Is the Prop 8 ruling merely 'a limited win' for gay marriage?

A federal appeals court strikes down California's gay-marriage ban — but the ruling is so narrow, it might not have much effect outside the Sunshine State

Everyone agrees that Tuesday's decision by a federal appellate court to strike down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, is a big win for marriage-minded gays and lesbians in California. But what about gays outside the Golden State? The ruling, by Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, is explicitly narrow and California-specific, punting on the "broader question" of "whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry." Does that mean gay-marriage proponents are celebrating, and opponents mourning, too much?

This is only "a limited win for equality": Judge Reinhardt starts his opinion with "what sounds like a sweeping statement" in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, says The Baltimore Sun in an editorial. But the rest of the ruling is "so narrowly drawn that, even if it is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in an inevitable appeal, it may have little bearing" on any state other than California. This is a "symbolic" win for marriage equality, but little else.
"Proposition 8 ruling: A limited win for equality"

Actually, it's a broad swipe at "traditional marriage": Don't be fooled, says Ed Whelan at National Review. Reinhardt's ruling "is far broader than his purportedly narrow holding." The activist judge "misdescribes marriage" as simply "the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults," dismissing the vital role that marriage plays in "responsible procreation and childrearing." If the courts accept his reasoning, "I don't see how traditional marriage laws could survive anywhere."
"Initial assessment of Ninth Circuit's anti-Prop 8 ruling"

The ruling is narrow — but strategically so: For better or worse, "the most liberal judges in the most liberal state on the most liberal appeals court" chose not to shoot the moon, and "delivered a far more moderate decision than anyone would have predicted," says Dahlia Lithwick at Slate. But look, that's probably the smart play — and a "transparent attempt" to win over Supreme Court swing Justice Anthony Kennedy. And in the end, if Kennedy sides with Reinhardt, Prop 8 stays dead.
"For Prop 8, no Hollywood endings"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Prop 8 overturned: A guide to the landmark gay marriage decision

A federal court rules that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, potentially clearing the way for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage in California to one man and one woman, violated the equal protection rights of gays and lesbians. Now, a forthcoming appeal could pave the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year. Here's what you should know about the "landmark" decision:

Remind me: What exactly is Proposition 8?
In 2008, a California state court ruled that an existing ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. Almost immediately, groups that opposed gay marriage began circulating petitions that would eventually put Proposition 8 on that fall's election day ballot. Prop. 8, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution decreeing that marriage was an institution reserved for one man and one woman, was supported that November by 52 percent of California voters. In the brief window between the court ruling and Prop 8's ballot success, 18,000 same-sex couples legally married in California.

SEE MORE: Does marriage equality make gay men healthier?

Why is the issue in court again?
Judge Vaughn R. Walker, a federal judge in San Francisco, struck down Prop. 8 in 2010, declaring the amendment unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection rights of gay couples. Opponents of same-sex marriage appealed the decision, says Howard Mintz at the San Jose Mercury News, on the grounds that "there is a state interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage, particularly the importance of procreation in heterosexual marriage." Tuesday's ruling was the result of that appeal.

What exactly did the appeals court rule?
A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to uphold Walker's decision. "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the court said. The Constitution "requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

Will this affect other states?
Not necessarily. Tuesday's decision is not intended to be applied broadly, the court said, and was crafted to apply only to California. The peculiar circumstances of what happened in California — "a right to same-sex marriage withdrawn by a vote of the public" — is what ultimately led to the ruling, says Jeffrey Toobin at CNN, and should have no effect on other states currently weighing the issue.

Can same-sex couples get married in California now?
Not yet. The appeals court said that gay marriages cannot resume until Prop. 8's supporters have the opportunity to appeal to a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit. If and when the appeal is filed, which it inevitably will be, says Peter Henderson and Dan Levine at Reuters, gay marriage will be kept on hold "pending future proceedings." Gay marriage opponents have another option, too, says Adam Nagourney at The New York Times. They can try to take the issue directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, says Toobin, the Supreme Court might opt out of weighing in. And even if the nation's highest court does hear the case, it likely won't be until after the election.

How would the Supreme Court rule?
It's anyone's guess. Some gay activists are apprehensive about the case going all the way to the Supreme Court, says Nagourney. They're "fearful that conservative justices could... codify a ban against same-sex marriage." In the end, the Roberts Court will probably be divided, says Maura Dolan at the Los Angeles Times, "and many legal scholars believe Justice Anthony Kennedy will be the deciding vote." Kennedy is a Republican-appointed justice, says Henderson and Levine, but he has written several important pro-gay rights decisions — though he "has not explicitly endorsed gay marriage."

Sources: AP, CNN, Huff. Post, LA Times, NY Times, San Jose Mercury News, Reuters

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here