# Supreme Court \[declines to hear\] same sex marriage cases.\[plus further developments (Ed.)\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544 "2014-10-06T13:50:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/301 "2015-01-25T23:10:01Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s not just substituting “two persons” for “bride and groom.” There will be many things to sort out over the coming years. True. So best to start getting things sorted now, rather than let the confusing patchwork of contradictory status quos continue. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy [Appeal to tradition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)? Because most of your argument seems to come down to it. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/302 "2015-01-25T23:12:46Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > if a state does in fact have the power to regulate its own **domestic institutions** … Not only does he fall back on the same arguments, jtgain even uses the same curious terminology that bigots of a previous era used to avoid actually saying the word “slavery”. Bigotry really doesn’t change much over the years… ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/303 "2015-01-25T23:29:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > How about this “hypo” for a real problem: . . . {Hypothetical case of a same-sex couple married in one state, not married in another, one partner gets married to someone else in that second state, etc.} This is an argument for the “full faith and credit” clause, and to oppose a patchwork quilt of different rules and regulations in the several states. Such nightmares could only happen when there is no uniform rule in all the states. We probably pretty much all agree here that such nightmare scenarios are bad, and regulations should not permit them to happen. Throwing the definition of marriage back to the states is what causes such nightmares. A universal recognition of marriage rights will prevent such incidents. Now: can this kind of reasoning show whether recognition of same-sex marriages – or a ban on them – will be more effective in avoiding these kinds of nightmare situations? Why would a blanket ban be better than a blanket acceptance? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/304 "2015-01-25T23:35:05Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > True. So best to start getting things sorted now, rather than let the confusing patchwork of contradictory status quos continue. > > Are you familiar with the logical fallacy [Appeal to tradition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)? Because most of your argument seems to come down to it. Or, if we let each state regulate marriage as it sees fit, there is no confusing patchwork. Also, it is not an appeal to tradition. It is the belief that such ideas related to marriage continue in force to this day. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Not only does he fall back on the same arguments, jtgain even uses the same curious terminology that bigots of a previous era used to avoid actually saying the word “slavery”. > > Bigotry really doesn’t change much over the years… Really? This lazy “argument” in the form of name calling again? I would expect such juvenile behavior on Yahoo! Answers, but in a board committed to fighting ignorance, posters should bring their A-game, or so I’ve been told. Just because slave owners and Jim Crow proponents used the phrases “domestic institutions” and “states rights” as a fig leaf to their onerous practices does not mean that states don’t have legitimate powers and that the regulation of domestic relations aren’t part of the purview of individual states; nor does that mean that those phrases are forever tainted. I’ll use different words that mean exactly the same thing if it makes you happy. I’m sure that George Wallace took a healthy dump the morning before he stood in the schoolhouse door. If you did the same thing, then you must be a closet segregationist. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/305 "2015-01-25T23:40:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Or, if we let each state regulate marriage as it sees fit, there is no confusing patchwork. How do you figure that? I could be married in some states but not others, and that’s not a confusing patchwork? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/306 "2015-01-26T00:28:38Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > How about this “hypo” for a real problem: > > Supposed a lesbian couple (one of whom is bi-sexual), living in West Virginia in 2005, were happy and decided to travel to Massachusetts to get married. In 2008, they separate. Knowing that West Virginia and the feds don’t recognize their marriage, they do nothing. West Virginia won’t grant a divorce and neither will Massachusetts because of residency requirements. They had purchased a house in one party’s name, and a court ruled that since SSM was not recognized, the second party didn’t have a claim. > > The bi-sexual half of the couple (let’s call her Sally) meets a man, falls in love, and is legally married in West Virginia in 2011. She is told by her lawyer that this is fine because her former marriage is not recognized by state or federal law. They have a child born in 2012. > > Windsor happens in 2013. In October of 2014, the Supreme Court denies the stay issued to the 4th Circuit decision and West Virginia now recognizes SSM and out of state SSMs (including Sally’s 2005 marriage). > > Is Sally now guilty of bigamy? If she gets a divorce from her 2005 marriage, does her first spouse have a claim to the child? Must she retrieve all receipts from 2005 to 2008 for equitable distribution purposes? From 2005 to 2014? Can her second spouse be sued for alienation of affections or adultery (assume they went on vacation in a state that recognizes the torts)? Can the house purchase be revisited or does res judicata bar the claim? Can Sally redo her West Virginia income tax return and get a refund from 2005 to 2011? > > Can she get two marriage credits from 2011 until the present? If only one marriage can be valid during that time, which marriage? Who does she list as her spouse on her 2014 return? What if her first spouse died in 2012? Is she entitled to an elective share of her estate? Does it matter if the estate is still open? > > It’s not just substituting “two persons” for “bride and groom.” There will be many things to sort out over the coming years. In the real world, this does not seem to have yet occurred, (or we would have heard of it by now). Making the definition of marriage uniform for the nation will reduce the chances of this happening–and the sooner it happens the less likely your scenario can occur. = = = And I have no idea how you can claim that > [@jtgain](#): > > Or, if we let each state regulate marriage as it sees fit, there is no confusing patchwork. Each state regulating marriage as it sees fit is pretty much the best exemplar of “patchwork” regulations. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/307 "2015-01-26T00:34:24Z")
**ENOUGH with the accusations of bigotry!** They serve no purpose in this discussion except to try to demonize one’s opponents. Unless one refers to a specific, non-SDMB member who has expressed explicit bigotry regarding the topic, the next use of the words bigot, bigotry, or similar expressions will get a Warning. Figure out a way to discuss the matter on its merits without resorting to insults. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/308 "2015-01-26T07:02:47Z")
The judge just stayed her decision for 14 days or until February 9th to allow an appeal to the Circuit Court and beyond if necessary. The FL case went the same way and they stay was allowed to expire. I expect the same thing to happen here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/309 "2015-01-26T15:06:03Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > I think part of the problem is that the states have been unable to show ANY harm from gay marriage. And gay couples may be suffering irreparable harm by NOT being allowed to marry. It’s not that they have to show irreparable harm from gay marriage. It’s that they have to show irreparable harm from being denied a stay. And there is one (possibly) irreparable harm at issue: if the state ultimately prevails on appeal, it has a bunch of same-sex marriages that do not fit into its legal framework. The state then faces a frankly unpalatable choice of treating those marriages as null and void - though they were legal when celebrated - or recognizing rights for a very small group of citizens that others don’t have. They could of course avoid this issue entirely by just recognizing gay marriage. But you don’t get to say, “well, none of this would be a problem if they did what we wanted.” That’s why the issue is litigated in the first place. Having said all that, I don’t see any reason to grant a stay in these cases where (1) all the facts are stipulated, and (2) the appellate court has already heard and decided the identical issue. If there were substantive differences in the way Florida and Alabama treated marriage, or the plaintiffs were not similarly situated, then I would say Alabama should have the chance to argue the issue itself. But I’m pretty sure there aren’t, so I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/310 "2015-01-26T15:36:23Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Or, if we let each state regulate marriage as it sees fit, there is no confusing patchwork. > > Also, it is not an appeal to tradition. It is the belief that such ideas related to marriage continue in force to this day. A patchwork is not a patchwork, and an appeal to traditional ideas is not an appeal to tradition. Rarely does one see such undisguised examples of doublethink. > [@](#): > > I’ll use different words that mean exactly the same thing if it makes you happy. Since you already did precisely that twice in the previously quoted portion of your post, and it evidently did not make anybody any happier, why do you think that third time will be the charm? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/311 "2015-01-26T15:42:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’ve seen these “35 states! 36 states!” pronouncements like there is a developing national consensus like in Loving. But these were almost all done by federal courts and not voters or legislators. I expect these “national consensus” arguments to be rightfully trashed in briefs and oral arguments. [Side-by-side comparison](http://xkcd.com/1431/). ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/312 "2015-01-26T16:35:14Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > A patchwork is not a patchwork, and an appeal to traditional ideas is not an appeal to tradition. > > Rarely does one see such undisguised examples of doublethink. Well, the states are also arguing that their interest in two-parent families is why they must be allowed to ensure that same-sex couples can’t jointly adopt, ensuring that the children in question will have only one legal parent. So there’s that. It was an easier sell in the days where same-sex marriage wasn’t legal anywhere, because then the costs and benefits were all hypothetical. But now it’s increasingly a matter of asking actual people to sacrifice rights that they would have had in the next state over, and which would be granted as a matter of course for an identically situated opposite-sex couple, for the sake of someone else’s principles in the abstract. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/313 "2015-01-26T16:52:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not that they have to show irreparable harm from gay marriage. It’s that they have to show irreparable harm from being denied a stay. And there is one (possibly) irreparable harm at issue: if the state ultimately prevails on appeal, it has a bunch of same-sex marriages that do not fit into its legal framework. The state then faces a frankly unpalatable choice of treating those marriages as null and void - though they were legal when celebrated - or recognizing rights for a very small group of citizens that others don’t have. > > They could of course avoid this issue entirely by just recognizing gay marriage. But you don’t get to say, “well, none of this would be a problem if they did what we wanted.” That’s why the issue is litigated in the first place. > > Having said all that, I don’t see any reason to grant a stay in these cases where (1) all the facts are stipulated, and (2) the appellate court has already heard and decided the identical issue. If there were substantive differences in the way Florida and Alabama treated marriage, or the plaintiffs were not similarly situated, then I would say Alabama should have the chance to argue the issue itself. But I’m pretty sure there aren’t, so I don’t. Great post. As for the cases that SCOTUS will hear, they are limiting the arguments to 14th Amendment issues as opposed to 10th. My limited understanding of this tells me that they don’t think that this is a States Rights thing but a Civil Rights thing so the whole argument that States have the right to regulate marriage being the main issue isn’t accurate anyway. Is this correct? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/314 "2015-01-26T18:40:52Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > A patchwork is not a patchwork, and an appeal to traditional ideas is not an appeal to tradition. > > Rarely does one see such undisguised examples of doublethink. He’s also argued that gay marriage is harmful because it does harm. If this is the caliber of lawyers defending SSM bans, this case should be a slam-dunk. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/315 "2015-01-26T18:52:39Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > True. So best to start getting things sorted now, rather than let the confusing patchwork of contradictory status quos continue. > > Are you familiar with the logical fallacy [Appeal to tradition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition)? Because most of your argument seems to come down to it. I favor adoption of same-sex marriage. But I cannot stand it when people arguing my side of an issue do so incompetently. From [Appeal to Tradition](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html): > [@](#): > > For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim. In this matter, the law recognizes rights that “are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” (See, e.g., _Washington v. Glucksberg_, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). Therefore, the fallacy “Appeal to Tradition,” is not applicable here, because, like the wine example cited above, in legal analysis the presence of tradition IS relevant. There are plenty of strong, CORRECT arguments that weigh against same-sex marriage bans, most notably laid out in _Windsor._ “Appeal to Tradition,” present as a fallacy, is not a viable argument. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/316 "2015-01-26T19:26:53Z")
Sounds like a great way to justify bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/317 "2015-01-26T20:07:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this matter, the law recognizes rights that “are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” (See, e.g., _Washington v. Glucksberg_, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). Therefore, the fallacy “Appeal to Tradition,” is not applicable here, because, like the wine example cited above, in legal analysis the presence of tradition IS relevant. Consider Nizkor’s second example of appeal to tradition: > [@](#): > > Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men. > Connan: “You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women’s rights.” > Gunthar: “So, what is your point son?” > Connan: “Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate.” > Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. " > Connan: “But I still think there is something wrong with it.” > Gunthar: “Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right.” jtgain’s appeal to tradition is far more similar to this example than it is to a suggestion that wines improve in flavor as they age. He is indeed committing the fallacious version of the argument. To the extent that the law suggests the way things have always been done has some sort of inherent superiority to a new way, by virtue of having been done this way for a long time, the law itself partakes of this fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/318 "2015-01-26T20:25:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > How about this “hypo” for a real problem: > > Supposed a lesbian couple (one of whom is bi-sexual), living in West Virginia in 2005, were happy and decided to travel to Massachusetts to get married. In 2008, they separate. Knowing that West Virginia and the feds don’t recognize their marriage, they do nothing. West Virginia won’t grant a divorce and neither will Massachusetts because of residency requirements. They had purchased a house in one party’s name, and a court ruled that since SSM was not recognized, the second party didn’t have a claim. While maintaining that a lot of your posts on the subject are an appeal to tradition fallacy, this is actually an interesting hypo, without an unambiguous answer (thus interesting). Here’s my answer: The law should serve citizens, respecting to the extent possible their freedom to make choices and to live by their choices. In this case. the couple clearly intended to separate in 2008 and behaved as though they’d separated. At this point, the best way to go forward seems to me to write a law that allows parties **in this specific situation** (married legally in a state that recognized SSM, divorced informally in a state that didn’t recognize them) to obtain a retroactive divorce dating back to evidence of their informal separation; that marriage that was no recognized for so long would, according to this retroactive divorce, continue not to be recognized. In the event that parties dispute whether or when such a separation occurred, a judge would help sort out the details, as happens in other difficult divorce cases. You’re right that there are a few weird wrinkles that’ll happen as we transition to full equality of marriage. But they’re going to be very rare, and laws to acknowledge them are certainly possible. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/319 "2015-01-26T20:31:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You’re right that there are a few weird wrinkles that’ll happen as we transition to full equality of marriage. Sure. Another example is that SSI is trying to claim that they overpaid benefits for people in SSM because after Windsor SSI refused to recalculate the incomes for married SSI recipients if the marriages were same sex. Even when those recipients asked for recalculations. SSI: Here’s your money. Recipients: I’m married now, so you should be calculating including my spouse’s income. SSI: Don’t worry about it! Here’s your money. Recipients: Okay. It was going to hurt to get that cut in payments. SSI (a year later): We overpaid you. You’re actually married, so we should have been calculating including your spouse’s income. Recipients: But you said it was okay! SSI: We’ll just cut your current benefits until we’ve recouped the amount. Have a nice day! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/320 "2015-01-26T20:40:27Z")
I wonder: are there any recorded cases of similar weirdness after **Loving v. Virginia**? I wonder whether the hypothetical could be rewritten with a mixed-race couple moving to a state that didn’t recognize their marriage and then separating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=17)