Supreme Court Grants Review of Same-Sex Marriage Cases

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

The U.S. Supreme Court, stepping into a historic legal, political and social debate, agreed on Friday to decide whether states can prohibit same-sex marriages without violating the federal Constitution.

The justices granted review in four pending cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld bans on marriage and the recognition of out-of-state marriages in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The justices directed briefing on both the marriage and recognition issues.

Arguments before the high court will be in April with a decision by the end of June. The court allotted 90 minutes to the question of whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to license same-sex marriages. The court will give an hour to argument over whether the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize "a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state."

The four consolidated cases are: DeBoer v. Snyder (Michigan); Obergefell v. Hodges (Ohio); Bourke v. Beshear (Kentucky), and Tanco v. Haslam (Tennessee).

Same-sex marriages are allowed in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The greatest gains followed the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision striking down the definition of marriage in the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor. A number of federal courts, faced with challenges to state bans, subsequently moved swiftly to find that those bans violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

After the high court announcement, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said the U.S. Department of Justice will file an amcius brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to find a right to marriage for all Americans. Holder said in a statement:

"It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans—no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love."

The justices' action on Friday ended months of speculation about when and if the court would resolve the national debate. Last October, the court, without comment, denied review in seven cases in which marriage bans had been struck down by the Fourth, Seventh and Tenth circuits. At that point, however, there was no split on the issue among the federal appellate courts—a key criterion for granting review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last summer suggested in interviews that the justices might await a circuit split before entering the legal debate.

The chances of high court review changed dramatically on Nov. 6 when a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, voting 2-1, broke ranks with its sister circuits and created the circuit split by upholding marriage and recognition bans in four states.

Writing for the panel majority, Judge Jeffrey Sutton said federal courts were still bound by a 1972 Supreme Court decision—Baker v. Nelson—in which the justices summarily dismissed a challenge to Minnesota's marriage ban because it did not raise "a substantial federal question."

Sutton also wrote it was better "to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way."

Reaction to the high court's grant of review was swift. Judith Schaeffer, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, called the justices' announcement "a key milestone" in the gay and lesbian movement for full equality. "The nation will soon see if Chief Justice Roberts is on the right side of the Constitution, not to mention the right side of history, when the Court hands down its decision," she said.

Mary Bonauto of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, co-counsel in the Michigan case, said, "In the 10-plus years since same-sex couples started marrying in Massachusetts, thousands more have been able to marry across the United States, bringing them happiness and security—and harming no one. It is time to end the legal bans that single out same-sex couples for disrespect and instead allow them to make this unique promise to one another and provide greater protection and security for their families.”

The marriage equality issue returned to the high court "faster than virtually any other issue in American history," Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign, said. "We've reached the moment of truth—the facts are clear, the arguments have been heard by dozens of courts, and now the nine justices of the Supreme Court have an urgent opportunity to guarantee fairness for countless families, once and for all."

Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which has litigated against same-sex marriages in numerous states, countered: "The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of the people to affirm marriage."


Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, agreed with Nimocks. "The U.S. Supreme Court now has the opportunity to issue a long-overdue ruling to restore the freedom of the people to uphold marriage in their state laws as the union of a man and a woman,” Perkins said. “Lower court judges have robbed millions of people of their voice and vote on society's most fundamental relationship—marriage."

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202714476750?kw=Supreme%20Court%20Grants%20Review%20of%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20Cases&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20150116&src=EMC-Email&pt=Legal%20Times%20Afternoon%20Update (subscription required)

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

My fingers are crossed so hard. At this point, they would be damaging their own credibility if they upheld any ban against same sex marriage--with DOMA falling and letting same sex marriage grant, among other things (but most relevant to this particular forum) immigration rights, they established federal issues relating to same sex marriage in a way that hadn't been addressed fully in a legal avenue in the USA before.

By the time I move home this spring, or within a couple of months of me moving home, with my wife, I may actually be married in every state in the US. That's super exciting. The Supreme Court started my visa journey and it would be nice if it ended on such an incredible high note.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

My fingers are crossed so hard. At this point, they would be damaging their own credibility if they upheld any ban against same sex marriage--with DOMA falling and letting same sex marriage grant, among other things (but most relevant to this particular forum) immigration rights, they established federal issues relating to same sex marriage in a way that hadn't been addressed fully in a legal avenue in the USA before.

By the time I move home this spring, or within a couple of months of me moving home, with my wife, I may actually be married in every state in the US. That's super exciting. The Supreme Court started my visa journey and it would be nice if it ended on such an incredible high note.

I have my fingers crossed for you! I have a very good feeling about this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Hmmm. I wonder under which part of the Constitution this will be decided: Tenth Amendment, Equal Protection, Full Faith, or a combination. So many ways for Scalia or Roberts to decide this one, while we are fairly certain how the other seven will decide, 4 deciding a clear right exists under Equal Protect, 3 deciding states rights trump all. Roberts is a pragmatist, expect him to find a way to go with the flow. Scalia might surprise us all, writing a concurring or non-concurring opinion for completely unexpected reasons.

Edited January 16, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Well, they have four different cases and two of them are about whether or not states have to recognize out of state same sex marriages.

Is it bad that there's a tiny, vindictive, part of me that goes 'well, if nothing else, I want the decision to be "the state must either recognize all out of state marriages or none of them"?' Because man, the first state that goes "THEN NONE OF THEM!" is going to get their butts handed to them and it's going to be awesome. Nothing makes heterosexual people angrier than someone threatening the 'sanctity' of their future divorce!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Hmmm. I wonder under which part of the Constitution this will be decided:

It's listed under the Adam and Elton clause.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, they have four different cases and two of them are about whether or not states have to recognize out of state same sex marriages.

Is it bad that there's a tiny, vindictive, part of me that goes 'well, if nothing else, I want the decision to be "the state must either recognize all out of state marriages or none of them"?' Because man, the first state that goes "THEN NONE OF THEM!" is going to get their butts handed to them and it's going to be awesome. Nothing makes heterosexual people angrier than someone threatening the 'sanctity' of their future divorce!

One interesting viewpoint is indeed, government no longer has a reason to get into the marriage business. Instead, let people create whatever sort of contracts they want and let the government regulate those. Leave marriage to whatever venue wants to offer them, without any force of law.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

There is no legal reason to be in a person's personal relationship unless it is for a dispute or some kind of abuse. Some dinosaurs just don't like to change.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Ditto. I think it is not the states that should be in the religious business anyway. Any two adults should be able to have contractual obligations if they choose to do so. To be doing it for family reasons is a religious reason and the state should not be getting into religion.

One interesting viewpoint is indeed, government no longer has a reason to get into the marriage business. Instead, let people create whatever sort of contracts they want and let the government regulate those. Leave marriage to whatever venue wants to offer them, without any force of law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

One interesting viewpoint is indeed, government no longer has a reason to get into the marriage business. Instead, let people create whatever sort of contracts they want and let the government regulate those. Leave marriage to whatever venue wants to offer them, without any force of law.

It would certainly make it even more profitable to be lawyer