.

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 Twittering 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.

Beth L December 01, 2012 at 06:27 AM
So, wait, they are voting on Marriage Unequality, since for 3 months same sex marriages were allowed, and still legal, but all others wanting to marry are not able to?
C3 December 01, 2012 at 04:27 PM
How can anyone reasonably argue against this: 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."
shenhuang December 03, 2012 at 03:24 AM
When a giant statue of Confucius http://www.coachfactoryoutletcc.us/ Coach Outlet Online suddenly appeared in Tiananmen Square, not far from Mao's iconic portrait early last year, tongues wagged http://www.guccibeltsoutletstores.net/ Gucci Belt about what it all signified politically was Confucius back to dislodge Mao as China's spiritual leader?The http://www.coachoutletonlinewo.com/ Coach Factory Outlet statue was moved off the square just as abruptly a few weeks later, prompting some in political circles to http://www.coachfactorystoredo.com/ Coach Outlet Store Online joke that the venerated sage, who hailed from rural Shandong, had been busted for not having a Beijing http://www.coachfactoryoutletpo.com/ Coach Factory Outlet residence permit.On Wednesday, a woman who took our call at the website's office in Beijing insisted that http://www.coachoutletonlinefc.org/ Coach Outlet Online it was "impossible that the People's Daily would quote from any unreliable media we do verify our news and http://www.coachoutletwr.com/ Coach Online Outlet sources.The woman, who declined to identify herself, said the story and pictures had been removed a day after being http://www.coachoutletloa.com/ Coach Factory Online posted.But the damage had been done and The Onion was relishing the publicity.Please visit our friends http://www.coachoutletonlineyu.net/ Coach Outlet Online at the People's Daily in China.

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 »