Will the Supreme Court weigh in on same-sex marriage?

Update: The Supreme Court ended its day Friday without announcing whether it would take up any of the same-sex marriage cases.

In what has already been a pivotal year in the debate over same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court may decide it should weigh in on the issue.

The justices meet today in a private conference to discuss 10 cases they could take up relating to same-sex marriage, including eight that challenge the how a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), applies to legally married same-sex couples. The justices could also decide to review a 2009 Arizona law impacting state employees, or the circuit court ruling that struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8.

If the court chose to rule on the Proposition 8 case or DOMA, it could end up changing rules throughout the country pertaining to same-sex marriage -- an issue that remains as tumultuous as ever, changing at the state level through ballot initiatives, state-based legislation and through the courts.

Public opinion seems to be shifting towards acceptance of same-sex marriage. In 2011, Gallup found for the first time that a majority of Americans supported it. And on Election Day this year, three states passed ballot initiatives allowing same-sex couples to marry -- making this year the first ever in which voters passed initiatives in favor, rather than against, same-sex marriage. The issue, however, is far from resolved. While nine states plus the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, many more -- 39 states -- prohibit it.

The Supreme Court is still far from handing down any rulings -- today, it only decides what cases it will accept this term. At least four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case, and the court could announce as early as today which cases, if any, it's agreed to take on.

• no previous page
• next

1/3

[myth1958]

Condon wrote this before the Court decided to accept both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases, signaling perhaps that it was time, once and for all, to define this issue. That is their right: the Supremes decide what is ultimately right and what is wrong. They have helped women get fair pay, Blacks to overcome discrimination and children to see their rights upheld. It is time for them to rule that DOMA and all other restrictive legislation controlling gay rights are archaic and out of step with a modern interpretation of the Constitution. This isn't rocket science, after all: gays and lesbians have been successfully negotiating marriage, taxes, families and everything else the hetero community does for.. forever, actually. We may not have known they were gay couples years ago, but they existed just the same. Now gay families are out in the open and not causing any problems. They take kids to school. They serve their communities and country the same way straights do, by volunteering. We'll get to a place of equal rights. The Supremes ought to bring us there right away to save time.

[jamie047]

Don't worry libs, Roberts will go turncoat again and give you your Same-Sex Marriages. Meanwhile, any church that endorses such will be tanked by us conservatives or even performs them elsewhere like in Europe.

[nfission235]

Let these people get married so they can be as miserable as the married heterosexuals. As far as I'm concerned marriage is nothing but a complication anyway because it sure as hell is expensive to get divorced. Once the chaos begins they'll wonder why they ever wanted to get married to begin with.

[diddy_back_again]

Hey Supreme Court, why stop at same-sex marriage? Why not allow siblings to marry? If you are going to permit same-sex marriage, then why not siblings? You, the Supreme Court, are just as pathetic as the president.

[ThunderCloud21]

The Supreme Court determines what is Constitutional, they do not make the laws. The laws are done by the Legislative Branch.
You are incorrect in suggesting that "same-sex marriage" equals marriage between siblings. You can understand, I'm sure, that siblings, by definition, already have a legal, family relationship between them (inheritance, etc.)
It never ceases to puzzle me how people who call themselves "conservative" and (supposedly) celebrate the rights of individuals, are also interested in legislating "morality" and determining what two people who love each other do in the privacy of their homes.

[ThunderCloud21]

For OCEANLINER:
First of all, I happen to be heterosexual.
Second, why are you so interested in seeing the government define marriage for you? What REALLY irks you? If you support polygamy so strongly, go ahead and pursue it in any state you want! Begin with Utah, since you'll probably have a lot of supporters there!
Finally, you must realize that your perspective is shared by a diminishing minority in the USA. You may gain support locally, but nationally you can "forget about it"!

[ThunderCloud21]

The ONLY reason the Supreme Court would take the case is because many States are passing laws to specifically "outlaw" gay marriage. These laws, as the relate to being imposed "Citizens of the United States", violate #1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[magnumdr]

I can only pray to GOD that this does not ever happen! Ewwwwww.

[Lindag20]

Hey Slow I'm called it a night. You can deal with TM if you wish. What a doofus to say the least. See you.

[grantmacdonald1]

The proud gay community played a pivotal role in the re-election of President Obama exposing the hate based cult of the religious extremists in the Republican Party who should face taxation and or/closure! Enough with the corruption from the lunatic fringe; who have gotten away with kids committing suicide -- driven by ignorant family members manipulated by the insane clergy. Religion has no place in today's society of thinkers and intellectuals ... who can see though the lies!

[larry2012]

Gay relationships and/or marijuana users neither is any business of the Supreme Court nor any other government agency or religious sect. To combine two ancient adages, "Live and let live, and do no harm."

[LosAngelesCA]

I am happy that they said nothing today. Ha! I am so over the media trying to dictate our highest court's every move. The media has ZERO clue. Just like the media's major screw up over the ruling on Obamacare, the media screwed up today too. The court does not follow the media's schedule.

I fully expect the court to consolidate the Prop 8 and DOMA cases because marriage licenses which is the legal term for permission) are granted by the state. Courts cannot determine rights. The rights are determined by the constitution or people. The CA Supreme Court cannot grant a right where one does not exist. I still can't believe the court's screw up on that.

Nonetheless, the CA Supreme Court corrected their error when we the people of CA amended our state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Federal courts cannot make laws that pertain only to one state. Their rulings have to apply on a broad basis. There cannot be a situation where some states vote for gay marriage and the other states are forced into it by the courts.

I want the US Supreme Court to set them all straight. The lower courts were making law and they are not the legislature.