Opinion ID: 1345015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the campaign and the proponents share the same ultimate objective in the suit

Text: [2] Despite the Campaign's quibble over fine details, even interpret[ing] the requirements broadly in favor of intervention, Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 409 (citation omitted), it is apparent to us that the ultimate objective of the Campaign and the Proponents is identicaldefending the constitutionality of Prop. 8 and the principle that the traditional definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. In an effort to sidestep this unity of interest, the Campaign argues that it bears an interest beyond defending the constitutionality of Prop. 8: namely, the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which goes beyond merely the language of Proposition 8. This is so, according to the Campaign, because Perry's suit does not implicate the validity of Prop. 8 alone, but rather any California law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, including numerous statutes and other legislative enactments that refer to marriage, including measures that the Campaign sponsored, helped to enact[,] and worked to preserve. The Campaign's only example of such a measure is Proposition 22, codified as CAL. FAM. CODE § 308.5 (2000), which provided that [o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California and was invalidated by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384, 452-53 (Cal. 2008). The Campaign also cites its lawsuits against California AB205, which granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, and against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when he attempted to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as well as its work in defense of Prop. 8 as evidence of the Campaign's broader interest in defending the opposite-sex definition of marriage in California. [3] When pressed at oral argument to put some meat on the bare bones of the claim that its interest is broader than that of the Proponents, the Campaign was unable to do so. Taken together, the Campaign's statements simply circle back to Prop. 8. Indeed, the only marriage-related measure outside of Prop. 8 cited by the Campaign, Proposition 22, is verbatim identical to Prop. 8. We agree with the district court that the Campaign failed to explain how Proposition 8, if upheld as constitutional, would fail to assure this claimed broader interest in defining marriage as only an opposite-sex union. [4] As the district court aptly held, the Campaign's interest in defending the opposite-sex definition of marriage under California law is not meaningfully distinct from the Proponents' interest in defending the constitutionality of Prop. 8. Rather, whether California may constitutionally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman will be wholly determined by the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, because any California law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would be invalidated if Prop. 8 were found to be unconstitutional, and affirmed if Prop. were held to be constitutional. Given the identity of interests, the presumption of adequate representation applies. [3]