WASHINGTON (USA Today) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that the 2008 prohibition served "no purpose ... other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California."
The 2-1 decision, a victory for challengers of Proposition 8 yet narrowly crafted, is the latest in a years-long saga playing out in California but reverberating nationwide.
The case appears headed toward the Supreme Court and could be a momentous test of whether the U.S. Constitution forbids states from blocking same-sex couples from marrying.
Tuesday's decision upholds a 2010 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker invalidating Proposition 8. The effects of Walker's decision, and the issuance of marriage licenses to gay people, have been on hold during the litigation.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, stressed that the panel's decision was narrow and based on California's earlier granting of marriage licenses to gay people. The decision was based on the situation in California and did not broadly assert a fundamental right to marry.
"Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question," Reinhardt wrote. "It is currently a matter of great debate in our nation, and an issue over which people of good will may disagree, sometimes strongly. ... We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already extended to committed same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of 'marriage.' "
He noted that Proposition 8 wrongly took that away from a whole class of people and that the "strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment's constitutionality on narrow grounds."
He tied Tuesday's ruling to the Supreme Court's 1996 decision Romer v. Evans, which forbids government from singling out any class of people, particularly gay men and lesbians, "for disfavored legal status" without sufficient grounds. The majority said Tuesday that the arguments offered by Proposition 8 defenders, including that it was necessary to promote child rearing by biological parents, failed to rise to the level of "legitimate" grounds under the Romer test.
California voters had approved Proposition 8, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, in November 2008 to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling that May that gave gay couples a right to marry, based on the California Constitution.
Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, was joined in the decision by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. Judge Randy Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented. "I am not convinced that Proposition 8 is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest," he wrote.
"Here, the people of California might have believed that withdrawing from same-sex couples the right to access the designation of marriage would, arguably, further the interests in promoting responsible procreation and optimal parenting," Smith wrote, adding that although the assumptions underlying that rationale may be erroneous, they nonetheless provide sufficient grounds for a policy against same-sex marriage.
Defenders of Proposition 8 may seek review by the full 9th Circuit or try to go directly to the Supreme Court.
"No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people," said Brian Raum, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal aid group based in Arizona that helped defend Proposition 8.
"We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage - tried in San Francisco- turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court," he said.
The Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, said he was insulted by the ruling.
"To suggest the people of California can't decide by a referendum what marriage is, is an insult to democracy," he said.
The California Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state's bishops, declined requests to comment Tuesday, although it was one of the primary sponsors of the original, successful Proposition 8 campaign.
The other major religious force in the Proposition 8 effort in 2008 was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Spokesman Michael Purdy said Tuesday that the church regretted the ruling.
"Millions of voters in California sent a message that traditional marriage is crucial to society," he said. "They expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society, as it has been for generations."
In San Francisco, a crowd of about 100 supporters of gay marriage gathered at the federal courthouse to await word of the ruling. A news reporter who had the first copy of the ruling yelled, "It's unconstitutional!" and the crowd burst into cheers.
Will Clayton, 49, of San Francisco said the ruling was "a step in the right direction." He and his boyfriend of five years who lives in Den Bosch in the Netherlands are waiting for the day they can legally marry here.
"It's fantastic," said Lori Hawkins, 53, of San Francisco, who attended the rally with her husband, Ray, 52. "There was a time in California history when we couldn't have gotten married" she said, pointing to her white husband and adding that as a Chinese-American, she would have been barred from marrying him.
"This is a cultural turning point," she said.
Many California officials also praised the decision.
"Today's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stands as a victory for the fundamental American principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and treatment under the law," said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor who directed the city clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples when voters approved the measure. "This is the biggest step that the American judicial system has taken to end the grievous discrimination against men and women in same-sex relationships and should be highly praised."
Attorney General Kamala Harris said, "The court has restored dignity, equality and respect to all Californians."
The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Pasadena (Calif.), which has refused to sign marriage licenses for any couple until gay couples could be legally wed, called it a victory for all Americans who believe in "liberty and justice for all."
Russell, an Episcopal priest, dismissed the notion that the ruling tramples on freedom of religion. In a statement, she said everyone is "just as free today to decide for themselves whether God equally blesses our marriages. What the 9th Circuit Court said today is that they are NOT free to decide whether the Constitution equally protects them."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said, "I look forward to the day when same-sex couples may once again marry in California and enjoy the rights and freedoms of all married couples. The legal battle is not yet over, but this landmark decision is an important step toward marriage equality for same-sex couples in California."
The challenge to Proposition 8 was taken up jointly by Theodore Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the historic presidential fight Bush v. Gore. The pair began pushing the California dispute as a test case for protections under the U.S. Constitution.
The couples challenging the ban on same-sex marriage argued that denying them a marriage license impinged on fundamental liberties.
Proposition 8 backers, represented by Washington lawyer Charles Cooper, emphasized that marriage centered on a "procreative" relationship and argued the "negative social implications" of allowing gay people to marry.
Tuesday, Reinhardt noted, "Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California."
Six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York) and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage. Legislators in Washington state have been moving in recent weeks on a law that would allow gay marriage in that state, too.
(USA Today)