• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg

[B]Bloomberg said:
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected calls for a nationwide ruling on same-sex marriage, a rebuff that lets gays marry in as many as 11 new states and leaves legal uncertainty elsewhere.
The denial today of seven pending appeals defied predictions. Advocates on both sides had urged the justices to resolve the issue following a wave of lower court rulings that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights.

The rejection lets three federal appeals decisions take effect, legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana. Six other states -- Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina -- will likely follow because they fall under the jurisdiction of those appellate courts.
Those additions will bring the number of gay-marriage states to 30, plus the District of Columbia.

The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....
 
Last edited:
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg



The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....

Not exactly. The court refused to hear the case, leaving stand what the circuits have decided. The circuits, as you may recall, have consistently over-ruled the states to date, broaden SSM. Since the authority of the circuit is across state lines, the SCOTUS ruling has the effect of broadening the rulings of the circuits. In other words, since almost all circuit court verdicts have been to overturn statues on SSM, those rulings now will apply to states where the question has not yet come to court. As soon as someone in one of these states files, they will get an uncontested judgement in their favor, thus broadening SSM.

In an odd-way, this is a major victory for the SSM movement.
 
Last edited:
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg



The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....

The Supreme Court really can't avoid this issue forever. It will come back to them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where SSM is not recognized and demands equal treatment under the law. Likewise, when a gay couple who live in a state where SSM is not recognized travels to a state that does recognize it and legally marries only to return to their home state and demand equal treatment under their home state's laws.
 
All I can say is...

tumblr_mtk43gX7Fp1s7ikn2o1_400.gif
 
>




It always been one of the possibilities (accept writ, reject writ, and delay review to a later conference).


But I didn't think they had to balls to flat out refuse to review the case.


Under the "Rule of Four" it takes only 4 Justices of the 9 to accept a case for review. That means at least one of the 4 "conservative" Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) had to vote against review leaving the Appeals Court decision in place.



>>>>
 
The Supreme Court really can't avoid this issue forever. It will come back to them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where SSM is not recognized and demands equal treatment under the law. Likewise, when a gay couple who live in a state where SSM is not recognized travels to a state that does recognize it and legally marries only to return to their home state and demand equal treatment under their home state's laws.

I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.
 
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg



The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....

Every article I've read characterizes this as a big victory for SSM advocates as it allows them to continue their string of victories in the Federal courts and rejects efforts by states in those circuits to overturn the Federal rulings. This is upholds the power of the Federal courts to be used as a venue for overturning state marriage bans. According to remarks by Justice Ginsberg the court may be waiting to see if the more conservative 6th Circuit makes a decision at odds with the other circuits which would give them an impetus to overturn and make a final determination. As long as the Federal courts are upholding SSM the court seems content to let the ball keep rolling.
 
Last edited:
Every article I've read characterizes this as a big victory for SSM advocates as it allows them to continue their string of victories in the Federal courts and rejects efforts by states in those circuits to overturn the Federal rulings.

If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.
 
Not exactly. The court refused to hear the case, leaving stand what the circuits have decided. The circuits, as you may recall, have consistently over-ruled the states to date, broaden SSM. Since the authority of the circuit is across state lines, the SCOTUS ruling has the effect of broadening the rulings of the circuits. In other words, since almost all circuit court verdicts have been to overturn statues on SSM, those rulings now will apply to states where the question has not yet come to court. As soon as someone in one of these states files, they will get an uncontested judgement in their favor, thus broadening SSM.

In an odd-way, this is a major victory for the SSM movement.

I wouldn't say that it's a victory in an odd-way. Leaving the lower court decisions in place means almost the same as if they had decided on it (in favor of SSM). In essence, by not hearing the cases they're essentially saying that the decisions were correct.
 
If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.

Err... but the ruling upholds the Federal courts decisions and rejects the states efforts to seek remedy for those decisions. That is the opposite of what you're talking about.
 
This issue needs to be out to bed once and for all on a national level. It's exhausting.
 
There is no way to read this as anything other than a major rebuff to SSM opponents and an affirmation of the decisions of the Federal courts.
 
The Supreme Court really can't avoid this issue forever. It will come back to them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where SSM is not recognized and demands equal treatment under the law. Likewise, when a gay couple who live in a state where SSM is not recognized travels to a state that does recognize it and legally marries only to return to their home state and demand equal treatment under their home state's laws.

That has already happened. Until there is a split in the appeals circuits, which is likely when the 6th circuit of appeals finally makes their ruling, there is nothing to push SCOTUS to take up the appeals. And if the unlikely event occurs that there is never a split in the appeals circuits, meaning that every appeals court rules the same way, then SCOTUS could theoretically never take up the issue.
 
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.

I can kind of get behind this idea. The only place I think that the federal government needs to step in though, is to say that if a state is going to recognize marriages from another state as valid, they must recognize ALL marriages from another state as valid. They can't pick and choose.
 
The decision will also effectively legalize SSM in 30 states, if the 9th Circuit also rules positively then it could expand to 35, if the 6th Circuit goes you'll have 39. This is the beginning of the end and hopefully we can soon put this issue behind us.
 
There is no precedent for a SCOTUS ruling. There is not circuit conflict as of yet, which is generally why they would take up a case like this. In the case that circuit conflict arises, it would be shocking to see them not take it up.
 
If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.

To put it simply, this denial of review by SCOTUS allows federal court rulings over 11 states that effectively ends state bans on same sex marriage in those states, and you see that as a victory for states rights? Do I have that right?
 
Err... but the ruling upholds the Federal courts decisions and rejects the states efforts to seek remedy for those decisions. That is the opposite of what you're talking about.

My overall point is clear though no? I don't want the SCOTUS making a ruling for all 50 states.
 
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.

Roberts, although he is very conservative, he is not anti gay. I had a friend who was very close to the Supremes who is in a long time same sex relationship, same for the late Chief Justice Rhenquist. It is now legal in 30 states, it will be over 40 states very soon. And it is a good thing, a same sex marriage hurts no one, and the majority of the public has no problem with it.
 
To put it simply, this denial of review by SCOTUS allows federal court rulings over 11 states that effectively ends state bans on same sex marriage in those states, and you see that as a victory for states rights? Do I have that right?

See post #21
 
Back
Top Bottom