.

Breaking: No Action on Gay Marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court may consider the 10 same-sex marriage cases Monday, national media is reporting.

The Supreme Court will not act on gay marriage, the Wall Street Journal and numerous sources on Twitter are reporting.

After much anticipation, court deferred 10 cases related to same-sex marriage Friday.

The Atlantic shared this update on its website, The Wire:

"The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage cases now on the docket," reports the SCOTUS blog's  Lyle Denniston

But the issue is not dead. The court could next issue orders at 9:30 a.m. Monday.

-----

The future of same-sex unions in California could be decided Friday, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to take up Prop. 8, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved in California four years ago.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop. 8 in February, ruling the law unconstitutional. Prop. 8 supporters then appealed to the country's highest court.

The Los Angeles Times gave this concise summary of Friday's possible outcomes:

If the justices opt not to hear the Proposition 8 case, then a federal appeals court ruling that found the 2008 state ballot measure banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional would stand, clearing the way for marriages to begin. If the justices take up the case, a ruling would not come until next year and gay marriage would remain on hold until then, or longer depending on how the court rules.

Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008. Since then, nine states have approved same-sex marriage.

This chronology of the history of gay marriage on the LA Times explains the complex road that has led to today.

Supporters of gay marriage hailed February's favorable appellate court ruling. In its decision, the court stated that banning same-sex marriage "serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

Prop. 8 is one of several same-sex marriage cases that the US Supreme Court could choose to hear. Most of the others challenge the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

For all of the cases, the court's decision to not hear arguments would actually do more than putting them on the agenda for next term. Read about those impacts here.

What are your thoughts? Should the appellate court ruling stand and same-sex marriage be allowed? Or was Prop. 8 the right decision to begin with? Tell us in the comment section below.

This story will be updated with the court's decision.

Eggbert December 07, 2012 at 04:59 AM
In the interest of accuracy: what we now know as the Christian rite "Easter" was a fertility celebration first, which the Christians co-opted for their own ends: http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm. If in fact Easter is under any such threat (which presumes facts not in evidence), it would be nothing new - just a return to an earlier tradition. As to the latter part of Mr. Johnson's comment: of course no one can force you to feel about an individual, or pairing of individuals, differently than you naturally do. When, however, your "feelings" cross into the realm of discriminatory action or inaction, it becomes a constitutional matter.
Sharon Levin December 08, 2012 at 05:17 AM
I never understand why people who say they want to 'protect marriage' don't focus on divorce. Why not make divorce illegal. It seems to be all about keeping people who love each other apart, rather than making people who hate each other stay together. (and yes, I'm being completely facetious about making divorce illegal, I'm just trying to make a point that this has nothing to do with 'protecting' marriage and everything to do with not allowing everyone equal rights).
L.A. Chung December 08, 2012 at 05:34 AM
I have deleted @rmondell's last comment from our site. Please do not place links on Patch that solicit funds.
Gramma Tink December 10, 2012 at 06:44 AM
Freely sharing an opinion in public or in private is NOT "imposing values on another". It is free speech, and it is being censored. Free speech allows for offense - it doesn't avoid it. In fact, if no one is offended, or allowed to be, it's not free speech at all. Free speech comes with responsibility to be respectful of the dignity of every human being, including those who vehemently disagree: avoiding insult, profanity, belitting, name-calling, villifying, brandizing. Kind but religious people are often made victims of these. My religious friends are some of the kindest people I know. I've enjoyed some lively discussions that have not been reduced to ugly behavior by either side of the gay marriage or gay lifestyle issue. I've seen Christians speak with sensitivity and courtesty, only to be disallowed from speaking another word through the use of well-practiced interruption and insults. That's emotional bullying, it's censorship and it's not an exchange of ideas...and the very opposite of free speech in a civilized community. I'm getting old now, but I've seen far more self-control and gentleness practiced by Christians in the 40 years since the gay issue became a public one...but that's just my experience. I know there are religious people who have been vile, but I would never consider them Christians because I know true Jesus followers are known by their love. However, true love still speaks, even if the response is anger. Just look at the life of Jesus.
Alvy Singer December 11, 2012 at 03:18 AM
Very good point.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »