The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times writes about the California Supreme Court’s advisory opinion about standing:
“Thursday’s decision did not address the merits of the arguments that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering. It addressed only the procedural question of standing. Now the case will move back to the substantive issues. In one sense, that is desirable. It would be a far greater triumph for marriage equality if the 9th Circuit rejected Proposition 8 on the merits rather than on the issue of standing.
…
“So the 9th Circuit will consider the case on the merits, which are overwhelmingly against the proposition. As Walker pointed out in his decision: ‘Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. 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.’
“The dispute over standing is dramatically overshadowed by that injustice. The 9th Circuit should rule clearly and forcefully that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”
