The Obama administration called on the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8 in a brief filed today, declaring the California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote on behalf of the Obama administration in the brief that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
“Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection,” the brief reads, adding that “heightened scrutiny” should be applied in the case because of the history of discrimination faced by gays and lesbians.
Although the brief was not a sweeping call for the high court to strike down same-sex marriage bans across the nation, which is not an issue before the court, the arguments made by the administration in the brief against California’s ban could be applied in other states.
“I think the solicitor general has left open and charted a course that if followed in other states would require those laws to be struck down too,” American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) attorney Ted Boutrous said of the arguments made in the brief during a conference call with reporters.
“This is really the last group in America who is being discriminated against because of their status,” Boutrous added. “This is a really important day in our nation’s history where the United States government has said in a brief in the Supreme Court basically, this discrimination cannot be tolerated.”
Taking issue with many of the arguments made by proponents of Proposition 8, which was approved by California voters in 2008 and banned same-sex marriage after that right was already granted to gay couples, the brief states that “reference to tradition, no matter how long established, cannot by itself justify a discriminatory law under equal protection principles.”
California’s extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8. It indicates that Proposition 8’s withholding of the designation of marriage is not based on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and child-rearing—petitioners’ central claimed justification for the initiative—but instead on impermissible prejudice.
“Prejudice may not, however, be the basis for differential treatment under the law,” the brief concludes.
The filing today was one of dozens of briefs filed today by various groups and businesses calling on the high court to strike down Proposition 8 and comes on the final day the court is accepting amicus curiae briefs. But today’s brief was also a landmark move on the part of the Obama administration and another step in the president’s long evolution on same-sex marriage. The filing comes after weeks of lobbying by plaintiffs in the case, who have urged the president to weigh in and insisted a brief from the administration would aid their cause and fuel the political climate that can affect the opinions of justices seeking to be on the right side of history.
While Obama made history in May 2012 as the first sitting president to endorse same-sex marriage and has slammed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, he had not commented on the Proposition 8 case. Since the Supreme Court announced in December they would hear arguments on the case, the White House has refused to comment on whether the administration would weigh in. As recently as this afternoon White House press secretary Jay Carney would not say if the administration would weigh in.
“In our filing today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the government seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal of equal treatment under the law,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement after the filing. “Throughout history, we have seen the unjust consequences of decisions and policies rooted in discrimination. The issues before the Supreme Court in this case and the Defense of Marriage Act case are not just important to the tens of thousands Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole.”
The brief makes many of the arguments attorneys for AFER, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, have made over the years as the case has been litigated in lower courts. Adam Umhoefer, executive director of AFER, described the brief as “unprecedented.”
“The brief filed by the Solicitor General is a powerful statement that Proposition 8 cannot be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded,” Umhoefer said in a statement. “It is an unprecedented call to action by our Government that it is time to recognize gay and lesbian Americans as full and equal citizens under the law.”
According to Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who cofounded AFER and recruited Olson and Boies to the lead the legal fight against Proposition 8 in 2009, today’s filing was reflective of the central argument of their case: that the Constitution guarantees all Americans equal protection.
“It is enormously gratifying to know that today, that the President and U.S. Government are standing with us against marriage discrimination,” Griffin said.
Oral arguments are scheduled to begin before the Supreme Court on March 26 with a ruling expected in June.
[Photo: Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Joe Biden (Official White House photo by Pete Souza).]
With Obergefell at risk and 32 states poised to restrict same-sex marriage, LGBTQ advocates push to enshrine protections at the state level.
By Maximilian Sandefer
August 6, 2025
On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion rights were now no longer guaranteed nationwide as the issue was left up to the states. This shock reversal of over 49 years of precedent left reproductive rights activists scrambling as anti-choice state laws stemming from as far back as 1864 were revived and reinstituted.
As people's ability to access to reproductive care dwindled in conservative-led states, activists also found their footing. The 2024 election saw abortion rights ballot measures win in seven out of ten states. As we navigate a landscape where it will likely be a long time before we see any form of successful federal legislation protecting a woman's right to choose, state-by-state activism seems to be the driving force behind change.
The former Kentucky clerk -- and anti-LGBTQ culture warrior -- who went to jail rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples is now targeting the landmark 2015 ruling.
A decade after catapulting to right-wing stardom, Kim Davis -- the former Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk who chose jail over issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 2015 decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide.
Represented by the anti-LGBTQ Liberty Counsel, Davis has formally asked the nation’s highest court to strip away the right of same-sex couples to marry.
A Mike Huckabee acolyte and four-time married fundamentalist zealot, Davis rose to fame in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple -- gay or straight -- after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state-level bans on same-sex marriage, including Kentucky’s. Ordered to comply, she instead spent six days in jail for contempt of court.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has canceled a $12 million grant to California’s Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) -- a federal initiative created under the Affordable Care Act to teach abstinence and contraception to at-risk youth.
The Trump administration balked at the program’s inclusion of transgender identity, reports Reuters, accusing educators of "indoctrinating" children with "gender ideology."
In a letter to the California Department of Public Health, HHS said it was rescinding the grant because "the grant is not being administered consistent with the authorizing statute, as the funded programs and services include gender ideology which is outside the scope of the statute."
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
