Gay Marriage

Supreme Court Takes Up Gay Marriage Again

Justices take up cases from four states where same-sex marriage recognition bans have been upheld.

|

If only they'd rule about the cakes at the same time.
Credit: Ivonne Wierink | Dreamstime.com

Amid all the federal judge rulings striking down bans on same-sex marriage recognition, one federal court stood out as an outlier. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, upheld bans on gay marriage recognition in those states. Because of this split between that federal court and other federal courts across the land, the Supreme Court has been pushed to take up another gay marriage case and rule.

Today they decided they will indeed take up gay marriage again. In fact, they're going to hear four cases. From BuzzFeed:

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will take up four cases challenging state bans on same-sex couples' marriages — a long anticipated move that could lead to nationwide marriage equality.

The cases ask the justices whether bans on same-sex couples' marriages violate the Constitution's due process and equal protection guarantees.

The coming showdown before the justices over same-sex couples' marriage rights has quickly become seen as inevitable following the Nov. 6, 2014, decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The ruling set up a disagreement with other appeals courts to have considered the issue; the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 10th Circuit courts of appeals all have struck down such bans on various grounds.

Arguments will likely take place toward the end of April, and we can expect a ruling in June.

This may be the case that settles gay marriage recognition as a legal matter once and for all, depending on how the justices rule. The spate of pro-gay marriage rulings over the past year is based on other federal judges interpreting the wording of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor. That ruling struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but only in the sense that it required the federal government to also recognize a gay marriage in states that already legally recognize gay marriage. It did not require states to legally recognize gay marriages. Nevertheless, the wording of the majority decision left several federal judges with the impression that the majority felt as though the state bans violate the 14th Amendment and have been ruling as such.

So this ruling could impact not just the four states but any state where a federal judge has relied on this interpretation or any state that still has a ban. If the justices rule that state level bans are unconstitutional, the bans on these four states (and any that are left) will go away. If they turn around and say that all those federal judges overstepped by pushing United States v. Windsor forward, a lot of gains from 2014 will be threatened. The states that took the federalism route and legalized gay marriage recognition their own way, like Massachusetts or Maine, would probably be unaffected either way.

Advertisement

NEXT: Supreme Court agrees to hear same-sex marriage cases

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. I can hear the SOTU being amended as we speak.

  2. You may as well pop those champagne corks – the four cases come from states under the jurisdiction of the anti-SSM 6th Circuit –

    http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/default.html

  3. It’s just one big endless circle jerk.

    1. Hey, what me and my husband and several of friends do in the privacy of our own bedroom is no concern of yours, pal.

  4. Who quotes BuzzFeed?

    1. I can barely believe it myself, but Buzzfeed has done solid reporting on the gay marriage litigation.

  5. I’m told that if it weren’t for government, no gay people would be able to get married.

  6. May 2 brothers be married?

    May 3 sisters be married?

    May 3 females be married?

    Perhaps a father can marry his two sons?

    Maybe 3 people of any combination can be married?

    If not, please explain why not?

    1. Asking for a friend?

    2. If they’re all consenting adults, sure.

    3. May 2 brothers be married?

      Racist!

    4. Myrtle Fu: Also, in a rare double-whammy decision, the court finds polygamy constitutional.

    5. Please explain why one type of relationship should enjoy legal privileges and others should not.

    6. Yes, they may.

      I am a Fundamentalist Christian. These are all wrong, but ought not be illegal.

      “A” is wrong. “A” harms no unwilling parties. “A” should not be illegal.

      God will judge people who do “A”. Human’s laws are for sins against other humans.

  7. Hmmm…these cases center around the 14th Amendment.

    A key framer of the 14th Amendment was John Bingham (R-OH), who had this to say about the rights of slaves:

    “Bingham, on the other hand, recognized a natural right of people held in slavery to use force to obtain their liberty. He denounced southern laws that would make it a crime to “whisper” to a slave that “there is a God that . . . sometimes condescends to clothe with superhuman power that good right arm of an outraged man when he strikes for the liberty of himself, his wife, and children.””

    https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/727357.pdf

    This is an unfortunate, sexist, heteronormative, transphobic turn of phrase. What Bingham *should* have said (and hopefully the Supreme Court will make the necessary clarifications) is that slaves should “strike[] for the liberty of him/herself, his or her life partner of either sex, and children.”

    1. And of course, Bingham’s reference to a Sky-Daddy should of course be suppressed and never mentioned again.

    2. Well, no offense to Bingham, but the corollary to that is that sometimes that God chooses to condescend to *keep* a person in bondage.

  8. You see that the stereotype of gays being efficient is true. Invisible underclass to fully equal citizens in three decades or so. Pray we do not decide we’re bored and need something else to do after this.

    1. Haven’t you been to our recent organizing meetings? As soon as gay marriage is legal, the push to make it mandatory begins.

      Mike Huckabee, your sweet Christian ass will be mine!

      1. I thought we’d put a pin in that while we worked on man-on-dog.

    2. “Pray”… to whom?

      I notice you see gays as a collective, not as individuals.

      1. Wow, the joke train just blew through ace_m82 Station without even slowing down.

      2. To the correct god, of course. Enbilulu.

  9. Once you adopt the secularist position on the moral quality of human sexuality (has none) its turtles all the way down, and no foothold to find any coherent meaning above, in the middle, or even at the bottom where the social fabric unravels into Borderlands 2.

    Rape is then detainment, criminalizing pedophilia is then ageism, bestiality is then a matter of property rights.

    Sex doesn’t have a clear morality to it, but should be covered under ‘general welfare’. But it needs defining as a ‘moral good’ because immoral ppl will push the limit whatever it is. If hetero couples creating families is a moral good then it can enjoy legal privilege. If not its a race to the bottom of a mountain of turtles stacked on each other. There is no bottom here.

    1. There is no bottom here.

      Said the horrified groom on his gay wedding night.

    2. Well hetero couples have broken/divorced the once solid moral reason for civil recognition of this moral religious rite. (parenting)

      The only moral argument that remains solid is preventing a forced use of speech or forcing States to redefine a word.

  10. Other exciting cases that were granted cert today: (1) regulatory takings of raisins; (2) use of violence against pre-trial detainees by law enforcement; and (3) mental culpability standard in federal drug laws.

    [And something about equitable tolling in the immigration context that isn’t as flashy.]

  11. I’m waiting for the inevitable. The forced name change of The Boston Red Sox because it’s demeaning to a minority.

  12. End goverent involvement of marriage. It is a private contract. Doesn’t need to require a fee when it occurs.

  13. my roomate’s aunt makes $83 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her check was $20229 just working on the computer for a few hours. read more……….
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  14. Perhaps the states should just go ahead and allow Gay marriage, Polygamy, Incest Marriage, Animal marriages, the whole enchilada.
    Isn’t that the real end game?

  15. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  16. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  17. my buddy’s half-sister makes $66 an hour on the computer . She has been without a job for five months but last month her payment was $19090 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this site……….
    ????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  19. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  20. Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me now. I freelance over the internet and earn about 75 bucks an hour. Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. A little effort and handsome earning dream is just a
    click away.,.,.,.,
    ??????????WWW.WIKI-CAREERS.COM

  21. just before I looked at the draft four $9879 , I didn’t believe that…my… father in law had been truly erning money part time from there computar. . there dads buddy has done this for only 21 months and just repaid the dept on their apartment and bourt a great Land Rover Range Rover .
    Read More Here ~~~~~~~~ http://www.jobs700.com

  22. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $61 hourly on the laptop . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her payment was $13483 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can check here…………
    ????? http://www.jobs-sites.com

  23. Ella . even though Paula `s artlclee is terrific… I just purchased Mazda MX-5 after having made $6168 thiss month and-also, ten-grand this past month . this is certainly the best-job Ive ever had . I started this four months/ago and practically straight away began to bring in over $86… per-hour . read ………
    ????? http://www.cashbuzz80.com

  24. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  25. The coming “FINAL AMENDMENT” to the Constitution will fix the broken self-rule experiment that allowed “America” to overthrow the United States. A ruling by SCOTUS forcing speech on the States will not be allowed by Congress or the next President. Neither will the “money=speech” or “[holy]new medium” mistake from 1997. Roe v Wade will be augmented very soon by the Eighth Circuit but not be overthrown as was clear in the oral argument before more cogent Article III justices (6 to 7 of 11) than are on the elderly Supreme Court.(3 to 5 of 9)

    The United States rebelled against an oligarchy that no longer exists ANYWHERE ON EARTH except in “America” where 4/9 SCOTUS oligarchs would have been forced to retire over eight years ago.

    Various States are immorally fighting SSUs. (losing battle) The culturally irrelevant SCOTUS is immorally, yet again, considering violating free speech. (losing battle)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.