SCOTUS refuses to hear appeals of Same Sex Marriage rulings, marriage will be legal in 30 States

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Going with a ScotusBlog report, since they are fairly non-subjective:

First Monday surprise on same-sex marriage: In Plain English
In June 2013, in United States v. Windsor, a divided Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which until then had defined “marriage” – for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs – as a union between a man and a woman. The Court’s five-to-four decision meant that same-sex couples who had been married in states where same-sex unions were permitted would have the same right as opposite-sex couples to, for example, file joint federal tax returns.

But on the same day, the Court sidestepped a ruling on whether the Constitution includes a right to marry someone of the same sex. Also by a vote of five to four, it ruled instead that supporters of California’s ban on same-sex marriage did not have a right to defend the ban on appeal when state officials had chosen not to do so. Within days, same-sex marriages resumed in California.

We all assumed that the issue would be back again at the Court before too long, and that expectation only increased as lower federal courts around the country started to rely on the Court’s decision in Windsor to strike down other states’ bans on same-sex marriage – in Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Wisconsin. All told, by last Monday the Court had before it seven different petitions asking the Court to weigh in on whether states can prohibit same-sex marriage. With all of the parties on both sides in all of the cases in agreement that the Supreme Court should take up the question, review seemed inevitable.

Until this morning at 9:30, when the Court turned down all seven of the petitions, without comment. It was an unusually chaotic scene in the Court’s press room even for a big announcement day. The Court reveals which cases it will or will not review in a document known as the “order list.” Today’s order list was particularly long: over eighty pages. The problem for reporters today was that over a third of those pages – roughly thirty pages – were missing from the hard copy that was distributed to them. And the electronic version of the order list, which might have filled in the gaps, was not yet available (or at least very difficult to find) on the Court’s newly revamped website. But eventually it became clear that the same-sex marriage petitions had been denied, and the analysis kicked in: why did the Court decide to turn down all seven petitions, and what does this mean going forward?

On the first question – why did the Court decide to deny review, when it had granted review in the Proposition 8 case less than two years ago? – all we can do is speculate. Although the Justices do sometimes write short opinions to explain why they are not reviewing a particular case (or why they think the Court should have reviewed the case), they don’t have to, and no one opted to do so today. A few weeks ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suggested that the Court might pass on the cases this time around because all of the federal appeals courts that have considered the issue so far have struck down state bans, eliminating any need for the Court to step in to resolve disagreements among the lower courts (a factor that the Court often considers in deciding whether to grant review). But that probably isn’t the whole story. After all, the Justices often take cases even though there is no division among the lower courts because at least four of them (the number needed to grant review) think that there is nonetheless an important issue at stake. (Bush v. Gore comes to mind here.)

Strategy may have also played a role in the decision to deny review. The Court’s four more liberal Justices – Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – may have been content to leave well enough alone, from their perspective. Put another way, they may have preferred to let the tide of decisions striking down state bans continue to flow steadily, rather than risk a broader decision which might turn back that tide altogether.

What is harder to imagine is why some of the Court’s more conservative Justices didn’t join forces to grant review. Indeed, it was nearly impossible to fathom that they would allow the lower-court decisions striking down state bans on same-sex marriage to go into effect without a fight, even if (as the conventional wisdom has surmised) they remained concerned about their ability to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy to join them in upholding the bans. But apparently they did, and we may never know the full story until a Justice’s private papers are released, many years from now.

The second question – what happens next – requires less guesswork. The short answer is that same-sex marriage will be legal in the five states whose bans were at issue before the Court. Things are already moving quickly. In Indiana, county clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples this afternoon, and same-sex marriage ceremonies started in Virginia just after 1 p.m. today.

But today’s orders will have a broader impact as well. Specifically, because the Court let stand the lower court decisions striking down the five bans, those decisions and their reasoning become the law of the land for other states whose federal appeals are heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth (Virginia), Seventh (Indiana and Wisconsin), and Tenth (Utah and Oklahoma) Circuits. This means that, although they were not directly before the Court, bans in North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Colorado, Kansas, and Wyoming are also effectively dead. That would bring the number of states where same-sex marriages are legal to thirty.

To be sure, there are four other federal appeals courts that are currently considering challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. A ruling by at least one of them that states can prohibit same-sex marriage would create the kind of disagreement among the lower courts that might spur the Court to grant review. But meanwhile thousands of same-sex marriages are likely to take place in the states where it is now permitted, and public support for those marriages will probably continue to grow. So even if at some later point in time there are four Justices willing to take on the same-sex marriage question, it may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Time will tell

.

**whembly**

So that means we can finally put this to rest?

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not quite, still lots of ways that it can play out.

Right now, all 30 states affected by the previous ruling have parity. The other 20 states are still up in the air. How this proceeds from here is entirely up to those district courts and how they view the decision by the SCOTUS:

1) If they decide that the refusal to hear the appeal should count as a precedent towards striking down other bans they can continue the current trend of legalizing it district by district. The SCOTUS could still decide to become involved at some later point with one of those cases. The justices might be happy to let everything legalize without them getting their hands dirty, or one group of judges might be hoping to make a decision (pro or con) when the makeup is more favorable at a later time and they want to avoid having a SCOTUS ruling before that.
2) If any of the remaining districts rule that a ban is legal, then it will become a SCOTUS case later.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

**Dreadclaw69**

Good on the Supreme Court

**Co'tor Shas**

Yeah, wohoo! For a supreme court I disagree with so much, they have made some good decisions too.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.

Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.

Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.

Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.

Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.

Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.

Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".

My biggest beef against him is this subject matter. So much facepalming...

And no, he's NOT a good GOP Prez candidate.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.

Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.

Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.

Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".

And when people talk about the GOP they parade Cruz in front of voters and say "is this the kind of person you guys want running the country, because if you vote Republican this is what you get".

If you don't see the damage Cruz does to the GOP then you have not learned your lesson from the 2012 GOP primaries and the general election.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.

Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.

Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.

Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".

And when people talk about the GOP they parade Cruz in front of voters and say "is this the kind of person you guys want running the country, because if you vote Republican this is what you get".

If you don't see the damage Cruz does to the GOP then you have not learned your lesson from the 2012 GOP primaries and the general election.

We'll see in a few weeks... eh?

**Frazzled**

Does this mean SCOTUS DON'T WANT TO HEAR DAT?

The whole issue bores me now. My funmeter is low.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

Not as long as the republican party can get easy votes from the religious right by fighting to the death to stop gay marriage, no matter how weak their legal argument is.

Yeah... that's one reason why they suck.

Cruz is planning on submitting legislation to "protect" state's right to define marriage.

Cruz might end up being the person that manages to do the most long term damage to the GOP.

Thats because he's a Canadian spy.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:

Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".

I will agree that he is not afraid to bring "it"; while simultaneously feeling obligated to point out "it" is the worst part of American politics: conspiracy theorism, pandering, and American-taliban style social mores.

**Frazzled**

Did I mention he's a spy. He's the Manchurian candidate, if the Manchurian candidate ate Time Horton's maple flavored donuts. Mmmm Tim Hortons....

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a lot of Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!

**Co'tor Shas**

I prefer maple syrup candy. Now that stuff is good.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:

Eh... dunno about that. One of the things I like about him is that we all know where he stands, and is not afraid to "bring it".

I will agree that he is not afraid to bring "it"; while simultaneously feeling obligated to point out "it" is the worst part of American politics: conspiracy theorism, pandering, and American-taliban style social mores.

I'll agree on pandering (which is a strange criticism as all politicians do this).

But "conspiracy theorism" and "American-taliban style social mores"???

Me think thou protest much.

**Frazzled**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a some Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!

Corrected your typo.

The problem with wedding cakes is that you have to go to weddings to have them. Why can't I skip the middle man? OH my I just realized I can if I order one myself. Oh dude I think I just gained 20 lbs.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a some Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!

Corrected your typo.

The problem with wedding cakes is that you have to go to weddings to have them. Why can't I skip the middle man? OH my I just realized I can if I order one myself. Oh dude I think I just gained 20 lbs.

A lot doesn't necessarily mean a majority. There are a lot of people in jail.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Indeed, Co'tor Shas has the right of it.

**cincydooley**

I'll be happy when all this is over with.

I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.

Additionally, I think any cake purveyor (and any private business, honestly) should be able to make discriminating choices regarding their customers as much as they want. Businesses already do it in 'soft' ways by targetting specific demographics. If you want your business to be predicated on bigotry, you should be afforded the old college try. I'm of the belief that in 2014 those businesses--and by those I mean those based in bigotry--have no shot in hell of being terribly successful, although Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP prove me wrong every day.

**Co'tor Shas**

Only if I'm allowed to throw rotten fruit and veg at them.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only if I'm allowed to throw rotten fruit and veg at them.

Sure, you'd be breaking the law by assaulting them, but that's your choice.

IMO the more likely scenario is that people would picket them and send them a social media Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n until they were forced to close.

I personally think its nonsense that it's already happened , but we, for better or worse, live in a society where social media mob rule pretty much rules the roost, often at the expense of facts or rationality.

**PhantomViper**

Yes! How dare they, those social media irrational mob rulers! Not allowing someone to break the law just because they are bigots! Shame on them, shame on them for sure!

Just imagine if Rosa Parks had happened in our times, all that it would be needed to change the policy on racial segregation was a social media shitstorm directed at the bus company, none of these "civil rights" nonsense would have been needed...

/sarcasm, just because I'm pretty sure that someone will think that I'm actually supporting these bigots...

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

cincydooley wrote:
I personally think its nonsense that it's already happened , but we, for better or worse, live in a society where social media mob rule pretty much rules the roost, often at the expense of facts or rationality.

There is so much more ads that actual content on this page that this is physically painful. Figuratively, of course.

**cincydooley**

PhantomViper wrote:

Just imagine if Rosa Parks had happened in our times, all that it would be needed to change the policy on racial segregation was a social media shitstorm directed at the bus company, none of these "civil rights" nonsense would have been needed...

Well, the big difference is that this isn't the pre-60s South where the segregation and bigotry was not only acceptable, but it was on full display. I personally think there's a huge world of difference between that and the gay marriage movement today, particularly in regards to forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings they're morally opposed to.

And yes, I know this is where the "well your religion is ignorant and hateful" crowd comes in.

Despite all that, I don't particularly like where we (the US) is headed with all of this, "If you don't share my opinion, I should put you out of business" nonsense, particularly in regards to the wedding cake situation. But, you know, I'm sure there aren't any queer bakers in the great northwest that would have been willing to make their cake.

And thats really the part I don't get. No one is forcing you to go there. The beauty of capitalism is that you have choice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I personally think its nonsense that it's already happened , but we, for better or worse, live in a society where social media mob rule pretty much rules the roost, often at the expense of facts or rationality.

There is so much more ads that actual content on this page that this is physically painful. Figuratively, of course.

Yeah, there really are. Honestly, I typically try to link more liberal media outlets when I link articles because so many people here refuse to acknowledge them if they come from anything more right leaning than HuffPo.

**Co'tor Shas**

HuffPo? That's essentially the liberal fox news. I'd suggest the washington post, NYT, BBC, or NPR. Much better reporting quality, and not extremely biased.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
HuffPo? That's essentially the liberal fox news. I'd suggest the washington post, NYT, BBC, or NPR. Much better reporting quality, and not extremely biased.

That was sort of my point

Though I do think it's fun that you think the Washington Post, NPR, and NYT are moderate and unbiased

.

Sadly, the BBC and Al-Jazeera USA (surprisingly good!) don't typically cover these types of stories that are unique to the colonies.

**Co'tor Shas**

I never said they were, I just said they were better.

Honestly, NPR gets a lot of flack and, although it's opinion pieces are generally liberal, it has some of the highest quality reporting out there. That is the point of their existance, reporting that isn't biased by a corperation who gets it's money from corporations paying for add space. NYT has a slight liberal bias, and (IIRC) Washington Post has a slight Conservative one. Really, the so-called "liberal bais" in media can be easily explained by the fact that those who get into news are often liberal, and being a reporter tends to open up knew points of view.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd also add, if it's written by the AP, it's probably good as well.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
(IIRC) Washington Post has a slight Conservative one. Really, the so-called "liberal bais" in media can be easily explained by the fact that those who get into news are often liberal, and being a reporter tends to open up knew points of view.

I think the WashPost being slightly conservative (well, its honestly moving more towards libertarian/constitutionalists than anything-yay!) is a relatively new occurrence.

I'd argue that "those that get into the news are often liberal" is more a product of "those that get into the news did the news in college and are relatively young, and being conservative in college makes you fairly unpopular."