My Favorite Quotes From Perry v Brown Part Two

Part one is here. Here are the last nine quotes:

10. “Here, the argument
that withdrawing the designation of ‘marriage’ from same-sex
couples could on its own promote the strength or stability of
opposite-sex marital relationships lacks any such footing in

11. “There is a limited sense in which the extension of the designation
‘marriage’ to same-sex partnerships might alter the
content of the lessons that schools choose to teach. Schools
teach about the world as it is; when the world changes, lessons
change. A shift in the State’s marriage law may therefore
affect the content of classroom instruction just as would the
election of a new governor, the discovery of a new chemical
element, or the adoption of a new law permitting no-fault
divorce: students learn about these as empirical facts of the
world around them. But to protest the teaching of these facts
is little different from protesting their very existence; it is like
opposing the election of a particular governor on the ground
that students would learn about his holding office, or opposing
the legitimation of no-fault divorce because a teacher
might allude to that fact if a course in societal structure were
taught to graduating seniors. The prospect of children learning
about the laws of the State and society’s assessment of the
legal rights of its members does not provide an independent
reason for stripping members of a disfavored group of those
rights they presently enjoy.”

12. “We are left to consider why else the People of California
might have enacted a constitutional amendment that takes
away from gays and lesbians the right to use the designation
of ‘marriage.’ One explanation is the desire to revert to the
way things were prior to the Marriage Cases, when ‘marriage’
was available only to opposite-sex couples, as had been
the case since the founding of the State and in other jurisdictions
long before that. This purpose is one that Proposition 8
actually did accomplish: it “restore[d] the traditional definition
of marriage as referring to a union between a man and a
woman.” Strauss, 207 P.3d at 76. But tradition alone is not a
justification for taking away a right that had already been
granted, even though that grant was in derogation of tradition.”

13. “Laws may be repealed and new rights taken away if they
have had unintended consequences or if there is some conceivable affirmative good that revocation would produce, cf.
Crawford, 458 U.S. at 539-40, but new rights may not be
stripped away solely because they are new. Tradition is a
legitimate consideration in policymaking, of course, but it
cannot be an end unto itself.”

14. “A preference for the way things were before same-sex couples were
allowed to marry, without any identifiable good that a return
to the past would produce, amounts to an impermissible preference
against same-sex couples themselves, as well as their
15. “Absent any legitimate purpose for Proposition 8, we
are left with “the inevitable inference that the disadvantage
imposed is born of animosity toward,” or, as is more likely
with respect to Californians who voted for the Proposition,
mere disapproval of, “the class of persons affected.” Romer,
517 U.S. at 634. We do not mean to suggest that Proposition
8 is the result of ill will on the part of the voters of California.
“Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from
malice or hostile animus alone.” Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of
Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
Disapproval may also be the product of longstanding,
sincerely held private beliefs. Still, while “[p]rivate
biases may be outside the reach of the law, . . . the law cannot,
directly or indirectly, give them effect.”

16. “The issue is whether the majority may
use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole
society” through a law that abridges minority individuals’
rights. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 571. It may not. Without more,
“[m]oral disapproval of [a] group, like a bare desire to harm
the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational
basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 582
(O’Connor, J., concurring).”

17. “The “inference” that Proposition 8 was born of disapproval
of gays and lesbians is heightened by evidence of the context
in which the measure was passed.26 The district court found
that “[t]he campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to
opposite-sex relationships.” Perry IV, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 990.
Television and print advertisements “focused on . . . the concern
that people of faith and religious groups would somehow
be harmed by the recognition of gay marriage” and “conveyed
a message that gay people and relationships are inferior, that
homosexuality is undesirable and that children need to be protected
from exposure to gay people and their relationships.”
Id. These messages were not crafted accidentally.”

18. “It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent
purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the
public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their
relationships, by taking away from them the official designation
of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition
8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.”


About Brittany-Ann
Brittany-Ann is a proud, self-identified feminist with fictional tendencies. She currently writes for and moderates at My Fault I'm Female. She smokes camels, reads Dumas, and navigates a conservative state as "one of them darn liberals."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: