. The less stable a society's households are, the deeper are its social, educational, physical, psychological and other ills. See also Br. of Def. Intervenors at 95-100. According to both lines of argument, a mistaken marriage policy would tend to distort people's understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain: their understanding, that is, of the ends or purposes of marriage--a normative or value judgment that is prior to the moral judgment of whether homosexual conduct 18
is morally acceptable. More precisely, it would weaken the links between marriage and procreation, and thus between children and their need for care from their married biological parents, and thus between marriage and the norms (permanence, exclusivity, and monogamy) whose rationale is deepened and extended in light of children's needs. This in turn would likely erode people's adherence to marital norms that are essential to the common good, especially to the successful formation of children as productive, responsible members of society. Nor on this view would the costs be limited to the families in question, for as absentee fatherhood and out-of-wedlock births become common, the need and extent of governmental policing and social services grows. According to a Brookings Institute study, $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems.5 Sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe have conducted research on Scandinavian countries supporting the conclusion that as marriage culture declines, state spending rises.6
Isabel V. Sawhill, "Families at Risk," H. Aaron and R. Reischauer, eds., Setting National Priorities: the 2000 Election and Beyond (Brookings Institution Press 1999). David Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies (Aldine De Gruyter 1988); Alan Wolfe, Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation (University of California Press 1989). 19
Again, however, whether these claims about the effects of changing marriage policy are accurate--a determination which requires consulting complex and still largely inconclusive social-scientific evidence, not the Constitution--is relevant to the wisdom of Proposition 8, not to its constitutionality. Our point is that there is no easy and sharp distinction between "purely moral" purposes (however sound) for supporting Proposition 8, and purposes (however sound) that are more typically classified under "social utility" category. So the district court errs not only in implicitly reducing considerations of morality and value to more or less concentrated forms of emotional repugnance, but also in distinguishing so sharply between the enactment of what that court ambiguously if not tendentiously called "private moral beliefs," on the one hand, and what it called "secular purpose[s]," on the other hand (see supra Section II.A.1). For the goods at stake in such a public institution as marriage have to do with public morality and welfare both, and are themselves secular purposes. B. Consistent with Lawrence Having considered some features of the general relationship between law and morality, and of the particular one between marriage law and morality, we turn now to the constitutional jurisprudence most relevant to the relationship between Proposition 8 and moral beliefs. For the other concerns that we have examined matter here only insofar as they inform the central determination of whether Proposition 8 runs afoul of prevailing principles of constitutional jurisprudence. 20
The district court compares Proposition 8 to the Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy that was struck down in Lawrence v. Texas: The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. [...] The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate [its] own moral code." Id. (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850, (1992)). But Proposition 8 is not relevantly similar to the Texas anti-sodomy law; the considerations cited in Lawrence against that law do not apply to Proposition 8; the majority and concurring opinions in Lawrence expressly deny any analogy between the two; and the quotation cited here prohibits the application of moral judgments by the judiciary, not (as in Proposition 8) by popularly enacted constitutional amendment. 1. Majority Opinion and Concurrence
Lawrence held that a Texas statute making homosexual sodomy a crime violated the Due Process Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy denied that citizens "may use the power of the State to enforce [moral disapproval of sodomy] on the whole society through operation of the criminal law." 539 U.S. at 571. But Proposition 8 leaves the criminal law untouched. It merely provides that only
unions of one man and one woman may be deemed marriages by California. It criminalizes nothing, including same-sex marriages. Individuals are left free to form same-sex unions, and religious and other institutions are left free to recognize those unions as marriages. But the state--deciding through direct democracy--has chosen not to treat them as such. In this respect, California (even under Proposition 8) treats same-sex marriage differently from the way it treats, say, bigamy: the latter is a crime under California law--a felony punishable by fine or imprisonment. But does Lawrence exclude Proposition 8 by analogy? Is criminalizing the conduct characteristic of certain relationships analogous to not legally recognizing them as marriages? No, it is not; certainly not in the ways that Lawrence cites as evidence of the illegitimacy of anti-sodomy laws. The majority opinion cites the American Law Institute's 1955 Model Penal Code, which discourages bans on private consensual sexual activity on the grounds that such provisions: undermine respect for the law by outlawing widespread practices, criminalize what is harmless, and are arbitrarily enforced. Id. at 572. None of these considerations is relevant to the non-recognition of same-sex partnerships, which shows no signs of undermining adherence to or respect for the law, criminalizes nothing, and is from the passage of Proposition 8 uniformly enforced. The majority opinion also points to the "the stigma this [Texas anti-sodomy] criminal statute imposes [...] with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged," and decries the fact that "[t]he petitioners will bear on their record the 22
history of their criminal convictions." Id. at 575. Such statutes "demean [homosexual persons'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Id. at 578 (emphasis added). Not being in a union legally recognized as a marriage implies none of these things. Proposition 8 does not stigmatize same-sex attracted Californians, impugn their character, or blemish their permanent criminal record any more than any marriage law so harms those for whom marriage is not in prospect (whether because of failure to find a mate, absorbing work responsibilities, or any other reason). Likewise, Proposition 8 does not involve (as Lawrence held that anti-sodomy laws do) the slightest "intrusion into the personal and private life" of anyone. Id. Thus, Lawrence's identification (quoting Casey) of a constitutionally protected "realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" leaves intact Proposition 8-- which concerns a public institution, and limits the State's interference in the personal sphere by constricting the scope of legally regulated relationships. Id. at 578
(emphasis added) (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847, (1992)). Again, Proposition 8 does not touch private behavior or dictate how private institutions should regard samesex unions: people are left free to form same-sex partnerships, and religious communities, businesses, and other institutions are left free to treat them as marriages. Indeed, California has already bestowed the legal incidents of marriage on same-sex partnerships through civil unions. The only thing that Proposition 8 does is to decide
which arrangements the state may recognize as marital unions. It is not susceptible of the criticisms leveled against the Texas anti-sodomy law by the Lawrence Court. The same is true of the rationale of Justice O'Connor's Lawrence concurrence. She fixes on the fact that conviction under the Texas anti-sodomy law "would disqualify [petitioners] from or restrict their ability to engage in a variety of professions, including medicine, athletic training, and interior design," id. at 581, but such are the implications of criminal conviction, not of legal singlehood. Moreover, since (again) Proposition 8 leaves room for California's civil unions laws, which bestow on same-sex partnerships the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage, it cannot even be said to "legally sanctio[n] discrimination against [homosexuals] in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law," as O'Connor laments that the Texas anti-sodomy law does. Id. at 582. Indeed, the majority opinion explicitly disavows any implications for the marriage issue, saying that the petitioners' case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter," id. at 578, and suggesting that one of the few reasons for which the state may "define the meaning of [a] relationship or [...] set its boundaries" is to prevent "abuse of an institution the law protects." Id. at 567. Justice O'Connor's concurrence goes even farther by expressly affirming that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a "legitimate state interest" and that "other reasons exist to
promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group." Id. at 585. 2. Dissent
Dissenting in Lawrence, Justice Scalia warned that, notwithstanding Justice Kennedy's insistence to the contrary, the logic of Lawrence undermines the restriction of civil marriage to unions of sexually complementary spouses. For, Justice Scalia argues, if "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a legitimate state interest, then so is "preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society." Id. at 601 (Scalia, J., dissenting). But Lawrence declares unconstitutional only a certain means of preserving the traditional sexual mores of our society--i.e., criminalization-- whereas Proposition 8, as we have noted, criminalizes nothing. There is no logical contradiction in holding that while the state may introduce legal structures to encourage adherence to certain moral norms or ideals (or even, without reference to morality, to promote ways of life that in its value judgment serve the welfare of children and the more vulnerable parent), it may not use the heavy hand of criminal law--with its deprivations of liberty or property--in service of the same goals. Indeed, the majority opinion and O'Connor concurrence in Lawrence offer several reasons for maintaining just this distinction. Justice Scalia also points to the Court's statement that with respect to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education, ...[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy 25
for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Id. at 574. But to read this remark as Justice Scalia suggests would be to teeter on the edge of imputing bad faith to the majority, especially in view of the latter's clear, direct, and forceful assurance that the holding and reasoning in Lawrence are not meant to load the dice in favor of a future decision redefining marriage to accommodate same-sex partnerships. By "these purposes," rather, Justice Kennedy and those joining his Lawrence opinion are plainly referring only to the general cluster of rights listed several lines before, not equally or in the same way to each. So in keeping with the Court's own refrain throughout, it is most plausible (and charitable) to read "autonomy" as referring to freedom from state interference in private intimate conduct, not to entitlement to formal recognition of any intimate relationship. After all, the state restricts formal recognition of oppositesex unions in many ways; and by applying a rational-basis test to the Texas antisodomy law, Lawrence did not hold that sexual conduct between same-sex partners is a fundamental right, which it would seem to be if same-sex marriage were a fundamental right. See Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel. County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451, 456 (Ariz. App. 2003). Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that traditional marriage law can be justified if at all only on the same ground as anti-sodomy laws. In fact, the state's promotion of marriage as a union of husband and wife entails nothing about the morality of non-marital sexual acts. The state can remain agnostic about the moral permissibility of non-marital sexual activity while insisting on the social value of the 26
institution of marriage for establishing as a norm and ideal, and to some extent ensuring, that men and women unite as husbands and wives and thus remain committed fathers and mothers to any children their union may produce (see supra, Section II.A.4). 3. Lawrence, Casey, and Judge Walker
Consider, finally, the district court's claim (which cites Lawrence's quotation of Casey) that "California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to `mandate [its] own moral code.'" E.R. 133. This quotation is pulled out of context and thus seriously--almost shockingly--distorted: The Court in Casey in fact says that "[o]ur [i.e., the Court's] obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own [i.e., the Justices' own] moral code." 505 U.S. at 850 (emphasis added). This can be read as merely rejecting judicial overreach: Justices are authorized and ought to decide cases according to the Constitution and precedent, not by the unrestricted application of their person moral views. But this has no direct bearing on the question of whether the people of California may pass a constitutional amendment that reflects their valuebased and practical judgments about the nature of marriage. To that question, the Court in Lawrence and Casey does not say "no," and the Lawrence concurrence essentially says "yes." Further reflection on the relationship of marriage law to morality has shown that the correct answer is "yes, inevitably."
There are no constitutional problems with the ways in which Proposition 8 relates to morality. Support for it need not involve a desire to harm or disadvantage, reliance on bare tradition or animus, or even moral disapproval of homosexual conduct. The irreducibly normative content of Proposition 8 is the same as the irreducibly normative content of any marriage law at all: a claim about the purposes or ends of marriage, and an endorsement and encouragement of adherence to those ends as worthwhile and consistent with the state's interests. Because these are substantive moral and value questions unsettled by the Constitution and logically prior to any determination that some marriage law violates the fundamental right to marry or equal protection, Proposition 8 cannot be ruled unconstitutional on such grounds without usurping the people's freedom to resolve such questions for themselves. Moreover, many features of our law--including features of our marriage and privacy jurisprudence--also rely on irreducibly normative (moral and value) judgments. And in the case of marriage law, it is difficult (and unnecessary) to disentangle such moral dimensions from its wider and less controversial goals. Finally, Proposition 8 is consistent with the letter and spirit of Lawrence, which forbids only the criminalization of certain kinds of intimate sexual conduct, and this on the basis of considerations that apply only to the use of criminal prohibitions in service of moral objectives. For these reasons, Proposition 8's reflection of moral and value judgments is philosophically and constitutionally defensible--and in some ways unavoidable and 28
indeed desirable. Thus, amici curiae urge this Court to reverse the district court's judgment. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of September, 2010. ELLIS, LI & McKINSTRY PLLC
By s/ Kristen K. Waggoner Kristen K. Waggoner, WSBA# 27790 Steven T. O'Ban, WSBA #17265 Attorneys for Amici Curiae ROBERT P. GEORGE, SHERIF GIRGIS, AND RYAN T. ANDERSON
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(A) This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 6,995 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word 2003 word processing software in 14-point Times New Roman font. ELLIS, LI & McKINSTRY PLLC By: s/ Kristen K. Waggoner Steven T. O'Ban, WSBA#17265 Kristen K. Waggoner, WSBA# 27790 Attorneys for Amici Curiae ROBERT P. GEORGE, SHERIF GIRGIS, AND RYAN T. ANDERSON September 24, 2010
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?