Topic: US Super Court turns down 100% of Appeals re States wanting to stop Gay Marriage
Syntax started this discussion 12 years ago #37,170
tl;dr below? Bottom line is Major world of hurt for those against Gay marriage and lots n lots of States where its now OK for dem other people to Marry more other people. Utah Mormons goin to wonder why prayers not paid attention2http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0HV19020141006
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprising move that will allow gay men and women to get married in five additional states, with more likely to follow quickly.
On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment rejected appeals in cases involving five states - Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana - that had prohibited gay marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those bans.
As a result, the number of states permitting gay marriage would jump from 19 to 24, likely soon to be followed by six more states that are bound by the regional federal appeals court rulings that had struck down other bans. That would leave another 20 states that prohibit same-sex marriage.
But the move by the nine justices to sidestep the contentious issue means there will be no imminent national ruling on the matter, with litigation likely to continue in states with bans.
"Any time same-sex couples are extended marriage equality is something to celebrate, and today is a joyous day for thousands of couples across America who will immediately feel the impact of today's Supreme Court action," said Chad Griffin, president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign.
Evan Wolfson, who heads the group Freedom to Marry, said while Monday’s action provided "a bright green light" to gay marriage in more states, gay rights advocates still want the high court to intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states. "The Supreme Court should bring the country to a nationwide resolution," Wolfson said.
Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter. The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Gay couples in affected states are expected to seek marriage licenses immediately because the high court's action means the appeals court's rulings are no longer on hold. Virginia began issuing licenses within hours of the court's action.
The other states that are likely to be imminently affected are North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.
NO EXPLANATION
The court did not explain why it was not taking up the issue. Among the possibilities are that a majority believes it would be premature to intervene and wants to see more lower court action, or that on this deeply polarized court neither the liberals nor the conservatives could be certain of how the issue would resolved and did not want to risk forcing a national precedent now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has officiated at a same-sex wedding, said last month that for the justices there is "no need for us to rush" unless a split emerges in the regional federal appeals courts and one of them decides to uphold a state ban on gay marriage.
In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case, at least four of the nine justices must vote to hear it.
Most legal experts had believed the justices would want to weigh in on a question of national importance that focuses on whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law means gay marriage bans were unlawful.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that "there may ultimately be a role for the Supreme Court to play" on gay marriage and that the justices must make that call. Earnest emphasized that President Barack Obama's view is that "it's wrong to prevent same-sex couples who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from doing so."
Opponents of gay marriage said they would continue to defend state bans in court. "The people should decide this issue, not the courts," said Byron Babione, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom.
In June 2013, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a key part of a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act that had restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples for the purpose of federal government benefits.
But in a separate case decided that day, the justices also sidestepped the broader question of whether state bans violated the Constitution, but allowed gay marriage in California.
The momentum within America's courts in favor of gay marriage reflects a sea-change in public opinion in the past decade, with polls showing a steady increase in support. It was only as recently as 2004 that Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage following a state court ruling.
State officials defending their bans say the Constitution does not dictate how states should define marriage and that there is no deeply rooted legal tradition that supports a right to gay marriage.
When the nine justices ascended their mahogany bench at 10 a.m., they betrayed no concern for the possible uncertainty or confusion arising from their orders rejecting the same-sex marriage cases. Proceeding with the usual practice, Chief Justice John Roberts announced only that “orders have been duly entered and certified” and were on file with the clerk’s office.
The justices then heard an hour of arguments in a case involving a police search.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #502,731
This was pretty predictible. SCOTUS doesn't want to decide the issue, and doesn't really have to until there is at least a circuit split on the issue. They might also never rule on the merits of any case because it's a political question and therefore non-justiciable. This is really an issue for Congress or possibly a Constitutional Amendment to resolve, but since neither of those seem particularly likely to actually produce any meaningful results, it's up to the courts to rule on contentious social issues again.
If we do have a constitutional amendment, I'd like it to be an amendment that makes it easier to amend the constitution. It's too hard to do at the moment, and would at least make it a real possibility instead of the only options being the courts or the legislature.
Edit: Or I guess, executive fiat, but that's not really a good road to go down, and I don't see how that would help, though i guess if all executive branch agencies considered marriage as 2 adults irrespective of gender, that would maybe carry some weight, but I don't think there will ever be two competing federal definitions of marriage like that.
If we do have a constitutional amendment, I'd like it to be an amendment that makes it easier to amend the constitution. It's too hard to do at the moment, and would at least make it a real possibility instead of the only options being the courts or the legislature.
Edit: Or I guess, executive fiat, but that's not really a good road to go down, and I don't see how that would help, though i guess if all executive branch agencies considered marriage as 2 adults irrespective of gender, that would maybe carry some weight, but I don't think there will ever be two competing federal definitions of marriage like that.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 52 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,732
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,733
@previous (C)
Well, eggs are round and sometimes white, so by the transitive property, that is correct.
Well, eggs are round and sometimes white, so by the transitive property, that is correct.
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 35 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,734
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 44 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,735
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 44 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,736
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,737
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,738
Syntax (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #502,741
@502,731 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter.
> The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
If in fact all lower courts comply, there will be a rush to open up Gay marriages Super Fast and after a while there will be so many of such marriages that any attempt to over turn this via Constitutional amendment or otherwise will be impractical.
And far to many more better things to amend. Everyone knows who no's me that I grew up in another era so I have been slow to accept the radical changes on LGBT YET the Marriage issue moved me quickly to support such BECAUSE the State I live in did not allow marriage of a White to a Asian up until 1948 and many many states would not allow mixed marriages until 1967 (Maryland for instance) UNTIL US Super court threw out all bans.
Interracial marriage in the United States have ONLY been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967. I had completed my BSEE around that tyme. Marriages of Males and Females Banned by other Men. Even a shocking law passed in the 30's that allowed the taking away of a full Native born USA Citizen IF they married anyone that was not eligible for USA Citizenship.
USA Separation of Church and State EXCEPT its been the Church's that have driven Anti Christ definitions on the subject of living life and marriage.
> Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter.
> The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
If in fact all lower courts comply, there will be a rush to open up Gay marriages Super Fast and after a while there will be so many of such marriages that any attempt to over turn this via Constitutional amendment or otherwise will be impractical.
And far to many more better things to amend. Everyone knows who no's me that I grew up in another era so I have been slow to accept the radical changes on LGBT YET the Marriage issue moved me quickly to support such BECAUSE the State I live in did not allow marriage of a White to a Asian up until 1948 and many many states would not allow mixed marriages until 1967 (Maryland for instance) UNTIL US Super court threw out all bans.
Interracial marriage in the United States have ONLY been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967. I had completed my BSEE around that tyme. Marriages of Males and Females Banned by other Men. Even a shocking law passed in the 30's that allowed the taking away of a full Native born USA Citizen IF they married anyone that was not eligible for USA Citizenship.
USA Separation of Church and State EXCEPT its been the Church's that have driven Anti Christ definitions on the subject of living life and marriage.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)