According Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Proposition 8 ''merely carves out a narrow and limited exception'' to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive.'' He added that ''like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right.''
Goodwin Liu, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkley, stated that ''the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California.''
According to the court majority, Proposition 8 has a 'limited effect'' and reserving the term 'marriage for opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment.'' The court also stated that same-sex couples that married before the November election in California ''will remain married and that it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.''
According to Chief Justice Ronald M. George, ''ending those marriages would be akin to throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court.''
As activists vow to continue to fight to allow same-sex marriages, supporters of the ban are ready to defend the foundation of marriage in an opposite-sex union. Over the next year, it is predicted that the debate over same-sex marriages will continue to manifest itself in the courts, media, communities and churches across the state.
