Supporters of Proposition 8 in California must soon answer a key question: What legitimate interest do they have in preventing same-sex couples from marrying?

Last month, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was an unconstitutional denial of due process to two same-sex couples. As judges in other state and federal courts have noted, the financial, emotional and health benefits that marriage provides are substantial.

Society’s interests can override individual interests, but Walker found no reasonable argument in favor of restricting marriage to a man and a woman. He faulted Proposition 8 defenders for presenting no arguments or evidence on this key point.

Protect Marriage, the coalition that unsuccessfully defended Proposition 8, has appealed. The ban on same-sex marriage remains in effect as the case goes forward.

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has raised a key issue that must be answered in filings due Sept. 17: Whether the coalition has the legal standing to appeal the ruling.

The defendants in the Proposition 8 case are California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, who refused to defend it, and haven’t pursued an appeal.

The organization known as Protect Marriage was allowed to intervene in defense  of Proposition 8, and it presented the state’s case. The organization intends to continue in its role as self-appointed guardian of marriage, if the courts allow it.

But religious, political and ideological convictions aren’t enough to provide standing to litigate controversial issues, as judges have ruled many times. Nor should political and religious beliefs, or even a majority vote, be accepted as sufficient reason to withhold rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.