It was a 2-1 decision, and the opinion is a pretty strong:

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently,” Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,’ ” the judge wrote, adding, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”

BTW, all three judges agreed that the defendants request that the judge Vaughn Walker recuse himself was pretty much a crock of sh%$.

The precedent on this case is fairly straightforward, the Supreme Court ruling on Colorado’s Amendment 2 about 15 years ago, where they said that voters can’t strip rights from a group just because they make them feel squicky, the so-called “rational basis” test.

The question now is whether or not this case goes to the full appeals court (en banc), or to the Supreme Court.

And while we are on recusals.  Seeing as how Scalia has publicly, and repeatedly, made comments explicitly stating that he has pre-judged the matter, how about he recuse his flabby ass from the case?

If SCOTUS takes it, it will be closer though, as O’Connor has been replaced by Alito, who is an almost certain vote against gay civil rights.