Supreme Court Delays Decision 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.

linda hanna December 02, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Why is it that people who have no reasonable argument to offer always call other people names???
linda hanna December 02, 2012 at 12:46 AM
It's not a question of heart, it's more one of logic and reason. I have great empathy for the frustration gays must feel. There are things all of us would like to do but can't. Married heterosexuals often fall to adultery. Our hearts may have empathy but our brains still tell us it's not right. A healthy society operates on laws and constraint and self control, not a "whatever floats your boat" mentality. It is not prejudice to hold a different value than another person. It is merely holding a different value. For me the issue involves the changing definitions of words (family, marriage,bride,groom) to accommodate a vocal minority, against the will of the majority which likewise could be perceived as closing one's heart and being hurtful to society as well. When we think things thru we see that operating on our feelings alone is not the wisest way to proceed.
linda hanna December 02, 2012 at 12:54 AM
You are entitled to your personal opinion, but it is not a constructive way to face societies problems to name call. I agree that civil unions are the answer and that many heterosexual people feel they are being "robbed"...for lack of a better sentiment.. of a word that has historic significance to them. I believe couples can have legal rights regardless of what we call their relationship. To me that seems easily accomplished and should end the matter, but gays are very vocal about wanting ":marriage". I think understanding why get to the heart of the issue.. because they attach a certain legitimacy to it, or maybe crave the respectability of it. What they don't realize is that their overt insistence works against them as do their tactics. When I see naked people protesting in Washington I lose respect for the cause. Not all gays are like that and surely realize they set themselves back by condoning it. Common sense tell me that eventually gay marriage will gain acceptance. But forcing things on society that it is not ready to accept will leave scars that will not heal over easily if ever.
linda hanna December 02, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Steve, you have to remember that a great many Americans no longer consider God a factor in their lives, decision etc. I saw an interesting cartoon that showed a packed store on Black Friday and an empty church on any given Sunday. America has chosen her course. While I agree with your POV, it is not going to sway this particular argument. People are the ones who have changed. They no longer hold to any absolutes. It's a sad testimony and not limited to gays. Sexually there are few if any limits in society any more. Infidelity is rampant, irresponsible sexual behavior leading to unwanted pregnancies and AIDS, we have a club now at Harvard for people SM and so on. The world you and would like is gone. And yes, the consequences are unavoidable.
linda hanna December 02, 2012 at 01:03 AM
Diego Rose writes 8:31 am on Saturday, December 1, 2012 "You need help! Extremism of any kind is unhealthy". . . . I understand your concern Diego, but from MPOV, it's AIDS that is unhealthy, and nude people marching on Washington that are extreme and exposing little children to questionable activities at parades etc. If you have been to the Castro, you will see extreme. You see some of us believe that life should be governed by a little constraint and common sense. I am sorry that seems extreme to you and hope that when you conduct your own activities, particularly if you have children, you will reconsider your position.
Diego Rose December 02, 2012 at 05:15 AM
Linda wrote, "You see some of us believe that life should be governed by a little constraint and common sense.". . . . Constraints are shaped by religion, law, and for agnostics/atheist your conscious. Inevitably constraints become self evident. Simply put, my idea of risk are different than yours, even being heterosexual. Because you feel that someone else should not do something that you morally disagree with doesn't mean that they do not have constraints. It only means that theirs are different than yours. IN A FREE COUNTRY. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE FIGHT AND DIE FOR!! The right to have a different set of constraints to live by, ALSO called the freedom of religion! I firmly believe 90% of the worlds problems would be reduced greatly without religion, but, I would never imply that people must accept my definition of morally acceptable behavior. In regards to your statement about common sense; It's not so common. If it were, there wouldn't be the amount of fanaticism that exist today. Your common sense is extracted by the same means, religion or your lack of consciousness. If your hang up is with the word marriage, ask yourself why you need a license to get married? It's not ordained by the church, it's ordained by the state, less we forget! It's a legal definition that bestows many changes in status. That is the only reason for the WHOLE issue of gay marriage. If we're free to simply marry who we want, how we want, without the consent of any magistrate, this would be a non issue.
John Bizzell December 03, 2012 at 06:40 AM
@Gary - your argument comes under seperate but equal. The reverse of your argument is for heterosexxuals to give up the term marriage.... because it is a religious term. Does the state issue lisences for baptisms or confirmations or other religious celebrations... why then marriage? Therefore the issue would be solved if hetrosexuals would accept it is a civil issue and stop calling fighting over the term marriage.
nobodyuno December 03, 2012 at 08:24 AM
Why don't the righteous ones let GOD do his job judging all us sinners, he's much more qualified and knows exactly what he meant when men wrote his book and screwed it up the first two times. I'm sure he's saving his revenge for those who take the words and teachings of his only begotten SON for granted.. LIVE AND LET LIVE...
Diana Swartz (Editor) December 03, 2012 at 01:46 PM
This offensive comment was removed for violating Patch's terms of use. Please refer to our rules of engagement and refrain from name-calling. Repeat offenders will have their accounts suspended. http://sanmarino.patch.com/terms
ATC December 03, 2012 at 03:35 PM
It actually isn't a strictly rligious term, as it has been in use, "civilly/legaly" for centuries. Why do you insist on changing the actual definition of a word that has been around for that long? "Separate, but equal"? Why? Because of the word itself? That's really grasping for straws. The phrase "separate but equal" comes from the civil rights era and schools, and does not at all apply here, to a situation where ALL people are subject to the EXACT SAME restrictions across the board. If you want to do something other than "marriage", fine...call it something else. Why suggest that heterosexuals drop the term just because you want to change the definition? The definition of marriage is and has always been, for centuries, a union between a man and a woman. When we go about changing the definition, where do you stop? Man & man? Woman & woman? Man & child? Brother & sister? Brother & brother? Father & daughter? Mother & daughter? By your argument, shouldn't the term "marriage" refer to ANY of the above combinations? Or should we just eliminate the term "marriage" in it's entirety? Again, I thought the goal was the equal rights; if that's the case, then what difference does it make what it's called? The fact that the term seems to be the biggest issue proves that it is really about forcing those who disagree with the lifestyle to acquiesce. And that, IMO, is wrong.
Aaron December 04, 2012 at 02:18 AM
I have the answer... To make it all equal, rather than change the definition of the word "marriage", the government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. If the government recognized only "civil unions", and only issued licenses for civil union, it would be equal for all. Folks could still get "married" as recognized by their religious faith, but as far as the government is concerned, it's just a legal civil union. (Yes, "civil unions" would have all the rights as what used to be called a "marriage".)
Mark Paxson December 04, 2012 at 03:16 AM
Aaron ... completely agree. What a marriage is should be between the two individuals and their own beliefs.
Joshua Halloway December 04, 2012 at 06:02 AM
God doesn't offer tax breaks based on marital status. The government does. So the government - not God - defines marriage.
Joshua Halloway December 04, 2012 at 06:04 AM
"From a psychological perspective" - your opinion is factually wrong. Let's stick to facts & research and not venture into your bizarre and completely baseless conspiracy theories.
Aaron December 04, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Mark, I think you had a typo in your post. It reads that you "completely agree" with me. I have to assume that is a typo as you have disagreed with everything I have ever typed on this site. No worry... I'll keep an eye on this and watch for the correction when you post it. (Actually, I'm shocked that we are meeting in the middle of the road on this!)
ATC December 04, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Actually, mondell, your link does not rule out the "born that way" theory. It merely shows that there are a myriad of factors involved, including genetics, environment,etc. All work together, none can be assumed to be THE reason for homosexuality, and none can be discounted. Don't "cherry-pick" just the parts of the study that you like, ignoring the rest.
Julia Nelson December 04, 2012 at 08:53 PM
The Bible has all kinds of multiple wife/concubine situations. Is that what you think marriage should be? In some cases, men would rape the women they wanted to marry. Is that what marriage should be? Parents arranged marriages and sometimes the couple didn't meet until the ceremony. Is that your idea of marriage? My point is that you can't look to an ancient book for a modern problem. Until a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by medical experts. It no longer is. Times change and society must, too. You may hate what homosexuals do, but I hate celebrities getting married multiple times, sometimes for only a few weeks. I can't think their marriages are more sacred than a gay couple wanting to commit to each other and enjoy the same benefits as the rest of us.
Julia Nelson December 04, 2012 at 08:56 PM
If you look at AIDS statistics, you'll see that transmission among gays is way down while it's increasing in heterosexual populations.
Julia Nelson December 04, 2012 at 09:04 PM
What's wrong with women working? If I didn't have a career, I'd be on welfare now since my husband was unemployed for three years before a debilitating stroke that put him in a nursing home. Just because Prop. 8 passed doesn't mean it's constitutional. After the Fair Housing Act was enacted in the '60s, a California initiative passed that rejected the act. But the courts ruled in Mulkey v. Reitman that it violated the 14th amendment.
Joshua Halloway December 04, 2012 at 09:44 PM
rmondell - Quoting from NARTH is like quoting from the National Enquirer as they have the same amount of credibility and respectability. When you have some credible evidence, please rejoin the conversation.
ATC December 05, 2012 at 02:31 AM
Mondell, actually, you're wrong. The study you cite showed that among identical twins where one is gay, the other is gay 38% of the time. Since that percentage is much higher than exists with the general population/siblings, then obviously biology IS a factor. Your claim is that it is NOT. You're wrong. Is it the only factor? No. Is it a "non-factor? NO. Debate with facts, and acknowledge some conflicting facts, and you will have a much better chance of being listened to. Cherry picking only the parts that you like, while hiding the parts you don't results in nobody taking anything you say too seriously. JMHO.
Washy December 05, 2012 at 02:50 AM
And where does He define MARRIAGE in the bible?
Julia Nelson December 05, 2012 at 03:29 AM
No, the "government" didn't get women out working. The economy got women out there. And a lot of women decided they needed more fulfillment than being everyone's housemaid. When I was a kid in the '60s, you could buy a house for one person's yearly salary. Nowadays it's at least 4 or 5 times the salary. Better to have a small family you want than a big one that's going to cause resentment from the parents.
Diego Rose December 05, 2012 at 03:30 AM
Mondell, your reaching bro!! Why not try and sell everyone on the fact that they are going to die of the same thing, work the same jobs, buy the same cars, and so on. You have only solidified the point that biology does play a roll in being gay. By the way, scientist have found homosexual behaviors in animals. PRETTY SURE THAT DIDN'T COME FROM WILL & GRACE!!!
Julia Nelson December 05, 2012 at 03:35 AM
Doesn't matter why someone is gay. They're still humans deserving of equal rights.
Joshua Halloway December 05, 2012 at 05:11 AM
rmondell - NARTH is not a scientific organization and it doesn't employ credible science. Quoting NARTH is like quoting the National Enquirer. Cheers.
Joshua Halloway December 05, 2012 at 05:12 AM
Julia - rmondell doesn't have facts on his side so he just makes it up as he goes along.
Joshua Halloway December 05, 2012 at 09:51 AM
rmondell - When you are able to discern truth from fiction and scientific sources from sources equivalent to the National Enquirer please rejoin the conversation. Your fixation with NARTH makes you irrelevant. Cheers.
Russ Russell December 05, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Now that I'm retired and getting older, I've changed my views on many issues, especially if they don't affect me or my family. I'm not Gay, so Gay rights aren't a concern. I'm not a woman, so abortion isn't a concern. In fact, the only concerns I have is if the fish are biting and that the Arizona Cardinals get a new Quarterback. While I don't agree with Gay marriage or abortions, I think its going to happen sooner or later because our society is changing and its going to be the next Generations that have to deal with it. I'm not going to judge people, I'll let God do that.
Mark Paxson December 05, 2012 at 02:44 PM
No, Aaron ... I agree. Government should get out of the business of defining a marriage.


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 »