6th Circuit issues contrary ruling.

everybody in my cubicle was just saying they'd have to. ...and smugly congratulating eachother about how this would re-illegalize gay marriage.

I hate it here.

It would just affirm that marriage law belongs to each state. Eventually most states will pass laws making marriage available outside of the heterosexual realm without federal government coercion

The plaintiffs can ask for an en banc review from the entire 6th Circuit, especially since this was a 2-1 decision. I would not be surprised if a few Supremes put some pressure on them to uphold gay marriage. That would hold to their strategy of benign neglect going back to the Prop 8 punt last year.

As for gay marriage and the Supreme Court, it would be far simpler at this point to enforce it on all the states.

1) The Federal government recognizes gay marriage in any state that has legalized it. If you move, you still get Federal benefits even if your new state does not allow for gay marriage.

2) The number of states with gay marriage in place today is around 2/3.

3) If you allowed states to roll back gay marriage, then it leaves married couples in legal limbo. What happens if they want to divorce? Can you have some couples married and others not allowed to marry? That is not equal treatment under the law.

4) If you move from a state with marriage to one without, are you no longer marriage. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize contracts in one state to be valid in all of them.

In Loving v. VA, the Mr. Loving was arrested for violating the state's miscegenation law and banned from living in the state. They had to move to DC and were not allowed to cross the Potomac. Will gay couples be treated to such nonsense? The Supreme Court voted 9-0 that marriage was a civil right. It is more likely than not that they will follow that precedent, given how expansive gay marriage already is today.

When a circuit appellate panel hears a case and issues a ruling then the remaining options for the losing party are to seek a panel rehearing, en banc hearing by the full circuit, or appeal to the Supreme Court. My prediction is that they appeal to the Supremes and that they will either take the case(s) or issue an order for a panel rehearing in the 6th circuit. We won't see the decision issued yesterday overturned without there being oral arguments. Thus this process most likely isn't going to move at lightning speed so in the 4 states concerned anyone planning on getting married there anytime soon better look into out of state options if their partner is of the same gender. Eventually I expect to see gay marriage be legal in all 50 states but for these 4 its going to take a little longer.


http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=615593fa-2bbb-4176-b5e5-b3e92da6e7a5

"Perhaps not surprisingly, the Sixth Circuit has been trending toward fewer and fewer en banc cases each year, as highlighted by Pierre Bergeron’s numerous posts on the dwindling number of Sixth Circuit en banc cases. Statistically speaking, parties may have a greater shot at having the U.S. Supreme Court grant their cert petition (the odds are around 1%) than the Sixth Circuit granting their petition for rehearing en banc."

It's discouraging that the justice who wrote the majority opinion thinks the equal rights under the law (14th amendment) is a "new social issue."
And that he doesn't think it's the federal court's job to insure that all states uphold the constitution (like the 14th amendment).

So I'm a bit disgusted that he didn't have the courage to rule the way he knows he should have, in support of the 14th amendment.
On the other hand, if it's a ruse specifically to get SCOTUS to review and rule, then he's my new hero :)

"On the other hand, if it's a ruse specifically to get SCOTUS to review and rule, then he's my new hero :)"

This is what I was thinking...that they were trying to push it to the Supreme Court. It doesn't make much sense otherwise, but who knows?

Chump Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "On the other hand, if it's a ruse specifically to
> get SCOTUS to review and rule, then he's my new
> hero :)"
>
> This is what I was thinking...that they were
> trying to push it to the Supreme Court. It
> doesn't make much sense otherwise, but who knows?

I actually read this morning, after writing that yesterday, that the dissenting justice in the case said that the "right" ruling was so obvious, that she can only guess that the other two justices ruled the way they did because they want to intentionally create the "split" in the circuit courts that would prompt a SCOTUS takeup of the case. So we may be right :)

Thoroughly disgraceful and depressing decision.
The judge's have taken the cowardly route and turned their back on equality and freedom for all, demanded by the constitution .
Bigoted religious overtones are very evident in this outrageous decision.
I feel for the couples involved and especially so in regards to their children where their feelings of family security play such a very important factor.
A sad and temporary setback unfortunately, but now requiring a decisive decision in favour of marriage equality from the SC as a matter of great urgency.

No worries.
Gay marriage to be nationwide soon after this ruling.

When the circuit courts decided to allow gay marriage, the supremes had a choice: stand back and let this continue or intervene and prevent it. They chose to stand back, effectively blessing marriage equality. They would not have done that if they thought the courts had illegitimately overruled the states.

This baboon's ruling against gay marriage cannot succeed. SCOTUS has allowed gay marriages for months now, and the constitution says that all decisions by states must be granted "full faith and credit" by other states. Thus a marriage in one state must be recognized everywhere.

So it's a matter of time. Kennedy is a conservative, so he'll probably swing his vote towards the faction that wants to wait until the issue is "fully ripe." In other words, SCOTUS will probably wait for the 6th Circuit to hear the case en banc. If that body overturns the simian ruling, then the supremes won't review the case; the consensus in favor of gay marriage will simply unfold across the midwest and nothing need be done. But if the full 6th Circuit endorses the baboon's thinking, then the issue will be ripe and SCOTUS will rule nationally.

My guess is that the supremes will wait for the full 6th to act. Either they or the supremes will then make sure that gay marriage is the law of the land.

As a liberal who lives in Tennessee, it has been a pretty crappy week for me. First of all, Amendment One passed on the ballot, which allows the state to pass all sorts of new restrictions on abortion, even refusing to allow exceptions for rape and incest. Sigh...

That was bad enough. Now this circuit court ruling on gay marriage, which is currently banned here.

The only good news is that the wine in grocery stores amendment passed. So in 2016 I'll be able to grab a bottle of Merlot and start drinking away my sorrows about these new rulings. But until then, I still have to get my wine at the liquor store. Sigh...

I'm under the impression that en banc would make for quicker resolution-- for those four states-- than a kick upstairs to SCOTUS.
I think the question becomes which way will the plaintiffs jump? My impression is they'd rather ask for cert from SCOTUS than the en banc from sixth?

I suppose we'll all just wait and see, but what's your guess at this point?

Great question.

I'd think they'd want to go to the en banc sixth for political reasons. SCOTUS has already signaled strongly that it favors marriage equality but--and this is where Kennedy's judicial conservatism comes in--would prefer that district and circuit courts make that the law of the land. That way the supremes avoid the accusations of judicial activism that followed the segregation and abortion decisions.

To the extent that judicial conservatism is important, it would be harder for SCOTUS to rule against an en banc circuit court than against the 3-person body that ruled against marriage equality. So if I were the plaintiffs, I'd want to gain that political advantage rather than going straight to the supremes.

I don't think the plaintiffs can win this fight, but tactically going for cert would probably be the less promising approach.