<h4><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/ninth-circuit-court-appeals-puts-gay-marriage-hold/story?id=11414501&page=2">http://abcnews.go.com/WN/ninth-circuit-court-appeals-puts-gay-marriage-hold/story?id=11414501&page=2</a></h4>
<h4>Proposition 8 Headed Towards High Court </h4>
<div>The effort to ban gay marriage in California was first launched in response to a state Supreme Court <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4866721&page=1" target="external"><font color="#336699">decision</font></a> allowing same-sex couples to wed. Voters approved Proposition 8 with a 52 percent vote. </div>
<div>
<p>Despite the popular support, Walker found that the measure was rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices" and that the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/gay-rights-groups-seek-overturn-proposition-californias-ban/story?id=9531747" target="external"><font color="#336699">plaintiffs</font></a> in the case -- one lesbian and one gay couple -- demonstrated by "overwhelming evidence" that it violates rights to due process and equal protection under the Constitution. </p>
<p>"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in his 136-page opinion. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. </p>
<p>"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," he wrote. "The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples." </p>
<p>The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will now take up the case, which could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Experts say a decision there could transform social and legal precedent, comparing the potential impact to the famous 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which desegregated schools, and the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, which ended laws banning interracial marriage. </p>
<p>"This case reflects a classic tension between democratic values," said Ben Bishin, a political science professor at University of California-Riverside. "People often think that democracy means the will of a majority should be law, but its also about equality and liberty. Questions of minority rights speak to values of equality and liberty, and courts are reluctant to tread on those rights when there's no harm done to society." </p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div>