I have to admit – I am stunned by this. In 5 states (WI, VA, OK, UT, IN), bans on SSM were stricken and declared unconstitutional. The 5 states appealed these decision. SCOTUS refused the appeal, without comment. Given the inconsistency in the various jurisdictions, I thought for certain SCOTUS would take up the case.
So, what message is being sent? One guess is that SCOTUS is deferring to states rights rather making a “national” decision on SSM. But, it could just be a matter of SCOTUS waiting for more decision from more jurisdictions before weighing in.
Bottom line - SSM is now legal in those 5 states.
**
**
**
*The U.S. 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. *
Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30.*
The lower courts in 5 states overturned SSM bans, making SSM legal. The 5 states appealed. The Court rejected the appeal. So, SSM is now legal in those 5 states.
The lower courts in 5 states overturned SSM bans, making SSM legal. The 5 states appealed. The Court rejected the appeal. So, SSM is now legal in those 5 states.
Those states appealed directory to the Supreme Court, did they not? So the states are now free to use the actual appeals process that they tried to bypass; perhaps the SC will hear those appeals.
*The U.S. 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. *
Is it really a surprise move?
Those damned homosexuals with their damned agenda. These judges are obviously on the take.
Yep! I actually received a text alert earlier this morning from one of the reporting services the firm uses. But, I could not cut and paste the story, so, I pulled the Drudge-cited link.
The lower courts in 5 states overturned SSM bans, making SSM legal. The 5 states appealed. The Court rejected the appeal. So, SSM is now legal in those 5 states.
Those states appealed directory to the Supreme Court, did they not? So the states are now free to use the actual appeals process that they tried to bypass; perhaps the SC will hear those appeals.
IN and WI appealed the decision of the 7th Circuit that was rendered in September. So, their appeals procedure has been extinguished. Not certain about the other 3 states.
*The U.S. 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. *
Is it really a surprise move?
Those damned homosexuals with their damned agenda. These judges are obviously on the take.
Yes. See my edited OP. I really am surprised SCOTUS rejected the case given the inconsistencies in the various appellate courts.
It is amazing to me how quickly this issue has turned, both in the courts and in public opinion.
If people aren’t careful I may hold out some hope for humanity.
Yep. In WI, we have a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman. I am embarrassed to say it passed in 2006 with 59% of the vote (thus banning SSM in WI). That was a mere 8 years ago. Recent polling suggests that 60-65% of the WI electorate would vote against that amendment (thus, they would support SSM) if the vote were held today. That’s pretty amazing.
I have to admit – I am stunned by this. In 5 states (WI, VA, OK, UT, IN), bans on SSM were stricken and declared unconstitutional. The 5 states appealed these decision. SCOTUS refused the appeal, without comment. Given the inconsistency in the various jurisdictions, I thought for certain SCOTUS would take up the case.
So, what message is being sent? One guess is that SCOTUS is deferring to states rights rather making a “national” decision on SSM. But, it could just be a matter of SCOTUS waiting for more decision from more jurisdictions before weighing in.
Bottom line - SSM is now legal in those 5 states.
**
**
**
*The U.S. 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. *
Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that struck down the bans will also be affected, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30.*
If they were deferring to the State’s rights they would have taken it up and rejected the appeals courts’ decisions. I think that they are looking for a “cleaner” case where they can make a decisive ruling one way or the other without it being to case specific.
Yeah, trying to read the tea leaves is often a fool’s errand.
But, here, I dunno. You had 5 states from 4 appellate jurisdictions (4th, 7th, 10th). You had state statutes and state constitutions at play. SCOTUS did not have to take all of them on appeal. Not sure how they figure they will get a cleaner case.
Given the inconsistency in the various jurisdictions, I thought for certain SCOTUS would take up the case.
Post-Windsor, which appellate decisions had upheld SSM bans? I only recall one district ruling. That is possibly why they deferred, there wasn’t any inconsistency at the circuit level.
Yeah, trying to read the tea leaves is often a fool’s errand.
But, here, I dunno. You had 5 states from 4 appellate jurisdictions (4th, 7th, 10th). You had state statutes and state constitutions at play. SCOTUS did not have to take all of them on appeal. Not sure how they figure they will get a cleaner case.
Remember the cases from DC and Chicago for the 2nd Amend.? They rejected case after case (or decided on technical grounds) until they got a case on point where they could say the 2nd Amend. is incorporated. It’s possible they don’t want to do anything until they see how things shake out more, but who knows. . . . I forget the process for taking up the case is this where if 4 (?) say yes they take it up or is this where just one justice decides? I’d like to know the reasoning for rejection but know that isn’t happening.
It is amazing to me how quickly this issue has turned, both in the courts and in public opinion.
If people aren’t careful I may hold out some hope for humanity.
Yep. In WI, we have a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman. I am embarrassed to say it passed in 2006 with 59% of the vote (thus banning SSM in WI). That was a mere 8 years ago. Recent polling suggests that 60-65% of the WI electorate would vote against that amendment (thus, they would support SSM) if the vote were held today. That’s pretty amazing.
The demographics are strongly against these bans. The “problem” is the young people are no longer terrorized into the closet and as such young people are growing up with openly gay friends and such. Only a matter of time before people who oppose SSM are viewed as backwards as the racial bigots of the 50’s and 60’s. I know in Maine it was a only a few years between the flip from a no to a yes vote on SSM.
Now that I think about it, you may be right. The cases I was thinking about have not been decided by the appellate courts yet.
There are cases pending in the 6th and 9th Circuits. It is quite possible SCOTUS is waiting on those decision. Still surprised b/c they had really “clean” cases with these 5 states.
The 10th, 7th and 4th circuit courts all agreed that bans were unconstitutional, and and it is widely assumed that the 9th will also concur. That leaves an upcoming decision in the 6th, and a future ruling in the 5th (which contains the only recent district ruling upholding bans on SSM). If all circuit courts concur, is there any need for a SCOTUS ruling?
BTW, here is a Circuit Court map (for other folks):
The 10th, 7th and 4th circuit courts all agreed that bans were unconstitutional, and and it is widely assumed that the 9th will also concur. That leaves an upcoming decision in the 6th, and a future ruling in the 5th (which contains the only recent district ruling upholding bans on SSM). If all circuit courts concur, is there any need for a SCOTUS ruling?
If all the courts of appeal agree, then, SCOTUS can simply say, there is no indecision among the appeallate courts, therefore, we decline to disturb those rulings. Perhaps they are waiting for that, but, I think the 5th is going to uphold the SSM ban. So, perhaps SCOTUS is waiting for that.
There is, however, some uncertaintly regarding the status of certain SS marriages. Now, in WI and IN, the 7th made it clear those marriages are legal and recognized. I think (but am not positive) that there is still some dispute about that in at least one (if not all) of the other 3 states.
