SCOTUS "clears the way for gay marriage in CA." Here's the SCOTUS opinion:

[pnwmom]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

And Commentary by Scotusblog:

We have Perry. By the Chief. The petitioners did not have standing to appeal the district court order.
10:26
Kevin Russell: To be clear: Windsor does not establish a constitutional right to same sex marriage. It was important to the outcome that the couple in the case was legally married under state law. The equal protection violation arose from Congress's disrespecting that decision by New York to allow the marriage.
10:26
Amy Howe: The line up is 5-4: Kennedy dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor.

Amy Howe: The decision of the Ninth Circuit is vacated and remanded.

Amy Howe: Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

An earlier blog post on what might happen if Prop 8 was dismissed due to standing:

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=158053

______________________________________

From ABC in San Diego:

http://www.10news.com/news/opponents-supporters-of-proposition-8-await-supreme-court-decision-rally-in-hillcrest-planned-062513

SAN DIEGO - The Supreme Court has cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California by holding that defenders of California's gay marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the ban.

The court's 5-4 vote Wednesday leaves in place the initial trial court declaration that the ban is unconstitutional. California officials probably will rely on that ruling to allow the resumption of same-sex unions in about a month's time.

Proposition 8 was enacted by voters in 2008 but was deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal appeals court, which found the initiative was at odds with U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

SNIP

[BP2]

1. Translation

Meaning more power to the states

[wryter2000]

2. Weird who was pro and con

Roberts and Scalia were in the majority and Kennedy and Sotomayor in the minority.

Still, I'll take it.

[pnwmom]

3. I know, that was weird. Oh well. n/t

[bigbrother05]

4. Think that is based on who wanted to set a wider precedent

After DOMA, the Cons could see that the equal protection clause would prevail, so they wanted to send it back to CA where it could only be seen as a one state precedent. The Libs wanted to take the case to set a broader stage to overturn laws across the country.

This was a divide the baby decision.