The Supreme Court will not act on gay marriage, the Wall Street Journal and numerous sources on Twitter are reporting.
After much anticipation, court deferred 10 cases related to same-sex marriage Friday.
The Atlantic shared this update on its website, The Wire:
"The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage cases now on the docket," reports the SCOTUS blog's Lyle Denniston
But the issue is not dead. The court could next issue orders at 9:30 a.m. Monday.
-----
The future of same-sex unions in California could be decided Friday, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take up Prop. 8, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved in California four years ago.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop. 8 in February, ruling the law unconstitutional. Prop. 8 supporters then appealed to the country's highest court.
The Los Angeles Times gave this concise summary of Friday's possible outcomes:
If the justices opt not to hear the Proposition 8 case, then a federal appeals court ruling that found the 2008 state ballot measure banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional would stand, clearing the way for marriages to begin. If the justices take up the case, a ruling would not come until next year and gay marriage would remain on hold until then, or longer depending on how the court rules.
Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008. Since then, nine states have approved same-sex marriage.
This chronology of the history of gay marriage on the LA Times explains the complex road that has led to today.
Supporters of gay marriage hailed February's favorable appellate court ruling. In its decision, the court stated that banning same-sex marriage "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."
Prop. 8 is one of several same-sex marriage cases that the US Supreme Court could choose to hear. Most of the others challenge the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
For all of the cases, the court's decision to not hear arguments would actually do more than putting them on the agenda for next term. Read about those impacts here.
What are your thoughts? Should the appellate court ruling stand and same-sex marriage be allowed? Or was Prop. 8 the right decision to begin with? Tell us in the comment section below.
This story will be updated with the court's decision.
State Court of Appeal's ruling that Measure 8 is unconstitutional stands! Today is a GREAT DAY for EQUALITY!
The 14th amendment is considered in many cases ranging from criminal cases, like the three strikes law, to civil procedure cases. It was not intended or interpreted to apply to that narrow class of people, and courts have used it to strike down all kinds of laws that don't pertain to slave's rights. While that may be how you interpret and observe the 14th amendment, you're alone in that understanding and the courts have never applied it in the manner you're suggesting.
The courts do not abuse their authority by striking down laws that are at their core, unconstitutional. Marriage, in the civil sense should not be denied to same sex couples. I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that doesn't call on the "traditional family" definition or that relies on religious beliefs. The role of the government is not to protect the interests of religion, but to protect the interests of the people. For now, you can argue that the people are against gay marriage, but I'm willing to bet that the Supreme Court is just waiting for more states to legalize gay marriage. Many court decisions are based on public policy and the court recognizes that societal values and morals change and that laws need to change with those morals. Yes, there is a slim majority against gay marriage now, but the minority trend approving gay marriage could soon become the majority rule, and the court could easily make a public policy argument along with a 14th amendment argument that denying same sex couples the benefits of heterosexual couples does not comport with evolving standards of decency. You can look to the intent of the 14th amendment and see that it was enacted to give equal protection to ALL PEOPLE under the law, not just slaves. If the intent was to extend rights to slaves, it would specified that intent. Gay people are a part of all people, and prop 8 denies them rights granted to some people, so prop 8 does not extend equal protection to all.
The 14th amendment does not only apply to criminal cases and has been used in several other cases to argue for equality and judges have acknowledge that this is a legitimate argument to be made from the 14th amendment. If they did not think the 14th amendment provided this protection, courts would not hear 14th amendment equality arguments. You may see the 14th amendment in that way, but the courts do not, and it is not only California courts that allow equality under the equal protection clause.
What if the roles were reversed and the majority of voters voted to make same sex marriages legal. Would you uphold that law because it was a majority vote or would you challenge it in the Supreme Court to overthrow it? This could well happen in the future. Where would you stand then on the Court's powers to overrule a majority vote. Remember you need to be consistent.
Those are the courts words, not mine. The Supreme Court refers to evolving standards of decency with respect to cases that question the constitutionality of the death penalty and I don't see why it would only apply to those cases. The court considered those standards when deciding that the death penalty was not cruel and unusual punishment and it did not deprive guilty defendants of life without due process of law. The court saw that society still valued the death penalty and upheld statutes that were specific enough about death penalty sentences. Society has standards about almost every facet of life and using those standards to come to a decision in one case and not another does not make sense. Society has standards regarding same sex marriage, and if those standards call for the legalization of gay marriage, then the court will probably find a ban on it unconstitutional and a violation of the 14th amendment and that evolving standards of decency call for marriage equality. I'm just trying to say don't be surprised if you find this language in a ruling that finds prop 8 unconstitutional. Courts are rarely bound by just the laws and the two ways to interpret the constitution.
If your first arguement is I am a racict or biggit or homo hater or just a hater... I grew up in the 1960 and 1970 .. k the 80's to and a little of the 90's here in the Bay Area. I believe, respect, support and care for everyone of my neighbors, I just tired of militant affermative action forceful people shoving this issue in my face. Its sex we are talking about and can that please become a private issue again. In the privacy of you own home. Again. I respect you and your privacy. I would protect that privacy. OK now i just feel like ranting so ill drop it here. Please calm down and bring your sexual issues back to your private places and quit telling me I have to accept you or teach my family its OK. I dont agree!
I don't think so, because I was married, and for me it was all about LOVE. How you can appoint yourself King and try to dictate your religion as though it is the law, well I am thrilled to be the one to inform you John Currie, this is AMERICA, and in our country we have guiding principles that include equality. I feel SO LUCKY to live in a country with freedom. Times are changing John, deal with it. I hope you find a way to open your heart to all people.
Only a few states have tried to implement civil unions. In order for it fairly to contain all the same legal, business and tax qualified benefits all federal, state, regional, local laws, ordinances and businesses involving the term marriage must be altered to include civil union. Civil Unions are also not recognized by most countries thus creating problems for civil union couples abroad. Every time something is changed for marriage it must be changed for civil unions. It create a very expensive and complicated series of systems to support and maintain. Any business or organization that asked whether you are married must change their documents and computer databases to include civil union. Since marriage has been a long standing tradition this has already been built into the many systems that exist. It is a matter of practicality to broaden the definition of marriage which adds little additional cost and complications to an existing system. During these hard economic times what governed and business can afford to spend the additional resources and money to implement a civil union. This is why the gay community does not favor civil unions. I'm not part of the gay community but believe they have equal rights just as you and I in this country were we pride ourselves on freedom and equality for all.
If you believe that God gave man the freedom to chose between good and evil then why do you, just a mortal and sinful man, wish to override the will of God?
I think you will agree with me that we all need more Love. The greatest teachers that ever walked this earth taught the wisdom of Lover. For with Love comes more Love as will as peace, grace, respect, and understanding.
As I said let us respectfully disagree. I am glad to hear you are not against gays. As I said I believe you are basically a good person and I respect your right to believe differently than me. But I do not agree that you should force gays not to have a choice about marriage just as you and I have that choice. Whether gays are what they are due to environmental or genetic factors is not relevant to the marriage discussion. They are what they are and as you say you are not against gays however they became what they are.
If in fact Easter is under any such threat (which presumes facts not in evidence), it would be nothing new - just a return to an earlier tradition. As to the latter part of Mr. Johnson's comment: of course no one can force you to feel about an individual, or pairing of individuals, differently than you naturally do. When, however, your "feelings" cross into the realm of discriminatory action or inaction, it becomes a constitutional matter.