Proposition 8 Functions With No Obvious

Confirming from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- A government is attractive test has announced California's 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex wedding unconstitutional, finishing that the prohibition provided no objective other than to "lessen the position and people pride of gays and lesbos."

The 2-1 judgment by the U.S. 9th World Court of Appeals was directly published to restrict its opportunity to California's region and possibly even prevent evaluation by the U.S. Substantial Court, lawful professionals said. However, gay-rights supporters confirmed Tuesday's choice as ancient, while practitioners of Idea 8 instantly promised to charm.

Instead of broadening the constitutional privileges of gays and lesbos, the test based its choice on a 1996 U.S. Substantial Court precedent that said a the greater part may not take away a minority's privileges without genuine factors.

"Proposition 8 functions with no obvious objective but to encourage on gays and lesbos, through the community law, a majority's personal disapproval of them and their connections," Assess Stephen Reinhardt composed for the test.

The judgment won't take impact immediately; practitioners of Idea 8 have two several weeks to attract the outlet test and 90 days to computer file a case for Substantial Court evaluation.

Though separated on the constitutional concern, the three-judge section all decided that ProtectMarriage, the backers of Idea 8, had the right or lawful "standing" to charm Primary U.S. Section Assess Vaughn R. Walker's 2010 judgment against the poll evaluate.

The section also all denied a obstacle by ProtectMarriage that Walker's judgment should be set aside because he never reveal that he was in a long run same-sex connection. Master, who has since on, decided after an unrivaled, two-week test that reviewed the significance of sex-related alignment and the record of wedding and gay privileges.

"It's no surprise that the 9th Circuit's decision is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage," said Andy Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage. "Ever since the beginning of this case, we've known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the U.S. Supreme Court."

But other lawyers and legal scholars said the 9th Circuit might have the final word on Proposition 8 because the ruling was so pointedly limited to California, a state where voters stripped a minority of a right that already existed and where the usual justifications for a same-sex marriage ban, responsible parenting and procreation, are undercut by domestic partner laws.

Proposition 8 passed as a constitutional amendment six months after the California Supreme Court struck down a state law that limited marriage to a man and a woman, and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during that time. The initiative also did not affect parenting rights of gays and lesbians, which are protected under other state laws.

"That legal background does not exist in most states," said University of Minnesota Law School professor Dale Carpenter, who has followed the case.

Loyola law professor Douglas NeJaime agreed, noting that Tuesday's decision allows the U.S. Supreme Court to postpone a pronouncement on same-sex marriage until a more sweeping case comes along.

"The 9th Circuit decided the case in a way that would allow the Supreme Court to affirm without having to significantly expand on its existing jurisprudence and without having to rule on marriage for same-sex couples on a national scale," NeJaime said.

ProtectMarriage could ask a larger panel of the 9th Circuit to review Tuesday's ruling, which could keep the case in the circuit for another year. If the group went directly to the Supreme Court and won review, the high court could rule on the case next year.

ProtectMarriage has long said it wanted the high court to get the case as soon as possible, but its representative said Tuesday that the organization has yet to decide its next step.

In the opinion, Reinhardt drew close parallels between Proposition 8 and a 1992 Colorado initiative that barred the government from passing laws to protect the civil rights of gays and lesbians. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, struck down Colorado's law in 1996.

Calling Proposition 8 "remarkably similar" to the Colorado initiative, the 9th Circuit said both measures singled out one class of people and removed an existing right without serving any reasonable purpose.

"It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman," the court said.

David Boies, one of the lawyers for two same-sex couples who sued to overturn Proposition 8, said the ruling presented "the most difficult set of facts" possible for ProtectMarriage because the decision "so squarely fits" the high court's precedent in Evans vs. Romer, the case that struck down the Colorado measure.