If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!
We are beginning the week with yet another lower federal court ruling concerning same-sex marriage recognition and licensing by a state. This time it was a federal court in Alaska that overturned that state's legal ban of same-sex marriage first adopted, along with Hawaii, in 1998. This week in October, a federal district court in Alaska ruled the state's constitutional denial of same-sex marriage licenses and recognition a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains these clauses that are directed towards the states and goes as follows:
We are beginning the week with yet another lower federal court ruling concerning same-sex marriage recognition and licensing by a state. This time it was a federal court in Alaska that overturned that state's legal ban of same-sex marriage first adopted, along with Hawaii, in 1998. This week in October, a federal district court in Alaska ruled the state's constitutional denial of same-sex marriage licenses and recognition a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains these clauses that are directed towards the states and goes as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Why did the U.S. Supreme Court Deny Hearing Same-Sex Marriage?
All
of the federal court rulings of the last year have been from the lower
federal courts, the U.S. District courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeal.
Why, though, did the Supreme Court announce last week that it would NOT
hear any of these cases from the lower U.S. appellate courts? The
answer is simple. One factor in the court's decision to take up a case
or issue is whether or not there are conflicting rulings at the lower
level that would necessitate clarification and the handing down of a
clear national standard by the Supreme Court. In the case of lower
federal court decisions on state bans of same-sex marriage, there
appears to be no need for clarification from the highest court because
the rulings of the lower courts do not conflict. As of this week, 23
federal district courts, the lowest level of federal courts, have heard
same-sex marriage suits. Of those 22, including Alaska as of this week,
have overturned the bans as unconstitutional denials of the 14th
Amendment guarantees listed above. Some of those cases have been
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in various circuits and in every
circuit court ruling we have had thus far, the court has upheld the
rulings of the lower courts that the bans are indeed unconstitutional.
Therefore, there appears to be a great deal of consistency in the
rulings of the federal courts as to whether or not the state bans,
whether banning by state law or state constitution, are violations of
the U.S. Constitution. The overwhelming answer has been "yes". When there is consistency there may be little need for the Supreme
Court to step in.
What Happens Now?
Since the U.S.
Supreme Court declined to hear appeals concerning state bans from the
lower circuit courts, we are left with the status quo, which means the
justices have left the matter of same-sex marriage to be determined by
the states, or as we are seeing, by the lower federal courts to
determine the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans. As of
this week, the trend lines are looking pretty good for advocates of
same-sex marriage rights. Therefore, I cannot imagine that the Supreme
Court will take up a same-sex marriage suit in the near future unless we
start seeing U.S. appellate courts of various
circuits issuing different rulings than we have seen thus far. For
more information, including graphics on the federal court system and the
legal progression of same-sex marriage suits, see the previous post "Will the Supreme Court Take on Same-Sex Marriage...?".If you like this blog, this or any other article, please don't hesitate to subscribe and to share it with others via email, Facebook or other social media outlets!
And the results are in. The Supreme Court will NOT hear cases regarding same sex marriages. Why? The article explains that there is not a NEED for their involvement. In lower court levels, laws banning same sex marriages are beginning to be overturned. Slowly but surely, there seems to be a leveling of the controversary. More states are adjusting their rulings to include a welcomed ruling for same sex couples. More and more states are agreeable, therefore mediation is not necessary. Further, the option to move to an "ideal" area becomes broad when others states also recognize martial options. The consistency of the rulings, therefore, allow states to choose whether same sex marriage is constitutional. JAG
ReplyDeleteFederal district and appeals courts have spent the last two years striking down bans on same-sex marriage. The supreme court considered seven separate appeals to these rulings. Legal observers had been assuming that the court would use some these appeals to hear an argument that would determine whether or not there is a federally guaranteed right to same-sex marriage. Instead, the court rejected every single one of the appeals. Progressives might prefer the supreme court to settle the question of same-sex marriage. The rest of the world might be wondering why the legal system insists on such confounding workarounds. In several states, lower court rulings had been prevented from going into effect, but the supreme court’s rejection of these appeals makes the opinions final. As a result, gay and lesbian couples will have almost immediate access to the right to marriage in five states –Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. This is particularly significant since all of those five states have Republicans in control of one or all of the executive and legislative branches.The supreme court, following its typical practice, did not offer any explanation for why it denied all the cases before it. Maybe some day, from court documents or maybe by a former clerk, we might find out which of the justices wanted to hear the same-sex marriage cases and which didn’t. For now, it’s not unreasonable to speculate why the necessary four justices didn’t vote to hear at least one of the seven appeals.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court should not get involved. This should be a decision that states need to decide. Let the voters decide, not a court that might invoke their belief and a few will make a decision like this for thousands. Who are we as a people to tell someone who they can love or marry? Everyone knows someone that is gay or a lesbian. They are people just like us, so why should they not be given the same rights as everyone else? What happened to democracy? I believe this is why the Supreme Court is leaving it to the states. Many states are voting for same sex marriage as a result of lower court rulings being rejected. Who are we to judge people? This is just another example of letting your voice be heard at the polling booths for change.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the Supreme Court should not get involved, its up to the states to decide whether same sex marriage is legal in their state. But if it gets to that point where the Supreme Court has to step in, I say let them. As of right now the Supreme court has agreed to hear a case dealing with gay marriage. I believe that their ruling will allow gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really see what all the big fuss is about. If gays want to get married let them, they are not hurting anybody, they are just looking to find happiness. They should have the same rights as any other American. In the next few years I wouldn’t be surprise if every state accepted gay marriage. Most young Americans support gay marriage, its the older Americans who are having a harder time transitioning to the new world.
I see a lot of my peers saying that the Supreme Court should not interfere with same-sex marriages-it should be a state related issue. I think the Supreme Court getting involved would be helpful. Leaving the decisions to the states can get messy, like Obamacare. I'd prefer if the whole Nation were on the same page! Majority states that aren't in favor of same-sex marriages are Red. They are conservative, so what do we expect? I understand their ideology-traditional policies and lifestyles. I totally understand. Same-Sex marriage Country-Wide is a big change, and maybe all aren't in favor, because they don't see the benefit of supporting it. But, I do believe that opposing same-sex marriage is a violation of our 14th amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court should definitely step right in and interfere with the states when legalizing same-sex marriage, if the states cannot decide. Everyone has the right to love regardless of sex. A landmark ruling could come from the court by this summer. According to a University of Richmond professor, If the court eventually rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, that could also address the question of whether other states have to recognize the rights of same-sex couples married in Indiana. Legal experts say it's doubtful the Supreme Court will roll back lower court rulings that allowed same-sex marriages in Indiana and other states. But same-sex marriage opponents here are hopeful the court will eventually rule to allow individual states to decide whether gay and lesbian couples can marry, which would reopen the door for Indiana to decide whether or not to ban those unions. That could trigger legal tangles for all of the same-sex couples who have married in the state since June.The justices had the opportunity in October to take up the issue again, but declined to hear a number of cases that had landed on its doorstep. Many read this as a signal that the court approved of the trend in which the decisions were going – at that point, nearly all rulings had been in favor of same-sex marriage – or at least that the justices were not at all eager to wade into the issue again.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Supreme Court should get involved in hearing a same-sex marriage case. Though, some of federal courts are being consistent with their rulings, the Supreme Court should step in to provide a national ruling on a national problem. Consistency across the nation is needed to ensure the rights of same-sex couples are being protected instead of hindered. If the Supreme Court does not step in, same-sex couples will have to make decisions about their lives primarily on which state gives them more rights. Personally, I do not believe in same-sex marriage due to religious beliefs, which is the cause for most of the opposition. Regardless of my beliefs, I do not understand the opposition of same-sex marriage. Their rights are just important as any heterosexual couple. What do heterosexual couples have to lose? - K.E.Moore
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that supreme court should take care of matters as issues as sensitive as same sex marriages can raise a lot of conflict not only between different communities but also different religions.To maintain the peace and law and order it is v important for an authoritative body to take care of matters of such sensitivity needs an authoritative approach.
DeleteI strongly believe that supreme court should be the one taking final decisions as it gives equal consideration to all parties involved.Issues as sensitive as same sex marriages not only provoke differences in the communities but also among religions.
DeleteI believe it is a correct approach by the Supreme Court not to take up the cases of same-sex marriage that has already been dealt with in accordance to the 14th amendment by the lower federal courts. Marriage and family issues are the reserved powers of the states and as long as they shall abide by the constitution it should be enough to uphold the law. Same-sex marriage is a sensitive issue because for the opposition it means breaking an age old tradition of society. Nonetheless, more and more people are becoming tolerant towards this change and acceptance is now wide spread and gradually all states will accept that same-sex marriages are legal and that they should receive all benefits in regards to the marriage license. But gradual pace for this change, in my opinion, is vital to give time for the public to accept it and perceive it a part of their free society.
ReplyDeleteLike most of the people here, I do not believe the Supreme Court should get involved with the legalization of same-sex marriage. The people should decide and vote on a decision. Though I do believe that same-sex marriage will most likely be legal in just a year or two. Not approving of such a thing has become outdate, and soon people will see that is has yet to effect people are not getting married as same-sex couples- only the gay couples themselves. It should be up to the states. Unless, of course, it gets out of hand and the SC has to step in.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the fact that people even have to fight to get same sex marriage legalized is terrible. If it is something you don't believe in due to religious beliefs, that's your right to have. But it is not okay to force your religious beliefs on someone else.
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment ( No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ) that the states can't make a law that would take away the privileges of its citizens. Isn't this exactly what is being done?
The Supreme Court definitely needs to become involved with the legalization of same sex marriage. It is important that the law makes marriage equal for everyone. There will always be discrimination against gays, just like there is against blacks, this is a sad reality of our times. But the governement should at least support its people to the fullest extent of its ability.
Katie Holcroft
Reading about why the U.S. Supreme Court has not gotten involved in the same-sex marriage cases makes perfect sense when you compare it to the work delegation seen in corporate America. The U.S. Supreme Court is the top rung in the ladder, and they can’t possibly hear every grievance from all citizens of 50 states. This is why the work load is delegated. The lower district courts have been delegated with the authority to determine questions of law (whether statutes or constitutional questions were applied correctly). Let’s compare this to a large corporation who has regional Vice Presidents (in multiple offices) and one CEO. As an employee complaint rises up through the chain of command, the Regional Vice President has the authority of making the final decision, and if all employees are being subjected to the same rules there is no reason to involve the CEO. For the CEO to intervene would also show a lack of faith in the abilities of the lower administrations decisions. There is also great value in letting the States exercise their 10th Amendment rights by (slowly but surely) clarify and over turning the ban against same-sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteI understand and agree on why the Supreme Court did not want to step in the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. It is a sensitive topic that is opposed most of religious beliefs and society. Moreover, it is difficult for the states together to work with this problem. The states and the lower courts should have the powers to regulate family issues as long as they do not go against the Constitution and take any rights from the citizens. However, as time goes on, same-sex marriage becomes more popular, and it becomes a bigger issue in modern world. Recently, the Supreme Court becomes more involved by legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. The whole nation needs an agreement on deciding whether or not to accept gay marriage. And it turned out that the Supreme Court fully supported and protected every citizen equally under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Supreme court usually hears cases from lower courts that need clarification and intervention. The Supreme court concluded that no clarification was needed. So it chose not to hear any of the cases. The U.S. Supreme court concluded that, that was for the states to decide. it did not want to step in, due to the controversiality of the issue.
ReplyDelete