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 3 Version 4
Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases
(35 minutes later)
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 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. 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.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.
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.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.
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 they already are legal.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 they already are legal.
In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Clerk of Courts Joseph Czarnezki said his office would immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, according to Bloomberg News.In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Clerk of Courts Joseph Czarnezki said his office would immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, according to Bloomberg News.
“There is nothing preventing us from proceeding,” Czarnezki said“There is nothing preventing us from proceeding,” Czarnezki said
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.
“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.”“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.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage said the fight is not over.
“The court’s decision not to take up this issue now means that the marriage battle will continue,” said Byron Babione, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been active in defending marriage probitions. “The people should decide this issue, not the courts.”
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.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.
But Esseks said that Monday’s action indicates that it doesn’t matter whether an appeals court now rules that state prohibitions are constitutional.But Esseks said that Monday’s action indicates that it doesn’t matter whether an appeals court now rules that state prohibitions are constitutional.
“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.”“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.”
There are challenges to same-sex marriage prohibitions in every state. Two appeals courts, in Cincinnati and San Francisco, have heard challenges and could rule at any time.
And the Supreme Court could still take up the issue of same sex marriage later in this term after more states weigh in.
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 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 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.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.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.
The court’s decision not to hear the cases could be a part of Ginsburg’s strategy. Last month, she questioned whether there was a need for the court to act now since there was no disagreement among the appeals courts.
She has long been an advocate for courts to move incrementally on such controversial social issues. For instance, she believes the court’s broad ruling in Roe v. Wade hardened opposition.
With marriage apparently imminent in 30 states and the public increasingly in favor of same-sex marriage, the situation now appears more closely like that when the court ruled that prohibitions on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The court waited until most states — 34 — had decided the issue of interracial marriage for themselves before they ruled.