# 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:** 2
**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:** [October 6, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/21 "2014-10-06T15:37:52Z")
So for gay couples in places like Utah and Indiana, the only hurdle at the moment is how quickly a marriage license form with Person A and Person B instead of Husband and Wife can get through doc control? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/22 "2014-10-06T15:53:46Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Also, does the SCOTUS get to take back their decision? Its the start of the court season, can they change their mind a 2 months and say they do want to hear a gay marriage case? No. Once a ruling is handed down that is it, unless a Motion for Reconsideration is filed to hear it, (timeline), then it takes 5 out of 9 to grant to hear it instead of 4. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/23 "2014-10-06T16:31:26Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > So for gay couples in places like Utah and Indiana, the only hurdle at the moment is how quickly a marriage license form with Person A and Person B instead of Husband and Wife can get through doc control? When the federal district judge ruled against the SSM ban in December last year, and didn’t stay his order, there were marriages occurring within an hour (IIRC) in Salt Lake County, the most liberal area in Utah. Several counties dragged their heels until the AG office reminded them they needed to comply with the order pending the outcome of the request to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay, which was declined before eventually being granted by SCOTUS. In the meantime, about 1,000 couples got married. Utah had requested and received an injunction allowing the State to not treat these marriages as valid pending appeal. As that appeal was not accepted those marriages are valid right now. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/24 "2014-10-06T16:35:31Z")
From the [Salt Lake Tribune](http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58492286-78/court-utah-marriage-sex.html.csp): > [@](#): > > Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill said Monday morning that clerks would not begin to dole out an licenses to same-sex couples until the 10th Circuit Court — which upheld the historic ruling of U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that toppled Utah’s gay marriage ban on Dec. 20 — issues a mandate for states to begin. > > That mandate came at 10:10 a.m. It didn’t take long. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/25 "2014-10-06T16:41:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > As much as this is technically good news, I’m more than a little disappointed in the supreme court for passing the buck on this. I mean, is there _any_ way to get them to rule on this at all? It’s a little ridiculous, honestly - this is one of the most pressing legal issues currently in debate, and they have no less than 3 state courts demanding answers, and they just say “no”? What’s it gonna take? No, there is no way to force the Supreme Court to hear a particular case or rule on the issue. However, the fact they did NOT take on the appeal is a statement/ruling of sorts. As noted, it means that _de facto_ same sex marriage will be legalized in 30 states, up from the 19 where that was the case last week. You don’t think that significant? ---
**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:** [October 6, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/26 "2014-10-06T16:44:03Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > With a little luck, the SCOTUS will take up gay marriage only after Scalia has become an ex-justice. “He wouldn’t _‘voom’_ if you had four million lesbian newlyweds make out in front of him!” ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/27 "2014-10-06T16:46:56Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > So for gay couples in places like Utah and Indiana, the only hurdle at the moment is how quickly a marriage license form with Person A and Person B instead of Husband and Wife can get through doc control? Nope - they don’t even have to wait that long. Some folks will say the documents have to be changed but honestly, the important thing is to identify the individuals getting married. Details can be changed retroactively if that is really necessary. It will take as long as convincing any reluctant clerks that yes, what the SCotUS did really does have an effect RIGHT NOW now issue the damn paperwork. In other locations, various officials were probably standing ready with a stack of forms even before any same sex couples showed up. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/28 "2014-10-06T17:03:21Z")
It’s definitely a strange situation. It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. If the 4 liberals thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? If the 4 conservatives thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? Especially the 4 conservatives. This effectively ends any chance the anti-SSM side had. Does anyone think that with 35 (and more coming) states that will be forced to recognize SSM, that two years from now the Court will say, sorry guys, go back to 19 states. An oh, all of you same sex couples that married last year? No more; turn in your marriage license. This was an issue that deserved a definitive opinion from the High Court. They failed at their duty today. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/29 "2014-10-06T17:34:43Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This effectively ends any chance the anti-SSM side had. I generally agree. > [@](#): > > This was an issue that deserved a definitive opinion from the High Court. I think we have something definitive in hand. The lower courts seem to all be headed the same direction, pro-SSM. Granting cert means a long delay with the stays being in force. Once you get to the decision, there’s still a chance it goes the other way, with a strong conservative group. I see this as being a somewhat more sure road to comprehensive SSM rights, if a bit slower overall. If one of the lower courts upholds a ban, then there’s disagreement, and the SC can settle it, but it would make sense to not go that route unless you had to, since popular opinion seems to be going pro-SSM every year. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/30 "2014-10-06T17:40:59Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > “He wouldn’t _‘voom’_ if you had four million lesbian newlyweds make out in front of him!” In fact, it was discovered the only reason he was still on the bench is he was, in fact, nailed there. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/31 "2014-10-06T17:41:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This was an issue that deserved a definitive opinion from the High Court. They failed at their duty today. In my initial giddiness, I hadn’t thought that through, but I agree. SCOTUS failed in their duty. This was as issue which needed to be addressed now. I wonder if the liberals calculated that by not acting now, the facts on the ground will mean that it can never be reversed. Is that smart? Cynical? Political? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/32 "2014-10-06T17:52:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s definitely a strange situation. It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. If the 4 liberals thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? If the 4 conservatives thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? Maybe Kennedy isn’t on board with revisiting the subject at all and has said so to his colleagues, since it would only make it apparent how he bungled the DOMA opinion and left all these loose ends. As long as all the circuit rulings are aligned, the court doesn’t need to do anything anyway. > [@](#): > > This was an issue that deserved a definitive opinion from the High Court. They failed at their duty today. They failed in the DOMA ruling by not doing it _then_, although it’s been interpreted that way (almost) unanimously. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/33 "2014-10-06T18:04:16Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I am curious about this as well. All the articles I found said something to the effect of “gay couples will be able to wed almost immediately” but I’d like to know a bit more about the actual process. Does a court somewhere have to officially unstay the decision or do they automatically expire once the right condition is met? > [@lawbuff](#): > > SC decision’s do NOT have an effective time such as a law passed may have a 90 day enforcement time, they are immediate. While this decision is effective immediately I have read that there will be some small delay because of some procedural steps the local judiciaries need take first. From that I gathered these steps are pretty automatic and pretty quick so there will be little delay but neither can same sex couples get their marriage license today. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/34 "2014-10-06T18:04:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As long as all the circuit rulings are aligned, the court doesn’t need to do anything anyway. [Ginsburg said as much](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage_n_5833090.html) a few weeks ago. > [@](#): > > MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states’ gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday. > > Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court’s timing. She said “there will be some urgency” if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in sooner, she predicted. > > She said if the appeals panel falls in line with other rulings there is “no need for us to rush.” ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/35 "2014-10-06T18:15:25Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s definitely a strange situation. It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. If the 4 liberals thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? If the 4 conservatives thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? I’m not an attorney or close court-watcher, but I do get the impression that the court cares about the reputation and legacy of the court. The conservatives may not want to go on record opposing SSM, and the liberals may be pretty happy with the way things are trending. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/36 "2014-10-06T18:17:07Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s definitely a strange situation. It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. If the 4 liberals thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? If the 4 conservatives thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? > > Especially the 4 conservatives. This effectively ends any chance the anti-SSM side had. Does anyone think that with 35 (and more coming) states that will be forced to recognize SSM, that two years from now the Court will say, sorry guys, go back to 19 states. An oh, all of you same sex couples that married last year? No more; turn in your marriage license. > > This was an issue that deserved a definitive opinion from the High Court. They failed at their duty today. The more I think on it the more I think the Supreme Court probably took the best path possible. Whatever ruling the Supreme Court makes regarding SSM it is going to seriously piss off a lot of people and seriously polarize the country. There really is no good legal foundation the SCOTUS could come up with to invalidate SSM (there is a reason that almost every court to hear cases on this has said SSM should be legal). Yet to make SSM legal by fiat also carries problems with it and would almost certainly make groups form to get it overturned (see the death by a million cuts that is happening to abortion rights). I think what RTFirefly said upthread is probably what will happen: _“Then by the time gays are getting married in ~45 states, the Supremes will deign to invoke the Full Faith and Credit clause, and let the remaining states know that they have to recognize as valid any marriage from any other state.”_ Basically the court is waiting till same sex marriage is a _fait accompli_ and no big deal to most people as they realize the sky hasn’t fallen and then just rubber stamp it against the few holdouts somewhere down the line. This route will probably cause the least turmoil to our society. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/37 "2014-10-06T18:18:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Maybe Kennedy isn’t on board with revisiting the subject at all and has said so to his colleagues, since it would only make it apparent how he bungled the DOMA opinion and left all these loose ends. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect Kennedy did exactly what he wanted to do: paved the way for the legalization of same-sex marriages without having the Court take the big step. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/38 "2014-10-06T18:20:26Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > It’s definitely a strange situation. It only takes 4 votes to grant cert. If the 4 liberals thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? If the 4 conservatives thought Kennedy was on board, why didn’t they vote to grant cert? > > . Perhaps neither side can predict what Justice Kennedy would do, and they prefer to wait until the next president (or this one) appoints a few new justices. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/39 "2014-10-06T18:29:36Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > I’m not an attorney or close court-watcher, but I do get the impression that the court cares about the reputation and legacy of the court. The conservatives may not want to go on record opposing SSM, and the liberals may be pretty happy with the way things are trending. I’m not so sure. Just because you find there is no constitutional right to SSM does no mean that you oppose it. They would just be saying that it is a matter for the legislature and not the courts. This is sort of a counter example, but consider Scalia’s ruling on flag burning. I don’t think anyone would say that he’s in favor of flag burning, only that he found the constitution protected it. So, he ruled for it, even though he opposes it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/40 "2014-10-06T18:36:39Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Maybe Kennedy isn’t on board with revisiting the subject at all and has said so to his colleagues, since it would only make it apparent how he bungled the DOMA opinion and left all these loose ends. As long as all the circuit rulings are aligned, the court doesn’t need to do anything anyway. But all it takes is 4 to grant cert. It’s hard to believe that Scalia and the like would allow SSM to instantly become legal in 30+ states unless Kennedy straight up told them that they wouldn’t like his ruling. However, if that was the case, then why didn’t the liberal 4 vote for cert? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=3)