Supreme Court Punts on Gay Marriage

[SLD]

Well today, the Supremes decided to punt the ball on gay marriage, denying certiorari to states that had appealed their circuit court rulings saying denial of gay marriage is unconstitutional violation of equal protection. This means that overnight, 30 states will now have gay marriage legal. Those states where there has been no circuit court ruling can still ban gay marriages. But for how long will this situation remain? The Court most likely refused to take it because ther is no split in the circuits. So now we have to wait for a circuit court to uphold a ban on gay marriage. Most likely that will be the 11th Circuit covering Alabama, Georgia and Florida, or maybe the 5th, covering Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. A Florida case is pending in the 11th circuit, but it has just been filed, so there may not be a decision until next Summer. There are two cases in the 5th Circuit which are further along. If either the 11th or 5th Circuit rule against gay marriage, then the Supremes will likely take it up. If not, then gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states without the Supremes having to address the problem. Something tells me that either the 5th or 11th Circuits will not be inclined to rule favorably towards gay marriage. But i could be wrong.

And of course Ted Cruz called for a Constitutional Amendment to bar federal courts from deciding the issue.

SLD

 

[Keith&Co.]

And of course Ted Cruz called for a Constitutional Amendment to bar federal courts from deciding the issue.

Um...
So, I admit that i will not be able to get 38 states to ban gay marriage in the entire nation, but i believe that i can get 38 states to agree that if Texas, for example, bans gay marriage, the other states will say it's okay for Texas to establish constitutional rights without being held responsible to the constitution... Alright.

 

[Sarpedon]

It makes when you are a megalomaniac pandering to an extreme faction.

The Court probably is inclined to vote against, but have enough of a conscience to see that the anti-marriage arguments are really, really, really bad. Possibly they are hoping the other courts come up with a less flimsey argument they can back up while still feeling like jurists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It makes when you are a megalomaniac pandering to an extreme faction.

The Court probably is inclined to vote against, but have enough of a conscience to see that the anti-marriage arguments are really, really, really bad. Possibly they are hoping the other courts come up with a less flimsey argument they can back up while still feeling like jurists.

The court is usually extremely cautious when it restricts rights. I'm still pissed that they had the intellectual shiftiness to not decide once and for all when it was in their court.