E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In his opinion yesterday in Perry v. Brown, Judge Reinhardt devotes 15 pages to explaining why reasons offered in support of Proposition 8 (childrearing and responsible procreation, proceeding cautiously, protecting religious freedom, and preventing children from being taught about same-sex marriage in schools) are irrational. He then concludes that, absent any such legitimate reason, Proposition 8 must have arisen out of animosity toward or disapproval of gays and lesbians and such motivations cannot sustain the law. Yet by focusing the equal protection analysis on the revocation of previously existing rights, Reinhardt unintentionally puts on the table another, potentially legitimate, explanation for Proposition 8 apart from animosity and disapproval. The marriage right that existed for a short period in California arose because the state supreme court read the state constitution to require the state government to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Given that context (which Reinhardt ignores), Proposition 8 could reasonably be understood as the people of California correcting the state supreme court's interpretation of the state constitution. Somebody in favor of same-sex marriage might at the same time be opposed to judges decreeing it--and therefore have voted for Prop 8. To be sure, a "pure correction" of the state court's decision would have been a proposition specifying that no provision of the state constitution requires the government to extend marriage to same-sex couples, thereby leaving the issue to the legislature to decide in the normal course of politics. But Californians angry at what they perceive to be an activist court (and yet generally in favor of same-sex marriage) might well have endorsed stronger medicine (no same-sex marriage in the state at all) in order to push back firmly against overreaching judges. Reinhardt sees no rational reason for Proposition 8. But his own approach in the Perry decision appears actually to create one. Posted
10:48 AM
by Jason Mazzone [link]