# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/101 "2014-10-07T23:48:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*Patty O’Furniture \*\* > We got so caught up in the good news that we all missed Ted Cruz’s head exploding. > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Wasn’t that just part of the good news? Or [Bryan Fischer’s](http://www.afa.net/the-stand/homosexuality/the-dred-scott-of-gay-marriage/) of the AFA - one of my favorite entertainment-level explodees… > [@](#): > > Originally Posted (with spittle flying, no doubt) by **Bryan Fischer** > The Court yesterday enshrined an institution that is as morally bankrupt and indefensible as the institution of slavery. Slavery ate away America’s soul and homosexual marriage will do the same thing. It is a deviant and grotesque caricature of the real thing. For this sexual debauchery to be normalized by the highest court in the land is a sign of a nation plunging headlong into a bottomless moral abyss. Fischer’s website, BTW is incredibly ripe pickings for the ongoing “Stupid Republican idea of the Day” thread, should anyone have the fortitude to wade through the mire to retrieve them… but I digress. And for some real entertainment, wander over to the freeper’s site. Heads assploding _all over_ the place there… 😃 ---
**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:** [October 8, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/102 "2014-10-08T00:06:05Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > As I recall, the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed all state laws against black-white marriages (_Loving vs. Virginia_) happened when there were 27 states that had already changed their laws to allow this. Perhaps more importantly, a majority of Americans now approve of SSM. That wasn’t the case for interracial marriage until the early 1990s - although I’m not sure in that case how much of that was “disapprove of” versus “should be prevented by law”. Only about 20% of the public approved of interracial marriage in 1968. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/103 "2014-10-08T00:08:12Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Okay, I’m going to just grant you that it’s always been liberals trying to make these changes (which is probably a mistake, but whatever). Can you please tell me why this change was a _bad_ idea? Can you please tell me what’s wrong with this idea? Marriage permanence is really dumb. If two people stop caring about each other, forcing them to stay together “for tradition’s sake” is monstrous. Banning divorce entirely, wouldn’t 'force [anyone] to stay together." Separation is always a possibility, and has been for centuries. What used to be the case, back in the day, is that you would not have the right to _remarry_, as long as your first spouse was living. Hell, if remarriage was banned you could even shack up with anyone you liked, you just wouldn’t be able to call it a marriage. And of course you could continue living together with your spouse and banging your paramour on the side. As for what that good that would accomplish, Chesterton points out in one of his essays that the whole reason we (used to) revere and honour marriage is precisely because it was permanent, and when you take away the permanence you also take away what gives (or gave) marriage much of its meaning. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > This has never been an argument. Where does this even come from? At no point was the intent to have children a necessary contingency for marriage. Was this ever a change in the law? I don’t think so. Let’s consult the Anglican marriage service here: “duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. **First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.** Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.” Let’s also look at what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter. > **[Vatican: For Catholic marriage to be valid, couples must be open to children...](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/for-catholic-marriage-to-be-valid-couples-must-be-open-to-children-reaffirm/)** > > "\[M\]arriages nowadays are probably invalid more often than they were previously, because there is a lack of desire for marriage in accordance with Catholic teaching," asserted the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Yup, openness to children is a requirement for a valid Catholic marriage. Children (specifically, the assurance of paternity and the delegation of responsibility for parenting) is the primary _reason_ that marriage exists, in European Christian cultures. Not ‘love’. Why is it my business if a particular couple loves each other or not, and why am I supposed to care? Wait, this was a liberal idea? The point of two-income households was not “give women freedom”, it was “make more money”. Because the cost of living was going up. You seem to be drastically missing the point. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > You know what’s interesting? _Not a single one of the things you brought up here are the things liberals appeal to when discussing a change in marriage_. Not one. We usually bring up how it used to be between one man with property and another man with property’s daughter (i.e. his property). Or how it was then between one man and one woman of the same skin color. Not how divorces used to be harder to get, or how the role of the woman changed. Because, and here’s the key point, those changes liberals actually bring up? _They are things nobody in their right mind could claim as bad_. Moving from “women are property” to “women are equals”? A huge, fundamental shift in what marriage is and means, and one which only an utter monster would consider bad. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and your argument makes absolutely zero sense. It neither matches the historical record of why such moves were made, nor does it explain why they were bad things, nor does it even have anything to do with the arguments liberals make today. 1. There’s nothing ‘traditional’ about ‘skin colour’ requirements for marriage, at least in Christian societies. I’m really baffled where you are getting this. Bans on interracial marriage were a modern innovation, established in the 17th century, and only in a few countries (France, the United States, South Africa, and some others), and had just about zero support in Christian tradition. > **[Anti-miscegenation laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws)** > > Anti-miscegenation laws are laws that enforce racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage sometimes, also criminalizing sex between members of different races. > In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have been termed "miscegenation" since the term was coined in 1863. Contemporary usage of the term is infrequent, except in reference to historical laws which banned the practice. Anti-miscegenation laws were f... 1. Married women were never considered ‘property’ in Christian civilizations. They didn’t have the same rights as their husbands, but neither did children, and certainly no one would describe children as property. 2. It’s true that marriage has shifted, in the minds of many, from having a distinct leader and a follower, a superior and a subordinate, to being a supposed ‘partnership of equals’. You’ll of course pardon me if I don’t view that as a good thing, and view it as part of the breakdown of authority in the liberal west. Gay marriage is a result of the way that we (or many of us) have come to view marriage, and so it’s both inevitable and (in a sense) the fair thing to do. I don’t oppose it, as a legal matter. But don’t expect me to approve the modern construct called ‘marriage’ which has largely replaced the older idea. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/104 "2014-10-08T00:11:43Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > And for some real entertainment, wander over to the freeper’s site. Heads assploding _all over_ the place there… 😃 LMAO! You are right on the money. Concerning SCOUTUS having declined to hear the appeals, one of them seriously stated : “Appeal it.” ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/105 "2014-10-08T00:16:40Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. It’s true that marriage has shifted, in the minds of many, from having a distinct leader and a follower, a superior and a subordinate, to being a supposed ‘partnership of equals’. You’ll of course pardon me if I don’t view that as a good thing, and view it as part of the breakdown of authority in the liberal west. Can you expand on what you’re saying here? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/106 "2014-10-08T00:42:19Z")
> [@Greg\_Charles](#): > > No, 33 I think. However, SSM states could soon get to 35. The big question is what will the 6th Circuit Court do? Either they strike down the bans, and there are suddenly 39 SSM states, or there is a circuit split, and the SC really, really is forced to make a ruling in their next term. What court(s) do the other 11 fall under? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/107 "2014-10-08T00:44:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Gay marriage is pretty much done as a wedge issue. The immediate future is immigration and voter ID. I get where you’re coming from, but I think you’re calling the game a bit early. It may be that this is done as an _effective_ wedge issue but I doubt some of the more virulent homophobes will find it possible to resist using this to whip up fear among the GOP base. We will see if it ends up mattering or not. I doubt Cruz, Huckabee, etc are just going to shut up. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/108 "2014-10-08T01:22:40Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t disagree, but here is a paraphrase of the argument over the years: > > Liberal: We must not make marriage about permanence. We must allow no-fault divorce! > Conservative: This will change the fundamental definition of marriage! > Liberal: No, it won’t. It just lets unhappy people a way to get out. The “liberal” in this conversation, of course, being Ronald Reagan, who signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law. > [@](#): > > Liberal: Marriage is no longer about child rearing. > Conservative: This will change the fundamental definition of marriage! > Liberal: No, it won’t. It just allows a loving couple to be together without the necessity of wanting children. I’m sorry, but are you somehow under the impression that it used to be illegal for people to get married and not have children? Because I genuinely cannot figure out how this “conversation” fits into the larger narrative you’re trying to construct. > [@](#): > > Liberal: Two income households will and should be the norm. > Conservative: This will change the fundamental definition of marriage! > Liberal: Nonsense. It simply gives women the freedom to pursue careers. This is just hilariously middle class. Do you really think that households with two working parents are a new invention? For most of human history, it required the constant labor of both parents to keep a family fed, clothed, and housed. Granted, in a rural context, a lot of this labor was performed at home, but the culprit behind that change isn’t “liberals,” it’s the industrial revolution and increased urbanization. > [@](#): > > Liberal: Women don’t have to cook and clean. Men can do this stuff as well. > Conservative: This will change the fundamental definition of marriage! > Liberal: Men can get off of their lazy asses and learn how to do laundry. Okay, this one I’ll give you. Liberals have, indeed, been more consistently in favor of the idea of social and legal equity between men and women, while conservatives, on the whole, have opposed this idea. I encourage you to repeat this particular complaint as often and as widely as you can, particularly before November 4th. > [@](#): > > Liberal: Marriage doesn’t have to be between opposite sex couples. > Conservative: This will change the fundamental definition of marriage! > Liberal: Well, we’ve already gone so far down that road that we can’t go back. And that, of course, is not actually an argument used by SSM advocates. We do, on occasion, point out that what marriage means has changed a lot in this country, sometimes due to a liberal agenda, sometimes due to a conservative agenda, but most of the time due to fundamental shifts in the nature of modern society that are not directly related to attitudes towards marriage. I do think it’s telling that, of the examples you have there that are to some extent based on reality, the liberals were right every time, and the conservatives were left defending the utterly indefensible. We were right about equality between men and women. We were right about striking down miscegenation laws. And we’re right about gay marriage. Folks like yourself and **Hector** here are nothing more than an object lesson for future historians. Enjoy your dustbin. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/109 "2014-10-08T01:23:13Z")
**Hector** , you’re really ducking and weaving all over the shop here. You are conflating social, religious and legal aspects of marriage until what you end up with is a giant casserole of gibberish. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Banning divorce entirely, wouldn’t 'force [anyone] to stay together." Separation is always a possibility, and has been for centuries. What used to be the case, back in the day, is that you would not have the right to _remarry_, as long as your first spouse was living. Hell, if remarriage was banned you could even shack up with anyone you liked, you just wouldn’t be able to call it a marriage. And of course you could continue living together with your spouse and banging your paramour on the side. > > As for what that good that would accomplish, Chesterton points out in one of his essays that the whole reason we (used to) revere and honour marriage is precisely because it was permanent, and when you take away the permanence you also take away what gives (or gave) marriage much of its meaning. This is simply nonsense. The fact that people who were blatantly dishonoring their marriage vows by desertion and/or infidelity were still officially just as “married” as the most faithful and devoted couple was something that **tarnished** the social status of legal marriage, rather than **enhancing** it. People still do honor the concept of permanence in marriage as long as it’s **voluntary** permanence, as you can tell from all the sympathetic admiration for elderly couples who boast of being happily married for five or six decades. But **nobody thinks more highly of marriage just because a couple of mutually hate-filled long-separated adulterers ended up never getting divorced.** Nor has there ever been a time when anyone did. > [@Hector](#): > > Let’s consult the Anglican marriage service here: > > "duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. \*\*First, It was ordained for the procreation of children Irrelevant to the question of **necessary contingency for legal marriage** , which is what **BPC** was talking about. > [@Hector](#): > > Children (specifically, the assurance of paternity and the delegation of responsibility for parenting) is the primary _reason_ that marriage exists, in European Christian cultures. Not ‘love’. Why is it my business if a particular couple loves each other or not, and why am I supposed to care? Well, the Anglican and Catholic authorities that you quote with so much approval evidently think it’s your business, because they wrote explicit declarations of mutual love into the sacred marriage vows that a bridal couple is supposed to exchange in front of God and the congregation. If it was really considered to be no business of society’s whether a particular couple loves each other or not, then the marriage vows would just be _“I promise to be a good and loving parent to whatever children we may have and I promise not to let any dislike I may feel for you either now or in the future goad me to the point of actually murdering you.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/110 "2014-10-08T01:27:42Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Banning divorce entirely, wouldn’t 'force [anyone] to stay together." Separation is always a possibility, and has been for centuries. What used to be the case, back in the day, is that you would not have the right to _remarry_, as long as your first spouse was living. Hell, if remarriage was banned you could even shack up with anyone you liked, you just wouldn’t be able to call it a marriage. And of course you could continue living together with your spouse and banging your paramour on the side. Boy, you live in the past. This changed in 1534! when Henry split from the Catholic church. (Divorce in the Church of England was a pain in the ass until the 1920s sometime, but its been permitted for going on 500 years.) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/111 "2014-10-08T01:59:15Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Boy, you live in the past. This changed in 1534! when Henry split from the Catholic church. > > (Divorce in the Church of England was a pain in the ass until the 1920s sometime, but its been permitted for going on 500 years.) The Church of England really didn’t recognize divorce until 2002. The CoE was one of the strictest Christian churches in regard to divorce. Divorce ultimately became legal in England under civil law, but the CoE didn’t recognize it. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/112 "2014-10-08T02:03:15Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Boy, you live in the past. This changed in 1534! when Henry split from the Catholic church. > > (Divorce in the Church of England was a pain in the ass until the 1920s sometime, but its been permitted for going on 500 years.) Wrong. The Church of England didn’t, officially, permit remarriage of divorced people with a living spouse until **2003**. For a very long time it was the most anti-divorce of any major Protestant church. Though they would ‘bless’ remarried couples and the like. What changed in the 1920s (I think) was English _civil_ marriage. I’m baffled what you think Henry VIII has to do with divorce, but he got an annulment of his first marriage (on grounds of Levitical incest, though the Pope didn’t sign on to that), not a divorce. Remairraige remained a no-no in the C of E until (depending how you parse things) quite recently. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/113 "2014-10-08T02:04:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Divorce ultimately became legal in England under civil law, but the CoE didn’t recognize it. This is the middle ground I hope for on gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/114 "2014-10-08T02:06:38Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I’m baffled what you think Henry VIII has to do with divorce, but he got an annulment of his first marriage (on grounds of Levitical incest, though the Pope didn’t sign on to that), not a divorce. Remairraige remained a no-no in the C of E until (depending how you parse things) quite recently. This is a distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/115 "2014-10-08T02:13:59Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > What court(s) do the other 11 fall under? They belong to the fourth, ninth, and tenth circuits. Colorado (4th) already became the 25th SSM state this morning. Nevada and Idaho (9th) had their bans on SSM struck down this afternoon, and are quasi-SSM now pending … what? Just procedural stuff I think. So, by federal circuits: 1. All states have already legalized SSM. No circuit court action taken. 2. All states have already legalized SSM. No circuit court action taken. 3. All states have already legalized SSM. No circuit court action taken. 4. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. SC(\*) declined to review. 5. Appeals pending to circuit court. 6. Appeals heard by circuit court, decision pending 7. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. SC declined to review. 8. Appeal from Florida pending (I think. I’m not totally clear what’s going on there.) 9. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. Not part of SC ruling. 10. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. SC declined to review. 11. Appeals are still in the district courts. - SC = The Supreme Court, not South Carolina. South Carolina is going nuts. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2014, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/116 "2014-10-08T02:19:11Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > This is the middle ground I hope for on gay marriage. That’s not really a middle ground - it’s pretty much precisely the goal of SSM advocates, who are seeking civil marriage rights, with no interest in forcing religious institutions to change. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/117 "2014-10-08T02:33:21Z")
> [@Greg\_Charles](#): > > They belong to the fourth, ninth, and tenth circuits. Colorado (4th) already became the 25th SSM state this morning. Nevada and Idaho (9th) had their bans on SSM struck down this afternoon, and are quasi-SSM now pending … what? Just procedural stuff I think. > > So, by federal circuits: > > 1. All states have already legalized SSM. No circuit court action taken. > 2. All states have already legalized SSM. No circuit court action taken. > 3. All states have already legalized SSM. No circuit court action taken. > 4. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. SC(\*) declined to review. > 5. Appeals pending to circuit court. > 6. Appeals heard by circuit court, decision pending > 7. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. SC declined to review. > 8. Appeal from Florida pending (I think. I’m not totally clear what’s going on there.) > 9. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. Not part of SC ruling. > 10. Circuit court declared bans on SSM unconstitutional. SC declined to review. > 11. Appeals are still in the district courts. > > - SC = The Supreme Court, not South Carolina. South Carolina is going nuts. Florida is in the Eleventh Circuit. There’s also still chance for the First and Third Circuits to get involved - Puerto Rico falls within the purview of the First, and I know there’s currently a challenge going on there; the US Virgin Islands fall under the Third, although I don’t know if there’s a challenge currently active there. I think all the US Pacific island territories fall under the Ninth Circuit, but I could be wrong about that. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/118 "2014-10-08T03:00:30Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > Even the [LDS church](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765660791/LDS-Church-responds-to-Supreme-Court-announcement.html) put out a statement that is fairly “live and let live” in attitude. Wow. Just…wow. You know, within the realm of the possible, that’s actually a pretty classy\* move on their part. It ain’t all that and a slice of bread, but it’s damn close. \*Yeah, I know. They fought tooth-and-nail against it for a long time, but I really expected them to carry the torch for a LOT longer than this. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/119 "2014-10-08T03:04:31Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > Or [Bryan Fischer’s](http://www.afa.net/the-stand/homosexuality/the-dred-scott-of-gay-marriage/) of the AFA - one of my favorite entertainment-level explodees… > Fischer’s website, BTW is incredibly ripe pickings for the ongoing “Stupid Republican idea of the Day” thread, should anyone have the fortitude to wade through the mire to retrieve them… but I digress. > > And for some real entertainment, wander over to the freeper’s site. Heads assploding _all over_ the place there… 😃 Fischer is hysterical. He has recently argued that atheists shouldn’t be allowed in the military and that when the first amendment says ‘religion’ that only apples to Christians. ---
**Author:** ![susan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/susan/32/17537_2.png) [@susan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/120 "2014-10-08T03:21:12Z")
> [@](#): > > apples to Christians In Adam’s fall/We sinned all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=7)