California Psychological Assn. States Opposition to Proposition 8

by: Fritz

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 16:06:12 PM EDT

The California Psychological Association has officially stated their opposition to CA Proposition 8. My boyfriend is a member of CPA and he forwarded the following e-mail message to me this morning. It includes background on CPA's opinion regarding same-sex marriage and their historic Amicus Brief (details here) filed with the California Supreme Court:

CPA States Opposition to Proposition 8 on November Ballot--Initiative Would Eliminate Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry

Dear CPA Members,

This past Spring CPA joined the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter in filing an Amicus Brief with the California Supreme Court on the subject of same sex marriage.  The CPA Board of Directors engaged in a robust discussion about this matter, and voted overwhelming to take this action.  The Amicus Brief provided extensive psychological research on key points relevant to the issue, and this brief was the only brief cited (out of the 45 Amicus Briefs the Court received) in the Court's opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California's ban on same sex marriage.  

Recently, during the APA Convention in Boston, CPA was awarded a Presidential Citation by the President of APA's Division 44 the Society for the Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues for our participation in the Amicus Brief, and we were thanked for our "courageous stand" on this civil rights issue.

The November ballot in California will include Proposition 8, a ballot measure that, if passed, would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.  The measure would, in effect, overturn the recent Supreme Court decision that was supported by the Amicus Brief mentioned above.

In light of the fact that CPA joined with APA and the other mental health associations in filing the Amicus Brief, and upon the recommendation of the Government Affairs Committee of CPA, the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors recently voted that CPA take a formal position of opposition to Proposition 8.  The CPA Board of Directors  and the Executive Committee asked that we inform the full membership of this decision.   We ask that you consider this information as you make your decisions in the November election.

For reference, I am including here the summary of the California Supreme Court decision that was prepared and distributed by APA's General Counsel, Nathalie Gilfoyle. 

Please let either of us or any member of the Executive Committee know if you have questions or comments on this decision.

Best regards,

Miguel Gallardo, PsyD, President

Jo Linder-Crow, PhD, Executive Director

From APA, May 15, 2008

Today the California Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision struck down California's ban on same sex marriage. In a 121 page opinion, In re Marriage Cases, the court  held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution. APA , joined by the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, NASW and its California chapter,  filed an amicus curiae brief in the case providing extensive psychological research on key points relevant to the court's decision.

The California case was somewhat unique in that several years ago the California legislature enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation that extended all of the rights, benefits, and obligations of married spouses to same-sex couples who registered as domestic partners.  However,  the law also provided that  the term "marriage" was preserved exclusively for opposite-sex unions.  Thus, the legal issue before the state high court was whether this difference in nomenclature without more violated the state constitution.

In Re Marriage Cases concludes that the law  restricting the use of the term "marriage" did indeed violate both (1) the state constitutional right to marry and (2) the state constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.  The court held that the constitutional right to marry, which has long been recognized by California court decisions, is not limited to opposite-sex couples, despite the long tradition of allowing only such couples to marry.  Looking at the substantive grounds for protecting marriage because of its importance to society and the individual, the court concluded that those reasons apply with equal force to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples, and therefore the constitutional right to marry covers the former as well as the latter.  The court also concluded that denying the label "marriage" to same-sex unions while extending that label to opposite-sex unions impairs the same-sex couples' fundamental right to marry, because it denigrates their unions as being of lesser value, despite the existence of the same substantive rights.

Turning to equal protection, the court found that limiting "marriage" to opposite-sex couples discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.  In an important ruling of first impression, the court found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to the high hurdle of "strict judicial scrutiny" under the California constitution, under which the state must establish that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest.  The court found that this standard was not met.  Of significance, it rejected the state's argument that preserving the traditional definition of marriage by excluding same-sex couples is a compelling state interest, particularly in light of the stigma and harm to same-sex couples and their families from this discrimination.

Three justices dissented, primarily on the ground that this decision should be left to the people to enact democratically.  Notwithstanding their disagreement with the majority decision, all three dissenters expressed favorable views of same-sex unions and expressed optimism that the citizens of California would and should eventually enact same-sex marriage equality without the court's intervention. (Even before today, an advocacy group anticipating the decision had collected signatures to place a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage on the ballot in California in November. )

The court noted that it received 45 amicus briefs in the case, which had helped inform its decision. However, the brief filed by APA , CPA and their co-amici was the only amicus brief that the court  cited and quoted in support of its decision.   Specifically, the court relied on APA's brief in concluding that the very nature of sexual orientation is related to the gender of partners to whom one is attracted, so that prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.  This was an important part of the court's reasoning in its equal protection analysis. In addition, APA' s brief clearly informed other important aspects of the majority's decision such as the court's discussion of the nature of same-sex relationships, the role of child-rearing, and the stigma resulting from denying the label "marriage" to same-sex unions all of which paralleled the points made in the APA's brief about current scientific research on these issues.

Jo Linder-Crow, PhD
Executive Director
California Psychological Association and CPA Foundation
1231 I St., Suite 204
Sacramento, CA 95814
(p) 916.286.7979 x115 (f) 916.286.7971