US Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in 13 states.
-
The US Supreme Court has rejected all 7 cases on gay marriage that were pending appeal, without commenting on why. This means that the last court decision{s} stands and in this instance, all 7 cases were decided in favor of equality.
There could still be a US Court of Appeals that decides against equality in another district and that would force the Supreme Court to make a final ruling on gay marriage, by creating a constitutional crisis.
Still less than half of the US has marriage equality.
-
As of October 7, 2014, 26 US states license same sex marriage, (often by default once the state's various 'constitutional bans' are overturned w/o challenge or appeal)
The issue of equality in the US is entrenched in a 'sovereign state' argument. The US Supreme Court, as a matter of public policy, will not hear cases on the issue before at least 38 states have unequivocal equality re marriage rights, privileges and responsibilities. (Which, as it happens, is the same percentage of states needed to amend the US Constitution and thereby take the matter out of the hands of individual states and the courts) Or, as referenced, a state appeals the decision of its own Supreme Court, thereby creating ''a constitutional crisis'' : A State's Constitution vs the US Constitution.
As an American, I'm saddened that the 'beacon of freedom and equality' must be mired in such an exhaustive (and often destructive and hate-filled) process but heartened that we will get there. USA has only been around for a relatively short time compared to most nations of the global community and, given the vast socio-economic diversity and sheer size in land mass (don't forget 2 state's not even attached :P) with some truly major f/ups, still somehow manage to get it right on the big stuff.
-
The constitutional crisis I was referring to is when different districts of the US Court of Appeals make opposing rulings.
I don't think a State Supreme Court can have a different ruling, if the federal district they are in has already ruled, even if it's from another state in the district.
On the good news side of things, the US Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th district, covering 9 states) ruled in favor of marriage equality the day after the US supreme Court announcement that they rejected all 7 cases. So that's now 4 district US Court of Appeals (4th, 7th, 9th and 10th) that has ruled in favor of marriage equality. The ruling was already set, but out of courtesy, they waited until after the US Supreme Court decided on whether to act on the 7 pending cases or not.
-
You are correct.
However, I was referring to different circumstance: In cases where the issue has been determined by a state supreme court, US circuit courts of appeal have no jurisdiction unless (as in the 7 recent cases passed on by SCOTUS) there were/are Article IV, Section 1 issues (full faith and credit of equal jurisdictions.
Under American federalism, the interpretation of a state supreme court on a matter of state law is normally final and binding and must be accepted in both state and federal courts. Federal courts may overrule a state court only when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Federal appellate review of state supreme court rulings on such matters may be sought by way of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In the case of Pennsylvania, where the Legislature (Assembly in this commonwealth) has codified bans on same sex marriage then signed into law by the Executive; when challenged by constituency, ruled unconstitutional by that state's supreme court. The only recourse for the Executive, would be to appeal to the US supreme court because, as mentioned, a state's constitution can not be in direct conflict with federal constitution and the multi-jurisdictional scope of US courts of appeal has no authority to rule on the constitution of one state by deciding a case upon the constitutionality of another.
Either way, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is at least in sight!
-
ty AjaxGay marriages can stop promiscuity and the infections that they bring.
hope all nations understand this basic information.
You are correct.
However, I was referring to different circumstance: In cases where the issue has been determined by a state supreme court, US circuit courts of appeal have no jurisdiction unless (as in the 7 recent cases passed on by SCOTUS) there were/are Article IV, Section 1 issues (full faith and credit of equal jurisdictions.
Under American federalism, the interpretation of a state supreme court on a matter of state law is normally final and binding and must be accepted in both state and federal courts. Federal courts may overrule a state court only when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Federal appellate review of state supreme court rulings on such matters may be sought by way of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In the case of Pennsylvania, where the Legislature (Assembly in this commonwealth) has codified bans on same sex marriage then signed into law by the Executive; when challenged by constituency, ruled unconstitutional by that state's supreme court. The only recourse for the Executive, would be to appeal to the US supreme court because, as mentioned, a state's constitution can not be in direct conflict with federal constitution and the multi-jurisdictional scope of US courts of appeal has no authority to rule on the constitution of one state by deciding a case upon the constitutionality of another.
Either way, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is at least in sight!
-
ty AjaxGay marriages can stop promiscuity and the infections that they bring.
hope all nations understand this basic information.
:crazy2:
PLEASE don't spread this kind of nonsense - it doesn't help anyone! Gay marriage isn't about preventing promiscuity and infections (and where do you get the idea that with promiscuity automatically comes infections? There are so many things wrong with that!). Gay marriage is about treating gay people equally, bringing us out of second class citizen status, period.
The idea that married gay men are automatically less promiscuous than unmarried gay men is just as ignorant as saying the same thing about straight men. There are all different kinds of marriages.
-
Actually, there are studies that show that gay men are becoming less promiscuous in the last decade due to gay marriage.
This article talks about one of the studies; http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/study-finds-us-gay-men-becoming-less-promiscuous050513
Promiscuity does lead to more STDs than monogamy. 16 to 24yo's have the most sexual partners per year than any other age group. They also have the highest rate of STDs. 55+ is the 2nd highest group for STDs. People in the "marriage zone" (25 to 54) have the least STDs.
I couldn't find any studies on gay marriage and STDs that weren't from hate groups, but I did find studies about hetero marriage. Married heteros have 1/3rd the STD rate of non married heteros of the same age group. Of course this includes things like HIV and Herpes which they could have gotten before they met their partner but didn't know it.
-
Good news to hear it and wish it goes on and on.
-
Alaska, Nevada and Idaho all had their gay marriage bans struck down by various levels of federal courts, since the ruling in San Francisco.
Unfortunately, anything after the US Supreme Court calendar announcement about a week ago, can still make it to the US Supreme Court so they will still be in play until next year about this time.
-
Gay Marriage has been legal in New York for years now and the only thing that changed for me is my mother keeps asking when I'm going to get married. It'll take some time but I sure people won't be raising a fuss over it for long now. As for a constitutional amendment I'd have to disagree with that ever being required. I simply feel that as more and more social attitudes change gay marriage will be thought of in the same light as interracial marriage.
