Gay Marriage

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Appeals

Decision defies predictions


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.

NEXT: Cyborg Cops: Dubai Detectives To Wear Google Glass with Facial Recognition Software

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can 3 males marry one another?

    May a father marry his son?

    If not, why not?

    1. Because libertarianism!

      More taxes, more government, more war, more spying, more policing, less freedom… except weed and homosexuality.

      So… win!

    2. They can’t right now because it’s illegal. If you’re asking should they be able to then the answer is yes.

    3. There’s no reasonable government interest in preventing 3 people from marrying each other.

      There is, however, a reasonable government interest in preventing a father from marrying his son as there might be criminal-level abuse and/or coercion involved (a presumption that should be extremely difficult to overcome).

      1. A father and son…that are consenting adults?

        Two brothers…or sisters…that are consenting adults?

        I’m not sure any reasonable person would presume what you do.

  2. Apparently a pack of gutless wonders on the Supreme Court.

    1. Eh, there is no reason for them to review, to be honest, other than the notoriety of the issue. There is (as of yet) no dispute among the appellate courts and there is no on-point SCOTUS precedent to be reargued/overturned. (The fact that SCOTUS denied the states’ appeals means it’s more likely the other appellate courts will fall in line, too.)

      This is not akin to Loving v. Virginia, which specifically overturned a SCOTUS precedent and for which there was a dispute in the lower courts.

      I think the Court did the responsible thing here, by not taking a case simply for the notoriety of the issue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.