Supreme Court

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Gay Marriage Cases from Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Indiana

|

Credit: C-SPAN

The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected every petition it received relating to gay-marriage bans that have been struck down by the lower courts in Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Because the Supreme Court refused to hear any appeal, those lower court rulings will now go into effect. In short, gay marriage is legal and will likely commence soon in those five states. It also means there is no case currently on the Supreme Court's docket with the potential to legalize gay marriage nationwide.

During the March 2013 oral arguments over California's Prop. 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy described the legal battle over gay marriage as a conflict that asks the Court "to go into uncharted waters." Three months later, the Court stayed tied to the dock when it failed to rule on the merits in that case. In light of today's news, it seems Kennedy and his colleagues are still wary of setting sail.

NEXT: BREAKING -- SCOTUS denies same-sex marriage appeals

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s difficult enough for them to determine that the BoR should force the state to issue people gun licenses. They don’t want to have to figure out if the same is true of marriage licenses.

  2. Well, THAT’s just gay as fuck.

  3. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Gay Marriage Cases from Virginia,

    Maybe it’s just because they’re sick of hearing about it.

    1. But what do Millenials think?

  4. The Supreme Court refuses “to go into uncharted waters”.

    …which means that they are allowing lower courts to go into those exact same uncharted waters and define the law.

    The result (legal gay marriage) may or may not be a good thing, but the the Supremes’ fig leaf is silly: it’s an intentional act of omission instead of an intentional act of commission, but it’s an intentional act all the same. #insert_Rush_lyric_here

    1. Invisible airwaves crackle with life

    2. Against the run-of-the-mill
      Swimming against the stream
      Life in two dimensions
      Is a mass-production scheme

      1. I looked in the mirror today
        My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
        I’ve lost a few more hairs
        I think I’m going bald

        1. Lakeside park
          Willows in the breeze
          Lakeside park
          So many memories

  5. First, it already is legal nationwide. There isn’t a state in the union that makes it a crime for a gay couple to get married and consider themselves married. Second, government sanction of those marriage is court mandated nationwide. There isn’t a court in the country that isn’t going to strike down any non recognition of gay marriage. The court isn’t taking those cases because there isn’t a conflict. The last gay marriage case created a constitutional right to state sanctioned gay marriage and the courts are enforcing that right. There is no reason for the court to further opine on the issue. And thus they are turning down cert on these cases. If a court were to ever get it wrong and rule there isn’t such a right, then there will be a conflict and the court will probably take it. That is, however, very unlikely to ever happen.

    1. Yes, they want their hands clean, letting lower courts draw the necessary conclusions from the Windsor precedent while keeping some distance from a result they probably have conscientious scruples against *explicitly* imposing on the states.

      They’re not sure of the legality of such an imposition, but they don’t want to Get In the Way of Progress, because they’ll get dirty looks at legal conferences, so they’re letting lower courts do the job they don’t dare do.

      They’re probably hoping that as Democratic Attorneys General refuse to defend these cases, there will no longer be and legal disputes to resolve, like with California.

      1. Don’t worry though, Reason assures me that these sort of tactics would never be used to do other things over the objection of the public. And even if they did it is worth it.

        1. I’m inclined to believe that the Reason folks are the Girondins of the sexual revolution – eventually they will realize that their Jacobin colleagues are not their friends.

          “OMG, you mean businesses should *decide for themselves* whether to hire gays, bake gay wedding cakes, cover contraception, etc. etc? OMG, the Kochspiracy is trying to reach its tentacles into our sexual lives!”

          I know someone whose family had to flee Singapore because the Japanese conquered it in WWII. The city’s seaward defenses were strong, but the Japanese came in by land. Oops! Likewise, while watching the seas for the invading forces of theocracy, the Reason folks will let down their guard at the landward invasion of the sex-Jacobins.

  6. Ok, now on to polygamy! Yay!

    And then the State will have to stop this business of defining “marriage”. Or let us hope it will.

    1. Hopefully eventually the state recognition becomes a mere formality. Let adult humans enter into any marriage contract they want, including contracts that expire or allow multiple parties, and allow parties to terminate the contract without the government’s consent.

      1. It won’t be. Polygamy will never be fashionable among the American elite. So regardless of how much logical consistency demands its recognition, it won’t ever be recognized by the court.

        These are the wages of winning by judicial mandate. You get the rights your robed overlords think you should get and no more.

  7. I think the reasoning at SCOTUS is this: “The plaintiffs here are government AGs arguing for overturning of lower court rulings. Those AG arguments are so weak that there isn’t any controversy — the lower courts all got it right. So, we’re not going to review those obviously correct rulings.”

  8. I guess we won’t hear from Ken Cuccinelli anymore.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.