Today’s headlines include the happy news that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Proposition 8 unconstitutional. With the Washington state House poised to pass their marriage equality bill this week, it’s looking like a good time for equality (take a hint, Chris Christie?).

One thing that all the news coverage seems to remark on is the intentional narrowness of the ruling:

the appeals panel took pains to note that its decision applies only to California, even though the court has jurisdiction in nine western states. California is the only one of those states where the ability for gays to marry was granted then rescinded, the court noted in its narrowly crafted opinion.

The idea is that, because California had gay marriage, and then used a ballot referendum to take it away, the latter was impermissible. It doesn’t matter that it was a state constitutional amendment. From the 9th Circuit’s opinion:

All the Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

I’m sure all the commentary is correct in observing that the 9th Circuit judges limited the scope of their own ruling to increase its chances at being upheld by the Supreme Court. But the reasoning on which this is narrow seems flawed. Read the rest of this entry »