Supreme court refuses to hear gay marriage appeals

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
I am really disappointed the supreme court turned away the issue of gay marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/06/supreme-court-denies-gay-marriage-appeals/

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

Why am I not surprised? It is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding human rights.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
I'm not surprised at all.

The supreme court should have taken the case and put this matter to rest.

But like I have said in various other threads, it is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding human rights.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Nope, there's no need for them to take the case up as the matter had been decided at a state level. Now the decisions in those and similar states will become a precedence and other states will have to follow suit. Done deal, SSM will become the law of the land in short order.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,982
3,318
126
Why am I not surprised? It is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding human rights.
Human rights? Just like proposition 8 in California?? The will of the majority to deny the rights of the few...
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Nope, there's no need for them to take the case up as the matter had been decided at a state level. Now the decisions in those and similar states will become a precedence and other states will have to follow suit. Done deal, SSM will become the law of the land in short order.

Egads, how could that be? Everyone knows that if the SCOTUS doesn't impose things on us by judicial fiat in Roe v. Wade style that social change would never happen. What fun is it to have to actually persuade people and work through the democratic process to get what you want?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,251
48,452
136
Egads, how could that be? Everyone knows that if the SCOTUS doesn't impose things on us by judicial fiat in Roe v. Wade style that social change would never happen. What fun is it to have to actually persuade people and work through the democratic process to get what you want?

You realize that gay marriage has been legalized in a huge percentage of states by "judicial fiat" as it is, right? It's just district and appeals courts instead of the Supreme Court.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
The supreme court should have taken the case and put this matter to rest.

But like I have said in various other threads, it is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding human rights.


1) At this point, the Federal Circuit Courts are ALL stating the same. There is no conflict that requires SCOTUS intervention.

2) If the US Circuit Court for Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi rules differently, then I expect that SCOTUS will take up the issue.

If the Federal government, individual states and lower Federal courts are cleaning up the issue of human rights; there is no compelling need for SCOTUS to get involved.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
You have a number of sincerely conservative justices on the Supreme Court who could not rule in favor of gay marriage. Scalia, Alito and Thomas, for example, would never be on the supporting opinion. At the same time, all Circuit Court rulings to reach the Supreme Court has been the same decision. Overturning those decisions would be difficult and extremely unlikely. Roberts has already shown himself to be pragmatic enough not to be on the wrong side of history with the ACA, even though he ruled in favor of DOMA.

With that said, it would be likely that the SC would rule to uphold the Circuit Courts 5-4 or 6-3. And in doing so, it would put the conservative component of the Supreme Court in the position of writing a dissent against it. I don't think they want to do that, for historical reasons. Still, there are many ways you can parse the outcome from this non-decision.

On one side it makes gay marriage immediately legal in a number of states that had their appeals denied. It is now immediately legal in Utah, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Virginia. So it provides immediate relief to gays in those states. Had the court taken up the cases, they would not have had the right to marry until the court, hopefully, ruled in their favor sometime next year. Cases pending in the Circuit Courts that had been held in favor of waiting on the Supreme Court will now proceed. In Colorado, the Tenth District, the Circuit Court had stayed a lower court ruling overturning the laws there. They did this, even though they had decided in favor of overturning the laws in Utah and Oklahoma. With no appeals left on their own decision, it is likely they will quickly uphold and release the stay on the Colorado decision as it is already aligned with their previous decision. There are affirmative cases that can be upheld sitting at the Circuit Court levels in three more districts, including District Five (Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas), District Six (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) and District Nine (a number of western states where gay marriage is already legal, but also including Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada). If these cases proceed and the courts rule in favor of gay marriage, it is likely the courts will no longer stay their decisions pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The other Circuit Courts would likely decide that since the Supreme Court had not heard appeals on the decisions from the Fourth, Tenth and Seventh Circuit Courts today they would probably not hear an appeal coming from their districts as well.

So in essence, the Supreme Court has likely mortally wounded, but not killed, gay marriage laws in the United States.

But in some sense it's a cowardly decision because it will take more time for each state to process it's own judicial action to overturn all the gay marriage bans. The Supreme Court, by not taking on any of the cases today, has stated to all the lower cases that they would not overturn their decisions. Already over 50% of Americans live in states with legalized gay marriage. The Supreme Court will not change its mind next year when that will be an even larger percentage. So the Supreme Court is ready to affirm the Circuit Court decisions now. Yet the still chose not to. While it permits gay couples to get married immediately in five states, it denies hope to gay couples in other states for immediate relief next year. They will have to wait even longer. That is justice delayed.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Nope, there's no need for them to take the case up as the matter had been decided at a state level. Now the decisions in those and similar states will become a precedence and other states will have to follow suit. Done deal, SSM will become the law of the land in short order.

Correct. The court need not rule when they agree with the appellate ruling. Given that federal law demands recognition of marriages performed in other states, it mostly is already, and this non-ruling settles it.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You realize that gay marriage has been legalized in a huge percentage of states by "judicial fiat" as it is, right? It's just district and appeals courts instead of the Supreme Court.

With the exception of a federal court striking down CA Prop 8, most of the early adopters intitiated same-sex marriage either by state supreme court ruling, act of legislature, or voter initiative rather than federal courts. I agree recently that federal courts are starting to take a more leading role but when they are it's one state at a time rather than blanket ruling.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,287
24,339
136
With the exception of a federal court striking down CA Prop 8, most of the early adopters intitiated same-sex marriage either by state supreme court ruling, act of legislature, or voter initiative rather than federal courts. I agree recently that federal courts are starting to take a more leading role but when they are it's one state at a time rather than blanket ruling.

It becomes more than a single state once the appeals court for the circuit renders a decision then it sets a precedent for the entire circuit. States with bans still on the books in circuits where the appeals court has already ruled are going to see their state bans fall fast.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,421
477
126
Marriage is state issue. Since the USSC made its original decisions they aren't going to hear anymore cases. The writing is on the wall and the gamaphobes better start learning to read.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Marriage is state issue. Since the USSC made its original decisions they aren't going to hear anymore cases. The writing is on the wall and the gamaphobes better start learning to read.

Seriously, what's a "gamaphobe"?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
It's a new word I have coined

GAyMArriagePHOBE - any against equal rights with respect to marriage.

A "phobia" is a fear...the word you're looking for is "anti" -- but I guess when people are only interesting in deliberately stigmatizing those who don't agree with them, rational thought ceases to exist.

Lol, left-dums.