This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/2014/10/06/ee822848-4d5e-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases
(35 minutes later)
The Supreme Court decided not to review rulings that cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin on Monday, meaning marriages can take place there immediately. The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to review rulings that cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, a surprising decision that shows the court is comfortable with the expansion of such unions throughout the nation.
The court’s decision came without explanation and puts off a decision about the constitutionality of gay marriage that would apply to all 50 states. The court’s decision came without explanation and puts off a decision about the constitutionality of gay marriage that would apply to all 50 states. But it sent a clear signal that a majority of the court did not feel the need to overturn lower court decisions that found state prohibitions were unconstitutional. According to a spokesman for Virginia’s Attorney General Mark Herring (D), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit will issue an order at 1 p.m. that will allow same-sex marriages to begin. At the same time, the commonwealth will recognize marriages performed in states where same sex marriages already are legal.
Marriages had been on hold in the five states pending the court’s review of appeals court decisions that struck down prohibitions on same-sex marriage. Marriages had been on hold in the five states that were before the court, and it now appears same-sex unions there can begin immediately.
But the decision will likely expand same-sex marriages to other states covered by the federal appeals courts that already have ruled that the bans are unconstitutional, including Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. That would bring to 30 the number of states where gays can marry. The decision will likely expand same-sex marriages to other states covered by the federal appeals courts that already have ruled that the bans are unconstitutional, including Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. That would bring to 30 the number of states where gays can marry.
In other states where there has been no federal ruling yet, the legality of gay marriage is still unclear. “I’m blown away by this,” said James Esseks, a lawyer who heads the American Civil Liberties Union’s legal efforts concerning gay marriage. “It is a watershed moment for the entire country.”
It was a surprising move by the court. Even though no appeals court had ruled that state prohibitions were constitutional--and such disagreements between circuits usually are precursors to Supreme Court review--most thought the court would not let such a significant change happen without their input. It was a move that stunned those who closely watch the court. Even though no appeals court had ruled that state prohibitions were constitutional--and such disagreements between federal circuit courts usually are precursors to Supreme Court review--most thought the court would not let such a significant change happen without their input.
The court in June 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal. Although that decision did not touch on whether state bans were unconstitutional, a long line of federal court decisions have ruled since then that the reasoning of the opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy meant that was likely. But Esseks said that Monday’s action indicates that it doesn’t matter whether an appeals court now rules that state prohibitions are constitutional.
The decision announced Monday not to accept the cases puts off a final word from the Supreme Court on that question. “If that happened, the court will clearly take the case and decide the issue,” Esseks said. “But (Monday’s decision) is more than a hint about what the court will do.”
The court in June 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal. Although that decision did not touch on whether state bans were unconstitutional, a long line of federal court decisions have ruled since then that the reasoning of the opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy commands such a finding.
The split in federal and state courts since the ruling in U.S. v. Windsor has been 40 to 2 that state prohibitions violate the Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection.
The Windsor decision was decided on a 5 to 4 vote, with the court’s liberals--Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan--joining Kennedy.
It takes only four votes, however, to grant review of lower court decisions. So that means at least one of those who voted no in Windsor--Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.--were unwilling to force the court to take up the issue now.