Proposition 8 servers 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."The court briefly discussed the argument that Proposition 8 furthered a legitimate interest in protecting religious liberty. The majority said:
the religious-liberty interest that Proposition 8 supposedly promoted was to decrease the likelihood that religious organizations would be penalized, under California's antidiscrimination laws and other government policies concerning sexual orientation, for refusing to provide services to families headed by same-sex spouses. But Proposition 8 did nothing to affect those laws.... Amicus's argument is thus more properly read as an appeal to the Legislature, seeking reform of the state's antidiscrimination laws to include greater accommodations for religious organizations.Judge Smith dissented on this issue, concluding that people of California might have rationally believed that Proposition 8 is related to responsible procreation and optimal parenting.
The Court unanimously held that the proponents of Proposition 8 had standing to bring the appeal, and unanimously refused to accept the argument that the decision should be vacated because of the trial judge's interest in being able to marry his own same-sex partner.
Washington Post reports on the decision.