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

[Hissyspit]

Last edited Mon Oct 6, 2014, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Bloomberg News

@BloombergNews: ALERT: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rule on gay marriage, allowing same sex marriage in up 11 new states

@BloombergNews: Number of gay-marriage states now likely to rise to 30 plus the District of Columbia: http://t.co/4moWBXCmra/s/YshI http://t.co/D1VT2HXbFb/s/jdVQ

@SCOTUSblog: Appeals court decisions striking down SSM bans remain in effect. Other challenges continue. SCOTUS review waits for another day.

@SCOTUSblog: Practically, today SCOTUS recognized a right to SSM. Implausible that later it will undo marriages, absent a big change in Ct's membership.

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

By Greg Stohr
October 06, 2014 9:43 AM EDT

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.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-06/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-rule-on-gay-marriage.html

[unblock]

1. wow!

[Marthe48]

2. Happy for the gay people but

when the hell is the Supreme Court going to stop interfering with women's health rights?

[bigdarryl]

3. When one of the five dies in office

And there's a democrat President who can appoint the next one

[calimary]

34. Democratic President, if I may gently suggest.

No offense meant here. But it needs to be repeated. There's no such thing as a "democrat President." That's a misnomer attempted by the opposite side - to rename and thereby demean the very name our side has embraced, asserted, and long established. All the good folks on our side shouldn't fall for it or even inadvertently reinforce or perpetuate it. It isn't legit.

[Ampersand Unicode]

36. It needs to be Tony Fishscales. He's the worst.

Clarence Long-Dong hardly ever says anything, and Alito is a paper tiger compared to the wannabe Caesar. Roberts is a flip-flopper but nobody is anywhere near as egregious as St. Tony Baloney of Opus Dei.

Heck, I'd rather Hillary appoint Judge Judy to the bench than for us to have a replacement of him just to placate the wingnuts. Wish Sandra could come back and join the kick-ass she-roes of Sonia, Elena and Notorious RBG.

[rurallib]

4. looks to me like they are ducking the issue

which now appears to be a sort of a win for marriage equality.
Makes me think the anti-equality side will come up with some truly obnoxious ploy to push the issue.

[House of Roberts]

7. It means less than four justices see merit in the appeals.

That means the lower courts got it right.

[former9thward]

8. It more than likely means the Justices do not want to nationalize the issue.

They prefer to let it be handled state by state.

[House of Roberts]

15. Were these not state laws the District courts struck down?

To keep it state by state SCOTUS would have had to take the case and rule that way.

[former9thward]

17. No, I believe they want to keep their hands off the issue.

Let the states work through it. Justice Ginsberg has said it was a mistake for the court to take up the abortion issue in Roe v. Wade. At the time states were working through that issue and by the SC ruling it just hardened the positions on both sides and we are still dealing with it today. I don't think they want to repeat the mistake.

[Ms. Toad]

19. It is not the states working through these issues

All of these wins are in the Federal courts, and specifically the decisions they are refusing to review are in Circuit Courts, each of which crosses multiple state borders.

[former9thward]

23. I know that.

But the issue is being debated in the states. If the SC wanted to give a national decision they could have taken the cases.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Their rejection of the cases

Is automatically a decision, one which makes marriage immediately available in 5 (and likely 11) additional states, where implementing the lower court decisions had been on hold pending appeal, because refusing to take the case dissolves the appeal hold. That is a pretty big national decision - one ruling by the Supreme Court, likely no more than 4 lines long - nearly doubles the number of states in which same gender marriages will be recognized.

Not to mention that when people talk about allowing states to make their own decisions, they are not talking about letting the Federal courts make the decision for the states.

[TDale313]

13. All the cases have gone the marriage equality way...

They likely don't see the need to step in at the moment. They tend to like to rule when there are conflicting lower court rulings. If one of the appeals in the lower courts does go the other way then there is a good chance imo that they'll revisit.

Yeah, I'd love a wider ruling saying marriage equality was the law of the land now. But this is actually a big step forward. The stays in the lower courts in the cases they just refused will desolve, and marriage equality will be not just theoretically but actually the law in many more states. I'm kinda ok with the Supreme Court letting this play out, seeing as their previous rulings have lead to an overwhelming/tidal wave in the lower courts. They'll get involved most likely if/when there are conflicting district rulings.

[Ms. Toad]

21. Agreed.

When same gender marriage is the law of the land in well over half of the states, it really will cease to be an issue - and by the time it gets to the Supreme Court when my Circuit forces it there, part of the reasoning they will use to strike down my Circuit's decision will be that it is already essentially the law of the land and the world has not imploded.

(My circuit, being the 6th Circuit - where a ruling is long overdue, but is widely expected to be the first to go against the tide.)

[Gelliebeans]

55. Ding ding ding!

You are correct Ms.

[rurallib]

18. Thanks to all for their responses - I tend to look at the right side

members of the court as a monolith moving in most actions as if a single member.
Thus I forgot that there may be times when they don't and apparently as noted above they couldn't muster the 4 votes to grant cert.
Guess I was expecting that at least 4 - minus Kennedy would be my guess - would vote to bring one case to the court.

[hack89]

24. There is no legal conflict for them to resolve right now

all the lower court cases have been in favor of marriage equality.

[NutmegYankee]

27. I think a court in Tennessee ruled otherwise.

That is one area of concern.

[Ampersand Unicode]

37. LGBT people aren't out of the woods yet

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop with the Hobby Lobby case and for a "religiously affiliated" employer (aka a boss who goes to church) to deny insurance coverage for AIDS medications because they do not want to fund "sin."

I know AIDS is not exclusively a "gay disease," but sadly, it has not shed that unfair stigma among ignorant and unfortunately powerful wingnuts in our society. Hobby Lobby is going to kill people. The neocon revolution will not be bloodless, I fear.

[davidpdx]

67. I'm having the same type of feeling

It is a great thing that so many states now allow it, but we really don't know what motivation SCOTUS has (and I firmly believe they do have one other than the obvious). I agree that there maybe another type of argument they can make to try to get rulings overturned and back up to the level of SCOTUS.

The thing about Hobby Lobby is that the legislation passed in the 90's gave conservatives the opening to press the case and that was made under President Clinton. It is amazing how things come back to haunt people.

[shenmue]

5. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

We have passed the tipping point! That will bring it to more than half the states!

Buh-bye, religious fundamentalist assholes! You can't stop freedom!

[MuseRider]

6. :-) :-) :-) :-)

I could not be happier.

[dbackjon]

9. That's nice for the people that live in those states

Doesn't do a fucking thing for the rest of us

Fucking cowards every single fucking one of them they can all go to fucking hell


Your so-called friends fucking dodge the issue there were four of them that could've brought this up

I'm fucking tired of being a sick fucking second-class citizen

This is not a victory

Justice delayed is justice denied

I am still a second-class citizen in my state

I still can be fired for being gay

[Bluenorthwest]

10. So 30 States now allow same sex marriage while 29 States permit discrimination against LGBT people

and some of those States are the same States.....what a country this is!

[bigdarryl]

12. So that means democrats have to get there ass out and vote the homophobics out

And replace them with progressives who will change those states

[Hawaii Hiker]

11. Good News

[malthaussen]

14. So, for all practical purposes this means one of the five men...

... has a conscience that functions at least part-time. Since if they thought they would have had the support for a 5-4 overturn, they would have done it. Effectively, this is the best way the anti-gays on the Court can dely marriage equality throughout the country.

And what happens if one of the circuits denies marriage equality when it comes before them? Sucks to live in those states? That doesn't cut it for me.

-- Mal

[davidpdx]

66. It makes me wonder how the vote on whether to hear the case went

I don't think that information is released. There could have been more than 5 votes, we'll probably never know.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Once again, that margin of victory in Virginia was 907 votes.

Virginia Attorney General election, 2013

While the statewide elections for governor and lieutenant governor garnered more national attention, the race for attorney general was the most competitive. Obenshain had an election night lead of 1,200 votes. In the following days, as provisional ballots were counted, Herring narrowed the lead and ultimately overtook him. On November 25, the Virginia State Board of Elections certified the results and Herring was declared the winner by 1,103,777 votes to 1,103,612 - a difference of 165 votes out of more than 2.2 million cast, or 0.007%.

After the certification, Obenshain requested a recount, which began on December 16. Obenshain conceded the election on December 18, and later that day, the recount ended with Herring winning by 907 votes, or 0.04%. With Herring’s victory, Democrats held all five statewide offices — including both U.S. Senate seats — for the first time since 1970.

[yallerdawg]

20. You can't stop the bend...

of the arc of the moral universe!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. Adding a link, or some links,

Last edited Mon Oct 6, 2014, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

so you can see the comments.

Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases

Legal argument over gay marriage is all but over

Plum Line
By Paul Waldman October 6 at 11:49 AM 

When the Supreme Court declines to hear a case — known as “denying cert” — it can seem anticlimactic. Instead of dramatic oral arguments and protests outside the Court, we get a written notification that the decision of an appeals court will stand.

But sometimes, denying cert is an earthquake. And that’s what happened today. The Court denied cert in same-sex marriage cases from Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Virginia, and Oklahoma. In all five cases, appeals courts had declared state laws banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. The decisions of those appeals courts now stand, which means that same-sex marriage is permitted not only in the 19 liberal states (plus D.C.) where it was already legal, but in some of the most conservative states in the country.

And that’s not all. It isn’t just these five states, it’s also every state covered by the circuit courts that rendered these decisions. Utah and Oklahoma are in the 10th Circuit, Wisconsin and Indiana are in the 7th Circuit, and Virginia is in the 4th Circuit. Taken together, these circuits cover 14 states, three of which (Illinois, New Mexico, and Maryland) already have marriage equality on the books. So marriage equality will shortly be the law in these additional states: Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

That makes a total of 30 states plus D.C. in which same-sex couples will be allowed to marry. So what happens now?

[yurbud]

26. Did Scalia, Scalito, and Thomas all sleep in?

[FlatStanley]

28. Anti gay laws don't help business, where as knocking down anti-discrimination laws I housing will.

[SoapBox]

29. It's not full Equality yet but...

The creeps on the court haven't tried to finally ban SS Marriage and I think the door has now been opened so wide, that they will be unable to close it again.

I know some are still unhappy but the fight will continue in the other states. This is the most optimistic that I've been in a while for the entire U.S. to gain Marriage Equality.

[Bryce Butler]

30. How the "other side" will view this...

[Ampersand Unicode]

38. You can't explain that.

[kiva]

31. I'm happy for people in those 11 states.

But would really prefer the Court to address this issue as a point of national equality. In the 1960s the Court decided Loving v Virginia within that scope, and they need to do so with same sex marriage.

[freshwest]

44. Yes, 39 other states may still block SSM. Not cheering yet. More states rights from the RW USSC.

[pnwmom]

48. How could 39 states still block it, given the Federal Court decisions?

[rhett o rick]

49. I believe it goes district by district. The SCOTUS has ruled in I think two districts. And IMO in

those districts states can vote for SSM and it can't be challenged. But in the Districts where the SCOTUS hasn't ruled, I believe if states do vote for SSM it can be challenged up to the SCOTUS. I may be all wrong but that's how I understand it.

[freshwest]

52. By state laws not yet overturned by federal courts. It may be 39 as poster I replied to indicated.

IMO, the USSC should have made this clear now and they are still giving leeway to those states that are all effed up. A federal judge found that closing abortion clinics in Texas was unConstitutional and they just found another freak to let 'em continue.

We've got some effed up state legislatures who will keep on making these laws if we don't GOTV. SSM is Constitutional by default, it's been argued many times, and keeps on being opposed by RWNJs.

I want a clear ruling by the USSC, no more stuff left to backward states. I may have a long damn wait, though. Then I'll cheer for their decision, while I already cheer for my brothers and sisters who have their right to marry respected now.

YMMV. EOM.

[uppityperson]

45. Exactly, that is how I see it also. It needs to be national, not state by state.

hence my sig line which some day I hope to change as it becomes national like Loving v Virginia

[mahatmakanejeeves]

32. DEVELOPING: Same-Sex Marriage ‘Imminent’ in Virginia

DEVELOPING: Same-Sex Marriage ‘Imminent’ in Virginia

by ARLnow.com — October 6, 2014 at 11:00 am

AG Mark Herring @AGMarkHerring

The 4th Circuit says their mandate will issue at 1 PM & marriages can then begin. What a momentous & joyous day for thousands of Virginians.

Governor Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court decision:

This is a historic and long overdue moment for our Commonwealth and our country. On issues ranging from recognizing same-sex marriages to extending health care benefits to same-sex spouses of state employees, Virginia is already well-prepared to implement this historic decision. Going forward we will act quickly to continue to bring all of our policies and practices into compliance so that we can give marriages between same-sex partners the full faith and credit they deserve.

I applaud all of the Virginians who gave so much time and effort in the fight for equality, and congratulate my friend Attorney General Mark Herring on this important victory for justice and equal treatment under the law.

Equality for all men and women regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual orientation is intrinsic to the values that make us Virginians, and now it is officially inscribed in our laws as well.

[Feral Child]

33. Cowardly advocation of inequality.

They haven't blocked but refuse to acknowledge that it's a violation of the Constitution, thus allowing states to systematically practice bigotry by statute.

[Orsino]

35. And a free gift to the GOP...

...taking that hot potato off their hands for a while while not actually repudiating discrimination.

Great cover for the Court's next big giveaway to corporations, too.

[rocktivity]

39. Same-Sex Marriage Is Now Legal in the Majority of U.S. States

Mic.com:

The Supreme Court rejected appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages on Monday, paving the way for marriages in those states...

The justices "did not comment" in rejecting seven cases in total from from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin...But because the Supreme Court's decision also affects marriage delays in six other states, the Court's decision has made same-sex marriage officially legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

CUE THE VONAGE THEME!


rocktivity

[rhett o rick]

50. How many districts does that include? nm

[LadyHawkAZ]

40. The stay has just been lifted in Utah

[SpankMe]

41. Gay marriage in Utah, of all places.

I feel a bit of a chill down here in hell.

Sort of poetic justice for a state whose residents promoted, bought and paid for Proposition 8.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. I can hear the screaming now....

The Republicans for decades have promised the Right that a vote for them would shift the Court.

Did they stop the gays and abortionists?

No.

But they made it easier for the government to take your stuff, made it harder to get out of debt and legalized bribery.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Congratulations to all the happy couples

One of the things about rejecting the Abrahamic God in favor of thinking of God as a cosmic unity where all things are interconnected and morality is a purely human invention is that no pair of lovers need wait for the state to issue a piece of paper or a priest to bless the union to feel that their love is blessed.

Love is always a blessed thing.

[onenote]

46. I suspect the conservatives may be playing a waiting game

It takes the votes of four justices for the court to agree to hear a case. There is every reason to believe that four of the justices do not support marriage equality. So why didn't they vote to take the cases? Because they thought they might lose. And why didn't four of the five who support marriage equality vote to take the cases? That's a harder question, but the bottom line is that by not taking theses cases, which all found in favor of marriage equality, those decisions are still standing. It could be that both factions of the court are waiting for there to be conflicting appellate court rulings, which is the typical standard for when the court takes cases.

One of the risks is that it could be a while before a case comes up from one of the circuits holding in favor of same sex marriage bans. If one of the five that are likely to vote to strike down such a ban were to leave the court, we could end up with a situation in which the court has a 4-4 split (with Senate repubs filibustering the naming of a ninth justice). If the court divides evenly on a case, the result below is left standing.

[QED]

47. The GOP will use this to fire up the base for the midterm elections.

Yes, I know that's cynical.

Whatever the GOP does, this is great news for now.

[brooklynite]

53. No, they won't

The States where this has clout are already safely Red. And using this as an incentive will fail because there's nothing the candidates can do to shift the Court's decision.

[QED]

56. Low information voters won't see the nuance.

Notice how they ratchet up the social issues - abortion, illeeeegals, the gay, damn soshalist libruls, etc. during election season?

No matter what the national party decides, there are many bigots on their tickets in different locales who will shoot off their mouths to pander to the other bigots.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

57. You're delusional if you don't think this will be an issue in NC (Hagan v. Tillis).

Same-sex marriage an issue in North Carolina elections? Maybe

Allow me to introduce you to Tami "Values" Fitzgerald:

http://www.glaad.org/cap/tami-fitzgerald

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2012/03/10/nc-tami-fitzgerald-and-amendment-one-earning-a-paycheck-cultivating-bigotry/

http://ncvalues.org/about-us/mission/

https://twitter.com/tamifitzgerald

I guaran-God-damn-tee she's getting out the vote for Tillis.

[brooklynite]

58. ...who going to do what?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. Surely you're paying attention to the Senator Kay Hagan v. Thom Tillis race in NC?

"Gay marriage" will be an issue.

And just for fun, Tillis *is* running against Obamacare and Hagan's votes for Obama's "partisan agenda." Even the NRA has chimed in with ads.

Good times in NC. Can't wait till Election Day!

[brooklynite]

61. Tillis can promise to repeal ACA...what can he do about a precedent setting Supreme Court decision?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

69. It doesn't matter what he can actually deliver...

just as long as his base hears those *sweet* anti-marriage equality words. Same with abortion. And guns. And God. What's the matter with Kansas North Carolina, indeed.

Gay marriage now legal in North Carolina

Gay-marriage opponent: SCOTUS decision ‘lit a fuse to a powder keg culturally’

Tillis will squeeze every vote he can from this ruling. Whether he's successful, we'll find out on November 4th.

[valerief]

51. Republicans really want the gay vote. nt

[totodeinhere]

54. I wish that they would have taken the case and then legalized gay marriage nation-wide

once and for all. It will happen eventually but too many continue to wait for marriage rights.

[gopiscrap]

60. Excellent

it's gotten to the point of no return now. It would be too cumbersome and crazy to overturn same sex marriage. YES!!!!

[Cha]

63. Congratulations!

The Democrats ✔ @TheDemocrats
Follow
SCOTUS just denied appeals to uphold same-sex marriage bans in 5 sts: Huge #marriageequality victory, but more to do.
6:37 AM - 6 Oct 2014 194 Retweets 157 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/10/06/chat-away-443/

Mahalo Hissy

[tavernier]

64. The only thing they agree on

is raises for themselves.

[Major Hogwash]

65. The magic number is 30. And that's a majority! Future cases . . . dismissed!!!

Think of it as being said by Colonel Klink!

Disssmissssed!

[barbtries]

68. this glimmer of justice

gives me hope in a dark time.