Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Gay Marriage Cases

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
I wonder what their reasoning is for punting on the bigger issue instead of refusing to hear appeal for 5 states.


The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the hotly contested issue of gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously banned.

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that struck down bans in those states. In each case, a stay was put in place pending Supreme Court action. By denying to hear the appeals, the stays will be lifted.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-intervene-gay-marriage-cases-n219276
 

Symtex

macrumors 6502a
Jan 27, 2005
515
2
Why the hatred towards gay marriages ? They have the right to be miserable too ! (married)

Seriously, whoever is opposed to same-sex marriage really need to take a good look in the mirror. Its not going to be the end of the society. Theses people life together already. They just want the same tax benefits are heterosexual marriages. Let them have it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Why the hatred towards gay marriages ? They have the right to be miserable too ! (married)

Seriously, whoever is opposed to same-sex marriage really need to take a good look in the mirror. Its not going to be the end of the society. Theses people life together already. They just want the same tax benefits are heterosexual marriages. Let them have it.
Absolutely, sell some additional marriage licenses and make divorce attorneys richer. I see no reason to let people marry who they want (no children or banyard animals).
 

Symtex

macrumors 6502a
Jan 27, 2005
515
2
Absolutely, sell some additional marriage licenses and make divorce attorneys richer. I see no reason to let people marry who they want (no children or banyard animals).
Duh ! Conservative has been spewing this non-sense bs for way too long. No children or banyard animals are not next if we allow same-sex marriage.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
I wonder what their reasoning is for punting on the bigger issue instead of refusing to hear appeal for 5 states.





http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-intervene-gay-marriage-cases-n219276
If you've noticed, they have yet to argue a case for same-sex marriage. And I don't think they are going to.

Now, before anyone brings up Perry v. Schwarzennegger (Prop. 8 ), the issue with the Prop 8 case was the legal standing of the case, not the merits. Since the defendants of the case brought it to SCOTUS to argue if the plaintiffs had legal standing to even challenge Walker's ruling (and SCOTUS called it right with them not having legal standing in the case), they never got to the merits of it.

So there really isn't any obligation for them to take any case for it, as the Court of Appeals is getting it right. In fact, it would be the second case brought to the Court of Appeals that would have legal precedence; because of that, any ruling that goes contradictory to that ruling would then be brought to SCOTUS because there would be the conflict that SCOTUS would have to resolve. Because there is no conflict, SCOTUS is declining to hear them, more than likely based on 9th and 10th Constitutional Amendments coming into play.

BTW: With SCOTUS declining to hear these cases, the majority of states in the United States of America now allows same-sex marriage.

BL.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Wow. Pretty surprising move, especially considering that both sides of the debate were pushing for SCOTUS to settle the issue. I guess we're going to have to wait for another appeals court to uphold a same sex marriage ban. Which, at this point may not happen if all future judges who decide this issue take a hint from the Supreme Court for letting the current appeals court rulings stand. In any case, congrats to all the people who can now marry. 26 more states to go!

----------

BTW: With SCOTUS declining to hear these cases, the majority of states in the United States of America now allows same-sex marriage.

BL.
It was legal in 19 states already. This action by SCOTUS makes that 24 states. Unless I'm missing something....

----------

I also want to say that this is significant, because now a direct supreme court action legalized gay marriage in 5 states, this is a first. SCOTUS is now directly responsible for allowing gay people to wed in 5 states. If they ever choose to take on a gay marriage case now, the chances they will strip all those couples they allowed to wed of their rights and void their marriages by upholding states gay marriage bans are slim to none. I think this was a message that they agree with the appeals courts, and if they are forced to take a case in the future they will surely strike down state ssm bans as unconstitutional.
 

colourfastt

macrumors 6502a
Apr 7, 2009
885
524
Wow. Pretty surprising move, especially considering that both sides of the debate were pushing for SCOTUS to settle the issue. I guess we're going to have to wait for another appeals court to uphold a same sex marriage ban. Which, at this point may not happen if all future judges who decide this issue take a hint from the Supreme Court for letting the current appeals court rulings stand. In any case, congrats to all the people who can now marry. 26 more states to go!

----------



It was legal in 19 states already. This action by SCOTUS makes that 24 states. Unless I'm missing something....

----------

I also want to say that this is significant, because now a direct supreme court action legalized gay marriage in 5 states, this is a first. SCOTUS is now directly responsible for allowing gay people to wed in 5 states. If they ever choose to take on a gay marriage case now, the chances they will strip all those couples they allowed to wed of their rights and void their marriages by upholding states gay marriage bans are slim to none. I think this was a message that they agree with the appeals courts, and if they are forced to take a case in the future they will surely strike down state ssm bans as unconstitutional.
What you're missing is that it also includes all the states included in the various appeals circuits. So the Virginia case also includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. When you add all the different circuits it is more than 24 states total.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
What you're missing is that it also includes all the states included in the various appeals circuits. So the Virginia case also includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. When you add all the different circuits it is more than 24 states total.
Yep I just looked into it. Same sex marriage will now be legal in 30 states from what I understand.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
its taking a bit long to get there.
I'm not so sure of that, all this progress has occurred relatively quickly in comparison to other civil rights issues in the past. This was completely inconceivable just 10 years ago. However, the stage for the next battle has been set. It will be a battle of whether business owners and landlords have a constitutional right to discriminate against gay couples or employees.
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
I wonder what their reasoning is for punting on the bigger issue instead of refusing to hear appeal for 5 states.





http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-intervene-gay-marriage-cases-n219276
Roberts and Co, are hoping they don't have to make this decision. If all the other courts rule for it, then their hands are clean. As it stands the court is 5-4 pro gay. The pope might just have the Catholic SC heads on a platter if Roberts does anything to encourage Teh ghey.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
Roberts and Co, are hoping they don't have to make this decision. If all the other courts rule for it, then their hands are clean. As it stands the court is 5-4 pro gay. The pope might just have the Catholic SC heads on a platter if Roberts does anything to encourage Teh ghey.
Are you sure that the SCOTUS is 5-4 pro-gay? Six justices are Roman Catholic and three are Jewish. Five appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats.

I think that this is one of those things that the SCOTUS wants to be decided by the states. This is of course, just my opinion.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Are you sure that the SCOTUS is 5-4 pro-gay? Six justices are Roman Catholic and three are Jewish. Five appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats.

I think that this is one of those things that the SCOTUS wants to be decided by the states. This is of course, just my opinion.
Not just your opinion here. Every news analyst covering SCOTUS is saying the same. They are not going to touch any case involving same-sex marriage, unless something like legal standing for a given state comes up, like it did with Perry.

BL.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Are you sure that the SCOTUS is 5-4 pro-gay?
If they weren't, DOMA would still be in place. If SCOTUS were forced to take up SSM because of a disagreement in appeals courts, it seems pretty obvious which they they would swing at this point. Not to mention, if they wanted to, they could have taken up one of these cases and ruled in favor of the states, but they let the low court rulings against the states stand. When you let a ruling stand, it implies that you condone it.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
If they weren't, DOMA would still be in place. If SCOTUS were forced to take up SSM because of a disagreement in appeals courts, it seems pretty obvious which they they would swing at this point. Not to mention, if they wanted to, they could have taken up one of these cases and ruled in favor of the states, but they let the low court rulings against the states stand. When you let a ruling stand, it implies that you condone it.
DOMA is a federal law. These are state laws. Big difference.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
DOMA is a federal law. These are state laws. Big difference.
Agreed. Someone would have to sue the United States for federal laws, and that would go straight to SCOTUS, with the AG being the defendant. We know how that story played out.

BL.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
Haters gonna hate.


“This decision not to decide, this action not to act, this represents the de facto Roe v. Wade of sodomy-based marriage,” Fischer fumed. “It’s gonna be virtually impossible now to stop this press and this push for nationalizing — imposing — on every state in the Union marriage that is based on the infamous crime against nature.”

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) head Brian S. Brown expressed hope in a statement would revisit the issue, but still called for conservative voters to push for an amendment to the Constitution banning marriage equality.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/bryan-fischer-freaks-out-over-supreme-court-inaction-on-sodomy-based-marriage/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
DOMA is a federal law. These are state laws. Big difference.
That is true. But if they found that the federal government is violating the constitutional rights of gay couples by not recognizing their married status, why would they allow a state to get away with violating a constitutional right? My opinion is that they would not. But I guess it remains to be seen, although I think today was a huge hint at where they stand.

----------

I guess its hard to accept being in the minority. A federal constitutional ban on gay marriage is mathematically impossible at this point. They could have probably successfully passed one a decade ago, but that ship has long sailed...