|
 On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment
rejected appeals in cases involving five states - Virginia,
Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana - that had prohibited gay
marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those
bans.
As a result, the number of states permitting gay marriage would jump
from 19 to 24, likely soon to be followed by six more states that
are bound by the regional federal appeals court rulings that had
struck down other bans. That would leave another 20 states that
prohibit same-sex marriage.
But the move by the nine justices to sidestep the contentious issue
means there will be no imminent national ruling on the matter, with
litigation likely to continue in states with bans.
"Any time same-sex couples are extended marriage equality is
something to celebrate, and today is a joyous day for thousands of
couples across America who will immediately feel the impact of
today's Supreme Court action," said Chad Griffin, president of the
gay rights group Human Rights Campaign.
Evan Wolfson, who heads the group Freedom to Marry, said while
Monday’s action provided "a bright green light" to gay marriage in
more states, gay rights advocates still want the high court to
intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states.
"The Supreme Court should bring the country to a nationwide
resolution," Wolfson said.
Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the
high court to decide the matter. The justices could take up a future
case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower
court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are
consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Gay couples in affected states are expected to seek marriage
licenses immediately because the high court's action means the
appeals court's rulings are no longer on hold. Virginia began
issuing licenses within hours of the court's action.
The other states that are likely to be imminently affected are North
Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kansas and
Colorado.
NO EXPLANATION
The court did not explain why it was not taking up the issue. Among
the possibilities are that a majority believes it would be premature
to intervene and wants to see more lower court action, or that on
this deeply polarized court neither the liberals nor the
conservatives could be certain of how the issue would resolved and
did not want to risk forcing a national precedent now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has officiated at a same-sex
wedding, said last month that for the justices there is "no need for
us to rush" unless a split emerges in the regional federal appeals
courts and one of them decides to uphold a state ban on gay
marriage.
In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case, at least four of the
nine justices must vote to hear it.
Most legal experts had believed the justices would want to weigh in
on a question of national importance that focuses on whether the
U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law means
gay marriage bans were unlawful.
[to top of second column] |
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that "there may ultimately
be a role for the Supreme Court to play" on gay marriage and that
the justices must make that call. Earnest emphasized that President
Barack Obama's view is that "it's wrong to prevent same-sex couples
who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from
doing so."
Opponents of gay marriage said they would continue to defend state
bans in court. "The people should decide this issue, not the
courts," said Byron Babione, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance
Defending Freedom.
In June 2013, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a key part of a
federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act that had restricted
the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples for the purpose
of federal government benefits.
But in a separate case decided that day, the justices also
sidestepped the broader question of whether state bans violated the
Constitution, but allowed gay marriage in California.
The momentum within America's courts in favor of gay marriage
reflects a sea-change in public opinion in the past decade, with
polls showing a steady increase in support. It was only as recently
as 2004 that Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay
marriage following a state court ruling.
State officials defending their bans say the Constitution does not
dictate how states should define marriage and that there is no
deeply rooted legal tradition that supports a right to gay marriage.
When the nine justices ascended their mahogany bench at 10 a.m.,
they betrayed no concern for the possible uncertainty or confusion
arising from their orders rejecting the same-sex marriage cases.
Proceeding with the usual practice, Chief Justice John Roberts
announced only that “orders have been duly entered and certified”
and were on file with the clerk’s office.
The justices then heard an hour of arguments in a case involving a
police search.
(Additional reporting by Joan Biskupic in Washington, Heide Brandes
in Oklahoma City and Marti Anne Maguire in Raleigh, North Carolina)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
