The Supreme Court expands Gay Marriage in the US

Post Reply New Topic

The Supreme court just denied to take up cases from 5 States where lower courts had overturned gay marriage bans.

Although it is not uncommon for SCOTUS to reject cases, this decision actually has a fairly wide impact: Since the lower courts (the 4th and 10th Circuit) had ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, these ruling are now upheld - thus making gay marriage legal in the states of Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

As a response, Pew Research has provided an overview of the current state of affairs wrt. gay marriage in the US (including the effects of the SCOTUS ruling):



Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -marriage/

Furthermore, gay marriage will likely soon become legal in the states of Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming, where gay marriage bans are also challenged in Court... as these states fall under the jurisdication of the 4th or 10th Circuit, respectively - And similar rulings are thus likely to be reached.

However, even though gay marriage has thus expanded significantly in the US, the question of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans at the state level is not completely resolved. SCOTUS has yet to issue a final ruling on the issue, and the latest case before SCOTUS - The Californian Proposition 8 Case - was rejected due to lack of standing.

Please discuss.

I think it is pretty cowardly of the Supreme Court to not take up the issue, while I support gay marriage I don't see how it can all the sudden be legalized in my home state of Wisconsin since there was a constitutional ban on it and even if you struck down the ban there is no statute for it. I don't see how these lower courts can decide such an issue in these states, either the Supreme Court rules on it or it should be left to the legislatures or voters of these states. I think eventually they will have to. The Supreme Court is pretty much a big joke, they're now so partisan and cowardly that the idea that they're any check on power in this system is a fantasy. Everything about them is political.

What is disgusting is that this is an issue that is past being ripe for the SCOTUS to hear, but by passing on it, they not only let the appellate decision stand (which isn't truly "final") but it allows same-sex unions to continue.

I see this as a back-door way to approve it. I am willing to put up money that WHEN the SCOTUS ever decides to hear the matter, they will ignore any jurisprudential argument against same-sex marriage on the sole position that it's been in place for X years with Y thousands of same-sex "marriages" already out there and it would be detrimental to reverse all of that at the federal level.

Their only other option would be to say it's a state's rights issue and say the federal government has no say on the topic of who can marry in any given state, but they would uphold marriages in a state that allows it in states that prohibit it....requiring only that a person get married in another state if they can't do so in their own.

I am willing to put money that when the SCOTUS hears the issue, their conclusion will be some variation on "there's no reason to ban gay marriage". I quite respect them for not even bothering to point that out and just telling the homophobes to stop wasting their time.

There's no statute required permitting you to breathe and eat. Powers not enumerated by government constitution are implicitly reserved by free citizens.

Either it is a federal issue or its not, letting a lower court decision stands instead of ruling on the case is just cowardly to me and shows you how much they've outlived their usefulness. Everything they do is completely political and partisan, they're not a legitimate check on the balance of power anymore. Their reluctance of taking up the issue of gay marriage because it would lead SCOTUS into "uncharted waters" might make more sense if by not ruling they wouldn't be letting a lower court to chart those same waters. It seems like the arguments here is very legally shaky, it seems like they're more concerned about the outcome than the actual legality. It is not a precedent I think anybody wants to set.

If that's their position, they should "come out of the closet" and just hear the damn case and get it over with. They want the illusion of not being for it while clearly acting in a manner to support it. You really can't have it both ways.

The duplicity is disgusting, and if the rule of law actually does not support same-sex marriage, they are allowing the law to be perverted (sic) every day they deliberately choose to NOT hear the case.

There is a similar issue with the topic of income taxation. There was a federal case (the only case) on the constitutionality of the income tax. In that one case, it was clearly established by the documented records of the several states that the US government used fraud and deceit to make people think that income taxation was sufficiently ratified when it was not. The court did not dispute that evidence. Rather, the court stated that because the income tax had been in place for several decades already, it would be contrary to "public policy" to reverse it as unconstitutional. That ruling flew in the face of superior jurisprudential rules such as "a party who commits fraud can not be allowed to benefit from their fraudulent behavior" and the overall "rule of law" this country is supposed to operate under. Not one federal appellate court will touch the topic since this case, and all later challenges defer to this lowest-court ruling on the issue.

Avoiding a topic only allows bad law to continue unabated. Let it go long enough, and they can use "public policy" to negate the rule of law altogether.

These cases were decided at a federal level. It was unlikely for the supreme court to take them up in the first place, considering multiple federal courts ruling the same way. Their decision not to hear the cases allowed the district courts' rulings to stand.

If one of the federal district courts comes up with a different ruling on a similar case in the future, the SCOTUS will almost definitely take it up at the first opportunity.

The problem is with our court system in general. It is cowardly from the lowest traffic court all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The same judge one minute will say: "I agree, your constitutional rights are being denied / violated, therefore I rule in your favor" one minute, and then the next minute they say "despite that, because your opponent can appeal this ruling, I will stay its implementation and allow you to continue suffering without your constitutional rights for a period of potentially several years while the appeal unfolds, despite the fact that you will never be able to recover the years you spent without those rights, thus causing you permanent, irrevocable harm, and despite the fact that were my ruling to be implemented immediately, it would infringe on none of your opponents right's and not cause them any harm whatsoever."

So, apparently, its ok for a Judge to agree on one hand that a person or group of people have certain constitutional rights, and then literally suspend those rights for years. I cannot fathom how that is allowed to happen, or the fact that it happens routinely without anyone even batting an eye.

What the Supreme Court has just done is even worse. They seem to have acknowledged that there are parts of the country where people's constitutional rights on this issue are being denied, but rather than rectify it all at once, as is in their power to do, they will let it drag on potentially for many more years while some people's rights are being denied to them. All, apparently, because the Supreme Court doesn't want to rule on a divisive issue - which, by the way, is their F'ing job and the only reason for the court's existence.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been, is, and probably always will be, completely above the law. They can go through the motions of writing opinions filled with all sorts of legal reasonings and justification, but at the end of the day each justice is 100% free to vote whichever way they want on any case simply because they feel like it, using whatever justification they feel like, no matter how absurd it is. They could literally say "Gay marriage is (or is not) Constitutional simply because I'm cranky today since my wife packed a peanut butter and jeally sandwich in my lunch and I was really looking forward to egg salad on rye!" and there would be no consequence to them what-so-ever - the only consequence would be that the rest of the country would have to live with the decision.

I would prefer for the Supreme Court to do what they had done for gay civil rights what they had done for African American civil rights many years ago. But regardless, if this gets the job done, and gives our gay brothers and sisters equal rights in all things - including marriage - then so be it.

Exactly.

The SC SHOULD pussyfoot around on this because the SC is being saddled with something that is not its job to do- which is to create law where there are gaps in laws. Thats the job of the legislature. Not of the courts. Courts interpret law. Legislators create law.

The last time the SCOTUS acted decisively in this situation (in which it was asked to do something that was not its job) was 1856. And the result was the Dred Scott Decision- the single worst thing that the Supreme Court ever did!

The issue then was slavery.Some states allowed it. Some did not (like some states allow SSM today, and some do not). As with the differing state laws on SSM it created problems and contradictions ( if a slave escapes to a free state is he free- or is he still property? If a slave owner brings a slave valet with him to a free state on a business trip- is the valet still a slave, or is he free?). A slave named Dred Scott sued for his freedom and it went to the SCOTUS. The final decision: No Black person (slave or free) has "rights a White man need respect".

I would rather they pussyfoot around then for them to make another Dred Scott Decision!

And besides- how can anyone judge any law pertaining to same sex marriage (allowing or banning it) according to its "constitutionality" anyway?

Staring at the Constitution to get guidance on this issue makes about as much sense as staring at sheep entrails to get guidence from the Zeus!

I realize that the Founding Fathers never thought about the internet, but even so their insights about the use of the printing press (for example) can be applied to use of later communication technology.

But the framers didnt have anything to say (as far as I know) about martrimony.None of the Founding Fathers likely ever thought about same sex marriage. So how can anyone even guess what the "intent" of the Founding Fathers would be about same sex marriage?

IMHO we as country had better make up our minds which way it is-one way or the other- pretty soon. And decide on a national level whether or not legalize SSM, or not. And we should saddle Congress with that job, and not the SC.

I have to disagree. If a state passed a law that said "white people may ride buses" but had no law saying that black people may or may not ride buses, and there were court cases where one side was trying to deny black people the ability to ride a bus, is this really a "gap in the law" that the courts should not step in to? In the case of gay marriage, we have some states with explicit exclusion (those who define marriage as only between a man and a woman) while there are other states who do not have laws that say marriage is only between a man and a woman, but have provisions in their laws for men and women to marry each other but not for two people of the same gender to marry each other. This is not explicit exclusion, but its also a lack of inclusion for gay people. If that's a "gap in the law" that the court should not step into, I don't think so - I think its pretty clear by the 14th amendment that you cannot frame a law in such a way that its protections and benefits exclude certain groups or only include certain groups.



That's a very exaggerated danger. What, any issue where one side wishes to maintain the status quo, they can just haul out Dred Scott and claim that the court might make another grievous error of the same magnitude? Please. The worst that happens here is that the court incorrectly secures for one side, in perpetuity, a right to which they are not really entitled. Or they improperly deny that right in perpetuity.


Very easily - a SSM law, or any law, is either allowed under the constitution, or its not. The constitution gives the federal government certain powers, and reserves the remainder for the states. States take powers for themselves in their own constitution, and grant powers to counties within those states, etc. But the US constitution includes provisions that applies to all (for instance that the United States guarantees to all states a Republican form of government),like the 14th amendment. So a court simply needs to look at a law, compare it to what is allowed and what is not allowed under the Constitution, and decide.


No, the Constitution does not need to explicitly discuss marriage for its provisions to apply to laws about marriage. All laws within the United States stem from provisions in the Constitution. There are thousands of laws on thousands of topics that are not discussed in the Constitution explicitly, but are none the less valid due to the framework that the Constitution lays out for passing laws and the powers of various national, state and local government entities.



Its way beyond intent of the founding fathers. The most relevant amendment is the 14th which was ratified well after the founding fathers had passed on.

Speaking of the Dredd Scott Decision - I've noticed how idiots on the far right, such as Fischer, Huckelby, and others have likened the Supreme Court's lack of action - thus leading to the knocking down of laws forbidding same sex marriage by lower courts - to Dredd Scott! Yes, they believe overturning the second class citizenship status of some Americans is comparable to supporting slavery.

Abolishing second class citizenship = creating second class citizenship.

That IS a strange equation.

It's going to be legal in every state. All those bans will be struck down, it was just struck down in Arizona yesterday making legal. I think the thing to remember here is to remind people that the constitution and bible are two different things. We are a constitutional republic, not a religious theocracy.

Amen!