Legal scholar Ed Whelan is out with a second and more extensive look at the 9th Circuit's decision, penned by Judge Reinhardt. Whelan points out at NRO several more flaws in the ruling, including:

2. For Reinhardt, “‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults.” (P. 37.) The right to marry that the state supreme court conferred on same-sex couples “symbolize[d] state legitimization and social recognition of their committed relationships.” (P. 5.)

Notice what’s missing from Reinhardt’s description? Any recognition that the very institution of marriage arose and exists in order to encourage responsible procreation and childrearing.

... 5. If one accepts Reinhardt’s reasoning that dismisses the core rationales for traditional marriage, I don’t see how traditional marriage laws could survive anywhere. In other words, the sweep of Reinhardt’s reasoning is far broader than his purportedly narrow holding.

6. Former judge Vaughn Walker’s purported factual findings play virtually no role in Reinhardt’s ruling. That’s further evidence that Walker’s whole trial was a pointless (and time-consuming) farce.

The Alliance Defense Fund:

Defenders of marriage in California will appeal Tuesday’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that upheld a district judge’s decision against the state’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The ProtectMarriage.com legal defense team, including Alliance Defense Fund attorneys, expressed no surprise that the lawsuit over the amendment, which protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, would progress beyond the three-judge 9th Circuit panel as has been long predicted by parties on both sides.

... “No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” said ADF Senior Counsel Brian Raum. “Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.”

“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage--tried in San Francisco--turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” Raum added. “Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.”

NRO's Legal expert Ed Whelan on today's 9th Circuit decision:

As I expected, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit has affirmed former judge Vaughn Walker’s outlandish ruling that California’s Proposition 8 violates the federal Constitution. Arch-liberals Judge Stephen Reinhardt and Judge Michael Hawkins were in the majority, with Hawkins joining Reinhardt’s opinion. Judge Randy Smith dissented.

From a quick skim of the introduction, I see that the majority opinion purports to be narrow. It doesn’t opine on the general question “[w]hether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry.” [Emphasis in original.] Instead, it maintains that the particular context in California—in which same-sex couples under California’s domestic-partnership law had all the rights of opposite-sex couples and in which Proposition 8 restored the definition of marriage that the state supreme court had invalidated—means that there was no “legitimate reason” for Proposition 8.

In the grand scheme of things, there is nothing enduringly significant about today’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit was just a way-station on the path to the Supreme Court, and the composition of the Ninth Circuit panel meant that there was no prospect for a reversal of Walker’s ruling. What would have been most troubling would have been a ruling that Prop 8 proponents didn’t have standing on appeal, as that might have complicated the prospects for Supreme Court review. But the case now has a seemingly clear path to the Supreme Court.