Supreme Court Refuses to Block D.C. Gay Marriage

By: Jan Crawford
Topics: Crossroads

Chief Justice John Roberts has just released an opinion refusing to block D.C.'s same-sex marriage law from taking effect tomorrow. Opponents of the law had asked the Supreme Court to step in and issue a temporary delay so they could hold a city-wide referendum on the issue before the law took effect.

Lower courts had ruled against them, and Roberts said he saw no reason for the Supreme Court to step into such a local matter involving the referendum process.

As a result, gay couples can start applying for marriage licenses in D.C. tomorrow. Opponents still can pursue a ballot initiative to overturn the same-sex marriage law.

Roberts' decision can be read here.

Jan Crawford
Jan Crawford is CBS News Chief Political and Legal Correspondent. She is from "Crossroads," Alabama.
Follow on Twitter »

30 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 30 Comments


by barbaram99 March 21, 2010 12:28 AM EDT: I am childless. It is congress that said marriage is between a man and a woman..The church has itsversion of marriage..So the reason for marriage is for a man and woman to have children the natural way and them children know who their mother and father are. Yet the same gender wishes to marry..They will as it is just a matter of time of and when the congress allows it nation wide..Marriage is for the family. We know how chindren are born as that is the way it has always been. Now it is congress that will have the say. When congreess wakes up and issues the issue that won't go away. It is in their laps.; Reply to this comment


by barbaram99 March 20, 2010 6:46 PM EDT: The constutions saids nothing of marriage..The congress set what marriage is..They stated marriage is bewteen a man and wonan..The US Congress. I lookrd in to it cos of this issue..It will have to take an act of congress to change it..I think they will not. Should same gender marry..What reason should they..I shall never marry as I made that years ago to nnever..Marriage as my late Dad taught is for a man and woman..Mum said the woman takes her husband's and they have children that bear the father's surname. Growing up I never heard of gays and transgenger persons..Yet I am children and there is no reason to marry. Gays want it ..It seens they will get it won't they..I am just a lay person..I am 55..; Reply to this comment


by awenshok March 8, 2010 4:25 PM EST: Hello Jan Crawford,

I've been one of your many fans for sometime, since I first heard your comments on PBS. I was impressed then as I am now, by your respect and affection for the Supreme Court and its members, and since we're both from Univ. of Alabama(me-Tuscaloosa) I suppose some of my appreciation originates there.
Anyway, glad you've landed at CBS and I'm looking forward to reading more of what you post and catching your reports on the evening news.

Best for the future.; Reply to this comment


by ajbruno14 March 7, 2010 10:30 AM EST: Ms. Greenburg,
I just began reading "Supreme Conflict" and so far I enjoy it. The question I have is not about the book, but how the public views the individual jurists.

No matter who is named, or the makeup of the court, the media advises us how judges will side on cases before them. They project the outcome even before arguments are made, which I believe is a disservice to the public and a slap at the court as a whole. The media seems to treat the court cases as nothing sporting events, less offering betting odds.

I try to catch CSPAN interviews with justices as often as they appear, and most recently saw each of them answer a variety of questions. At no time did I put any one of them in a category, but did learn the reasoning
behind how they reached past decisions.

I know the media will not change, and the public will be poorer for it, as is proven each time a new appointee appears before the Senate for confirmation.

Is this something the public will always have to endure, or will the people we elect not allow their own partisanship continue to provide the red meat the wolves in the media feast on.

Regards,
Anthony Bruno
Cary, NC; Reply to this comment


by bytheway59 March 4, 2010 12:19 PM EST: the new question now, A federal enclave leaglizes same sex marriage, but DOMA prohibits a federal enclave from recognizing and allowing benefits (for D.C.'s citezens) There are two laws in direct opposition to each other that is unique only to the municipality of D.C.

Where will this go from here?; Reply to this comment


by amaciej March 3, 2010 12:58 PM EST: Here is another telling tidbit about the Supreme Court's precedent on marriage and U.S. law:

"The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the ?liberty? protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected."

Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court, concurring opinion); Reply to this comment


by amaciej March 3, 2010 12:56 PM EST: The trial judge in the Loving v. Virginia case claimed the Bible prohibits interracial marriage. He ruled, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix." Sounds a lot like the anti-gay marriage folks today.

When will people learn that religious ideas about marriage (both the sane ones and the crazy ones) have no bearing on CIVIL marriage?; Reply to this comment


by amaciej March 3, 2010 12:50 PM EST: This is so simple. Since it is not illegal to be gay in this country, there are simply no legally justifiable grounds on which to deny gay couples equal treatment by our laws, including a civil marriage license if they choose it. It's that simple.

Too many people confuse holy matrimony in their particular church with legal marriage. They are not the same thing. No marriage in any church means anything unless you buy a license and get a certificate. The legal part has nothing to do with anyone's religion. It's that simple.

Can we please just give gay couples the marriage equality our Constitution dictates, and move on to real issues?; Reply to this comment


by amaciej March 3, 2010 12:39 PM EST: "The will of the people" arguments in favor of a voter referendum are getting old. Let's look at another social fight over the rules of marriage.

When the CA Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1948, 90% of Americans opposed it. By 1958, the number had increased and 94% of Americans disapproved of marriages between interracial couples. In 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage equality for interracial couples on a nationwide level, 72% still opposed it. It wasn't until 1994 that these people were in the minority for the first time with 41% opposing and 45% approving.

Thank god we have a constitution and a judicial branch of government to set us right when we make mistakes.

Sources:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx
1948 figure from Gail Mathabane, "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought," USA Today, 2004-JAN-25.; Reply to this comment

by JDSept March 3, 2010 12:30 PM EST

Lifeson NObody says you have to procreate to marry. Many hetros choose NOT to have children. That probably is a Constitutional right not to have kids. Also be it hetro, gay, human-tree sex, none I beleive is legal to be done in public nor within sight of their neighbors even within one's own house in front of the living room window. Again old news.

Reply to this comment


by amaciej March 3, 2010 12:42 PM EST: What people like Lifeson don't realize is that legal marriage will still require two consenting adults who are able to enter into a valid contract. This nonsense about grandmas marrying lizards and trees marrying hamsters is just ridiculous. Shrill. Nonsense from the undereducated.