Supreme Court to Weigh in on Same-sex Marriage?

In May 1970, Richard John ‘Jack’ Baker and James Michael McConnell filed for a license to marry at the Hennepin County District Court. The court’s clerk denied them a license to marry on the basis that they were two men, and since then, same-sex marriage has been an important topic in the United States.

Within three years of the Hennepin case the state of Maryland would be the first state to pass a same-sex marriage ban based on the idea that only a man and a woman should be allowed to marry one another.

On October 10^th, 1987 the first same-sex marriage took place in Washington, D.C.. Joy Wasson and Liz Throop were married in front of a crowd of 7,000 at the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights.

In September of 1996 President Bill Clinton would sign the Defense of Marriage Act, also known as DOMA. This defined marriage as being a, “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”

Seven years later, in 2003, President George W. Bush made a statement on same-sex marriage. According to CNN’s article “Bush Wants Marriage Reserved for Heterosexuals” the President said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another.”

One of the first states to take action towards legalizing same-sex marriage was Massachusetts. Massachusetts’ Northwestern District Attorney David E. Sullivan noted, “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has clearly ruled that civil marriage is guaranteed under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. This fundamental right to marriage equality would not be altered by any later decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.  If the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against marriage equality for same-sex couples it would impact Massachusetts gay and lesbian couples who travel or relocate to states not recognizing their legal union.”

Over the past few years, activists for the same-sex marriage movement have been pushing for courts of all levels to strike down laws forbidding same-sex civil unions.

In 2013, two major cases involving same-sex marriage were brought to the attention of the United States Supreme Court, and according to The New York Times article “Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage with Two Major Rulings,” “married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits… by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there.”

On October 6^th 2014 the Supreme Court started its new term with a controversial decision regarding same-sex marriage.

Expected to make a ruling on seven same-sex marriage cases across the United States, the Supreme Court opened the new term with an announcement that they would not be hearing any cases involving same-sex marriage, leaving the decision with the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Rebecca L. Bouchard, an associate at Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury, Murphy P.C. and attorney at law, said, “Had the Court decided to hear these cases and issued a decisive ruling on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, it would likely have stemmed the tide of these cases.”

“I believe that the fight over this issue will continue until the Court provides some guidance,” Ms. Bouchard commented. “A Supreme Court decision putting the issue to rest for all of the country would certainly help. I believe that they will be forced to do that eventually,” she added.

The only court to uphold same-sex bans since the October 6^th decision has been the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals, which represents, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

District Attorney David E. Sullivan said, “In our constitutional government, the ultimate arbiter of civil rights and equal protection has been our Supreme Court of the United States…it is incumbent that every same-sex couple’s equal protection rights be upheld by our U.S. Supreme Court.”

Even though the Supreme Court has not made a final decision on marriage equality rights there is still signs that the lower courts are influenced by what the Supreme Court has done.

Mr. Sullivan said, “Fortunately, many states have withdrawn their legal battle against same-sex civil marriage being recognized and allowed. However, some states may not make such a recognition and continue the conflict between states.”

Due to these withdrawals many appeals courts are striking down same-sex marriage bans, which clears the way for state governments to legalize same-sex marriage.

However, with the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which disagrees with the rulings of other circuits, the Supreme Court will be forced to make a ruling on same-sex marriage. When the Supreme Court makes the final ruling it will decide the matter for all 50 states. As Ms. Bouchard said, “a Supreme Court decision putting the issue to rest for all of the country would certainly help.  I believe that they will be forced to do that eventually.”

Since the October 6^th decision the circuit courts have ruled to uphold a ban on same-sex marriage. This conflict means that, in time, the Supreme Court will be forced into making a decision that affects the nation.

The court’s decision not to hear any cases involving same-sex marriage brought with it swift decisions from many of The United States Federal Appeals Courts to either ban or uphold the laws previously set on gay marriage.

Had the Supreme Court heard the seven cases involving same-sex marriage, the same-sex marriage bans would have been upheld or banned, based on the Court’s decision, around the country compared to same-sex marriage bans being decided by the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Following the Supreme Court’s announcement that they would not hear any cases involving same-sex marriage, twenty-one states took steps towards legalizing same-sex marriage. All of these cases were handled by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals which stayed with the decisions they had previously made. This decision struck down bans on same-sex marriage. However, if the Supreme Court had decided to make a ruling then the process of legalizing or banning same-sex marriage throughout the country would have been much faster.

Some people believe that the reasoning behind the justices’ indecision is because of politics. The Supreme Court’s political representation is split between four conservative justices, four justices who tend to be more liberal, and a justice that is after a swing vote. The purpose behind this decision may have been because one party may believe that they will lose the vote to the opposing side.

Another possible explanation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision to not hear any cases may have been delaying their need to make a final decision on same-sex marriage. Decisions within the court often come down to a five to four vote; therefore, justices on the court could be trying to find out where the swing vote lies before they make a definitive ruling.

Ms. Bouchard commented, “It’s hard to say that they should have made a ruling on these particular cases, but all the Court did was avoid the issue – at least for now.”

In the article, “Thomas Hints at Court Split On Gay Marriage Review,” by Mark Sherman for the Associated Press, Justice Clarence Thomas said that he doesn’t understand why the court did not hear appeals from the states that sought to preserve their bans on same-sex weddings. The court often reviews decisions striking down state laws. “But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months.”

The justices of the Supreme Court may have been buying themselves more time before making a final ruling.

If this is the purpose behind the Supreme Court’s indecision they may have wanted the federal appeals courts to take longer to decide on the subject or possibly hoped to have all the lower courts reach the same rulings as to avoid a decision all together.

However, with this delay more cases have reached the Supreme Court’s attention, one case being DeBoer v. Snyder, decided upon by the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to journalist Dale Carpenter in “Two More Same-sex Marriage Cases Reach the Supreme Court” DeBoer, “is the only case in which the district court conducted a trial on various questions [including] parenting and other matters.”

This different approach makes the DeBoer case an interesting subject for the Supreme Court to weigh on when the case is heard, as well as other cases from throughout the country, possibly within the new term.

District Attorney Sullivan said, “the United States Supreme Court should have made a definitive decision on the right of same-sex couples, in all 50 states, to civil marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court correctly ruled in the Goodrich case that the equal protection clauses enumerated in the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution guarantee the protections and benefits of a same-sex marriage.”

With the conflicting decisions within the federal appeals courts the decision for same-sex marriage will be brought forward sooner than it would have. However, the original ruling to not hear any cases by the Supreme Court may play a role in the future on how similar cases are handled.

Mr. Peter Gunn, History and Global Studies Teacher at Williston, said, “The momentum in favor of marriage equality persists and will continue to build. I think [of] the ballot measures, which in many states went in what would be a ‘more liberal direction.’”

If more and more lower courts were to rule in favor of striking down laws, the momentum would continue to move towards the more liberal option. If this is what the decision comes to, people may begin to ask whether the decision should be left to courts or if it should be decided by governments, whether it is the federal government or state government.

Mr. Gunn noted, “There is the question itself and then there is the federalism piece. The Reagan-Rehnquist Revolution in both politics and in the courts has been to revive a serious issue in this country, as to what issues we want to leave up to local [governments] and what issues we want to be settled nationally, and I think this is a great example… and [raising] the federalism question, should that right be established state by state, or should it be established nationally?”

Since May of 1970 when Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell applied for a marriage license there have been disputes and decisions on same-sex marriage equality.  The Supreme Courts decisions to not hear any cases involving same-sex marriage has provided a new angle and many outcomes for the future of marriage equality within the United States.