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?
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.
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.
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
It didn’t take long.
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?
“He wouldn’t ‘voom’ if you had four million lesbian newlyweds make out in front of him!”
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.
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.
I generally agree.
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.
In fact, it was discovered the only reason he was still on the bench is he was, in fact, nailed there.
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?
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.
They failed in the DOMA ruling by not doing it then, although it’s been interpreted that way (almost) unanimously.
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.
Ginsburg said as much a few weeks ago.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?