4th Circuit Court confirms VA decision in favor of SSM

[Miles]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Likely Voter]

So that means 2 appeals to SCOTUS. I still suspect they wont do anything until one of the appeals courts rules in favor of SSM. So this might not get decided before the 2016 election.

[Blue3]

So that means 2 appeals to SCOTUS. I still suspect they wont do anything until one of the appeals courts rules in favor of SSM. So this might not get decided before the 2016 election.

You mean doesn't rule in favor?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Magnificent news!

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Good news.

[TDAS04]

Excellent!

[Likely Voter]

So that means 2 appeals to SCOTUS. I still suspect they wont do anything until one of the appeals courts rules in favor of SSM. So this might not get decided before the 2016 election.

You mean doesn't rule in favor?

Yes I meant in favor of SSM ban. The point being that SCOTUS like to take cases with split decisions. So far every decision is going in favor of repealing SSM bans. But eventually some judge or appellate court is going to uphold a SSM ban (probably for TX) and then SCOTUS will step in...and likely they will make SSM legal everywhere.

So the question is, how long will this take? Will they take it up next session? If not then this will be bigger issue for 2016 presidential campaign.

[SteveRogers]

So that means 2 appeals to SCOTUS. I still suspect they wont do anything until one of the appeals courts rules in favor of SSM. So this might not get decided before the 2016 election.

You mean doesn't rule in favor?

Yes I meant in favor of SSM ban. The point being that SCOTUS like to take cases with split decisions. So far every decision is going in favor of repealing SSM bans. But eventually some judge or appellate court is going to uphold a SSM ban (probably for TX) and then SCOTUS will step in...and likely they will make SSM legal everywhere.

So the question is, how long will this take? Will they take it up next session? If not then this will be bigger issue for 2016 presidential campaign.

Yeah, the smart money is on the 5th Circuit to be the first to uphold a ban. Looks like there's still no date set yet for arguments in the Texas appeal, but it shouldn't be too long.

[Likely Voter]

Speaking of which today Greg Abbott filed his appeal. He is going for the same "responsible procreation" argument that has been literally laughed at by other courts, including SCOTUS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that all the usual arguments about god and 'tradition' the generally 'icky' factor have no legal basis so they are left with this completely ludicrous argument.

[politicallefty]

Not surprisingly, this Fourth Circuit is being appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

In other news, the Sixth Circuit (covering MI, OH, KY, and TN) will be hearing cases on Wednesday. It's very possible that this could be the first post-Windsor court to uphold a ban on gay marriage, which are to be heard by two GWB appointees (including staunch conservative Judge Jeffrey Sutton, though he did vote to uphold the ACA) and one Clinton appointee. Obviously, it's too early to know how they'll rule, but it's a much more conservative panel compared with the other two circuit courts that have ruled.

As for the procreation argument, I think it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Anyone that makes that kind of argument should instantly lose all credibility.

[SteveRogers]

So we've got the following courts of appeals hearing arguments in the near future:

6th Circuit- August 6

7th Circuit- August 26

9th Circuit- September 8

That means decisions in each of those courts ~3 months later. That just leaves us waiting on the 5th, 8th and 11th Circuits. We should at least get the 5th Circuit decision by the end of the year. At that point there won't be much left for the Supreme Court to wait around for.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 9th already made a decision years ago, but it just applied to California.

[pbrower2a]

So we've got the following courts of appeals hearing arguments in the near future:

6th Circuit- August 6

7th Circuit- August 26

9th Circuit- September 8

That means decisions in each of those courts ~3 months later. That just leaves us waiting on the 5th, 8th and 11th Circuits. We should at least get the 5th Circuit decision by the end of the year. At that point there won't be much left for the Supreme Court to wait around for.

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district:

I do not know the status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Marianas.

4th circuit*
5th circuit
6th circuit
7th circuit
8th circuit
9th circuit
10th circuit*
11th circuit

*Next appeal, US Supreme court.

Colors have no political significance.

DC and all states within the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd circuit courts have legalized SSM.

[Bacon King]

Maybe the Supreme Court's plan all along has been to dodge the issue by pushing all the circuits to legalize it, denying cert without comment to all the appeals, crossing their fingers that they don't have to resolve any split

That way we effectively get nationwide marriage equality without it being a lightning rod

[SteveRogers]

Maybe the Supreme Court's plan all along has been to dodge the issue by pushing all the circuits to legalize it, denying cert without comment to all the appeals, crossing their fingers that they don't have to resolve any split

That way we effectively get nationwide marriage equality without it being a lightning rod

I'm sure the Court would love it if all the Circuit Courts agreed on legalization. Unfortunately, I think at minimum the 5th Circuit will hold out. Even if a favorable panel rules in favor of SSM, the whole 5th Circuit may reverse en banc.

Regardless, if the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert in this initial wave of cases, we could see the number of states with gay marriage literally double by January or so as decisions in the 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th circuits go into effect. The big Supreme Court decision might just be to get those last 11 states.

[Simfan34]

Well, the difference would be that, whereas the Roe v. Wade ruling was blatantly void of any actual constitutional basis (this really shouldn't a contentious point no matter your stance), there is a fairly sound argument undeniably rooted in constitutional law for a right to same-sex marriage.

It might not stop people now from making false comparisons, but a lot of the anger over Roe came from the fact that the court was very clearly was legislating from the bench. That just wouldn't be the case in a potential SSM ruling, something that would have presaged even by something like Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. Of course the court will probably act in an abundance of caution regardless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not know the status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Marianas.

I already gave you that info in the stickied poll thread a few days ago when you made that same comment, but it was a block of text so you may have ignored it.

Puerto Rico is in the 1st circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the 3rd circuit, the Northern Marianas and Guam are in the 9th circuit, and American Samoa is in no circuit and any cases arising from the High Court of American Samoa are appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  PR and VI have laws to explicitly not recognize SSM and so it's possible a case could head from them to the 1st and 3rd circuits.  The other territories don't have any provision to explicitly recognize or not recognize SSM.  If we don't get a circuit split, a case from American Samoa might well be the last chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in again on this issue.

[Knives]

Well, the difference would be that, whereas the Roe v. Wade ruling was blatantly void of any actual constitutional basis (this really shouldn't a contentious point no matter your stance), there is a fairly sound argument undeniably rooted in constitutional law for a right to same-sex marriage.

It might not stop people now from making false comparisons, but a lot of the anger over Roe came from the fact that the court was very clearly was legislating from the bench. That just wouldn't be the case in a potential SSM ruling, something that would have presaged even by something like Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. Of course the court will probably act in an abundance of caution regardless.

Could you explain Roe v Wade?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I do not know the status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Marianas.

I already gave you that info in the stickied poll thread a few days ago when you made that same comment, but it was a block of text so you may have ignored it.

Puerto Rico is in the 1st circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the 3rd circuit, the Northern Marianas and Guam are in the 9th circuit, and American Samoa is in no circuit and any cases arising from the High Court of American Samoa are appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  PR and VI have laws to explicitly not recognize SSM and so it's possible a case could head from them to the 1st and 3rd circuits.  The other territories don't have any provision to explicitly recognize or not recognize SSM.  If we don't get a circuit split, a case from American Samoa might well be the last chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in again on this issue.

But are the territories treated the same? None of the territories are incorporated areas of the United States (except for Palmyra Atoll, LOL).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not know the status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Marianas.

I already gave you that info in the stickied poll thread a few days ago when you made that same comment, but it was a block of text so you may have ignored it.

Puerto Rico is in the 1st circuit, the Virgin Islands are in the 3rd circuit, the Northern Marianas and Guam are in the 9th circuit, and American Samoa is in no circuit and any cases arising from the High Court of American Samoa are appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  PR and VI have laws to explicitly not recognize SSM and so it's possible a case could head from them to the 1st and 3rd circuits.  The other territories don't have any provision to explicitly recognize or not recognize SSM.  If we don't get a circuit split, a case from American Samoa might well be the last chance to have the Supreme Court weigh in again on this issue.

But are the territories treated the same? None of the territories are incorporated areas of the United States (except for Palmyra Atoll, LOL).

In this case, yes they are treated the same.  The Insular Cases back at the start of the 20th century fleshed out the doctrine that while the unincorporated territories were not automatically granted the same rights as the States in such matters as taxation, etc., individuals living there have the same rights as those living in the States.  So the Bill of Rights (except the 10th amendment) applies to the unincorporated territories too.

[dmmidmi]

Speaking of which today Greg Abbott filed his appeal. He is going for the same "responsible procreation" argument that has been literally laughed at by other courts, including SCOTUS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that all the usual arguments about god and 'tradition' the generally 'icky' factor have no legal basis so they are left with this completely ludicrous argument.

I can't wait until Greg Abbott files a suit to block marriages involving postmenopausal women, men who have had a vasectomy, or women who have had tubal ligation, because these marriages aren't based in the state's interest in procreation.