Pro marriage groups have given a mixed reaction to yesterday’s rulings by the Supreme Court concerning same-sex marriage.

They expressed dismay at a ruling which struck down an important passage in the federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA).

They also expressed dismay that the court refused to grant standing to pro-marriage groups to defend Proposition 8, a Californian referendum initiative passed in 2008 which upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

It is not now clear what the exact legal standing of Prop 8.

However pro-marriage groups welcomed the fact that the Supreme Court had not created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as many same-sex marriage advocates had hoped. This means individual states still have the right to define marriage.

The court ruled on two cases, United States v. Windsor and Perry v. Hollingsworth. The first case concerned Section 3 of DOMA, which defined marriage as a male-female union for federal purposes created in federal law. They struck this section down as unconstitutional.

In Perry v Hollingsworth, they considered Proposition 8, but they found that, given the refusal of the state of California to defend it, the advocates of Prop 8 did not have legal standing to defend it in court.

According to leading legal academic Professor Robert George, an advocate for traditional marriage, the ruling left much of the architecture of DOMA intact.  

On the Public Discourse blog, he said that the ruling did not strike down all of DOMA, just Section 3.  

The ruling, he said, left Section 2, which prevents the states from being forced to recognise other states’ same-sex marriages, in place.

According to Professor George, the majority of the Court in the Perry “ruling ordered the Ninth Circuit Court to set aside (“vacate”) its own ruling against Prop 8”.

Professor George added: “That leaves us with some confusion as to the status of Judge Vaughn Walker’s district court decision that ruled against Prop 8. Some scholars think Walker’s decision must be vacated, too.  

“Each same-sex couple seeking to marry in California would then have to sue for a special kind of court relief, applicable only to that couple.  

“Others think that Judge Walker’s decision would stand, but they debate whether it would apply to all state officials or only the county clerks named in the suit.  

“Governor Jerry Brown, for his part, has directed all county clerks to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses. This will surely be challenged in state court by the proponents of Prop 8.”  

He added that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant standing to the proponents of Proposition 8 had “eviscerated the California referendum process”.  

The referendum process, he said “was designed to let citizens pass laws, and amend their constitution, to check and balance government officials”.  

“If those same officials can effectively veto provisions of the state constitution by refusing to enforce and then refusing to defend them, the point of the referendum process is defeated,” he argued.

President of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins said he was “disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of DOMA, but added that the ruling did not “impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought”.  

He added: “Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.”  

However he said he was “disturbed” that the Supreme Court had refused to acknowledge that the standing of the proponents of Proposition 8 to defend Proposition 8.  

Mr Perkins said this distorted “the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government”.  

“The Court’s decision allows the executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge,” he said.

“Ironically, by refusing to defend the law, California’s executive branch has also denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”