Debate Club

Should the Supreme Court Overturn Proposition 8? >

The Equal Protection Clause Guarantees the Right to Marry

Prop 8 subverts the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment

March 4, 2013

About Ilya Shapiro:

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

The constitutional case for marriage equality need not go further than the sweeping and universal text of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Ratified in 1868, the clause wrote into the Constitution the ideal of equality first laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

In 2008, however, California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot initiative restricting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples only. Both the federal district court and the court of appeals ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, for reasons ranging from the violation of a fundamental right to the impropriety of removing rights/benefits once granted.

[See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.]

The Cato Institute joined the Constitutional Accountability Center on an amicus brief supporting marriage equality that focuses on the equal protection clause. As the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment plainly show, the clause guarantees every individual—whether black or white, man or woman, gay or straight, native-born or immigrant—equality under the law, including the legal right to marry the person of one's choosing.

The breadth of the equal protection clause was no accident. It's clear from the drafting history that the Fourteenth Amendment's framers were determined to eliminate more than simply the burdens of slavery. They wrote the constitutional guarantee broadly to ensure, for example, that white supporters of the Union in the South, as well as Asian immigrants in the West, were protected from arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Gay Marriage be Legal Nationwide?]

The broad and sweeping guarantee of legal equality was understood at the time to secure and protect the equal rights of all individuals. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood marriage to be a personal right that, when established by a state, must be made available on an equal basis to all.

Prop 8 denies gays and lesbians the liberty to marry the person of their own choosing, places a state badge of inferiority on same-sex couples' loving relationships and family life, and perpetrates an impermissible injury to these individuals' personal dignity. It thus subverts the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment and is an affront to the inalienable right to pursue one's own happiness that has guided our nation since its founding.

Tags:
LGBT rights,
civil rights,
Supreme Court,
Proposition 8,
California
Other Arguments
#1
#2

Yes — The Supreme Court must strike down marriage discrimination

EVAN WOLFSON, Founder and President of Freedom to Marry

#3

Yes — Prop 8 supporters can't explain how marriage equality harms heterosexual marriages

ADAM UMHOEFER, Executive Director at the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

#4

Yes — In legal terms, Prop 8 denies equal protection to millions of families

CASEY PICK, Policy Fellow with the National LGBT Bar Association

#5

Yes — There's no compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry

STACEY LONG, Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

#7

No — Allowing interracial marriage has no bearing on the argument for same sex marriage

JOHN C. EASTMAN, Chairman of the Board of the National Organization for Marriage

#8

No — Prop 8 isn't discriminatory—it merely reflects reality

CHRIS GACEK, Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council

Reader Comments ()

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

Advertisement