In wake of Tuesday’s ruling that deemed Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, legal experts have suggested that the ruling is so narrowly written that it may not continue to the U.S. Supreme Court if further appealed by anti-gay groups. The suggestion comes amid the ruling’s language which was written specifically to limit its scope to the state of California conclusively, thereby suggesting that it may avoid later review by a higher court outside of the state’s borders.
Experts say the wording pinpointed California only, “a state where, the justices ruled, 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,” the Los Angeles Times is reporting.
“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,” Loyola law professor Douglas NeJaime said.
The anti-gay group ProtectMarriage has vowed to appeal the ruling. If the group chooses to ask a larger panel of the 9th Circuit Court to review the ruling, the case could lollygag for another year. However, if the Supreme Court is sought, the higher court could force a permanent ruling on the measure as early as next year.
Clearly, any one who is academically or professionally involved in jurisprudence knows that this is a LOSER for the pro-8 haters. This decision was written and decided by no pronouncements on “writing gay marriage into the Constitution” in fact they don’t even discuss the merits of gay marriage per se. Instead, the Circuit adjudicated where and when a right once bestowed by the State then taking away by a animus majority – that precisely is violation of due process, and in line with Evans and Kennedy’s Opinion in that case. It provides no wiggle room for Kennedy to go against us (in California) and may even bring in Alito and Roberts – because again, it does not address per se gay marriage’s right as a Const. issue. But I too, do not see this being a SCOTUS decision ultimately.