Tuesday's decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled unconstitutional California's ban on same-sex marriage, otherwise known as Proposition 8, has been heralded by some as a huge step for gay rights, by others as another case of judicial overreach by "activist judges" and a symptom of a country in moral decline. Others are a little less excited -- particularly as it relates to other states, such as Alaska, where same-sex marriage is outlawed.

Voters in 1998 chose to amend the Alaska Constitution to stipulate that marriage could only legally exist between man and woman, specifically: "To be valid or recognized in this state, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman."

The vote was in reaction to a judge's ruling that the state constitution did not forbid same-sex marriage. It was a nasty fight, but the ballot won in a landslide.

The fight seemed to largely deflate those who supported gay marriage. And although same-sex benefits for state of Alaska workers have since been legalized during the Palin administration, same-sex marriage has never enjoyed a local ground-swell of support.

Tuesday's federal appellate ruling, according to ACLU Alaska executive director Jeffrey Mittman, won't do much to change same-sex marriage politics on the ground in Alaska, even though Alaska is part of the 9th Circuit jurisdiction, nor will the federal overturn of California Proposition 8 trump Alaska state law, for now anyway.

For one, as far as Mittman knows, nobody is (yet) standing in line to take on Alaska's state constitutional amendment. Secondly, even if there were a line of them, the 9th Circuit decision was so narrow -- and could be argued only applicable to California, which first allowed gay marriage, then banned gay marriage.

The 2-to-1 decision by the 9th Circuit was carefully crafted. It rests on the premise that a state can’t grant rights and then take them away -- as was the case in California -- regardless of the constitutionality of the Golden State's same-sex marriage ban. Because nothing in the ban restricted or withheld any of the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples -- except for the right to call themselves married, Prop. 8 focused heavily on the word "marriage." (Read a summary of the decision here.)

Mittman said that the decision does reaffirm the importance of marriage as well as the difference between marriage and partnership, but warns against reading the decision too broadly. A passage in the decision, he said, seems to warn exactly against doing so: "This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment's constitutionality on narrow grounds," the court wrote.

"It's often best for lawyers and legal analysts to take courts at their word," Mittman said.

Anchorage-based lawyer Jeff Feldman agrees that the ruling, particularly the focus on the word "marriage," was narrow and nuanced. However, he said, "you could fairly state that even when only a word was at issue, and no other right, the court resolved the battle in favor of protecting same-sex couples in using that word."

That said, because the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Feldman said he’d caution waiting before taking on a case in Alaska. 

But even if the High Court affirms the 9th Circuit decision, it won't necessarily legalize same-sex marriage throughout the land. One thing it will most certainly do though is "provide a thread in the tapestry that is created case by case," Feldman said.

Contact Amanda Coyne at Amanda(at)alaskadispatch.com