Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Supreme Court declines to take up two more gay rights cases

The Supreme Court, a day after deciding two major cases on gay marriage, declined on Thursday to take up two more cases on the issue.

The cases concerned Nevada's ban on same-sex marriage, and an Arizona law that denies state benefits to "domestic partners."

The court declined to take the cases without comment. Its action means an appeals court ruling striking down the Arizona law stays in effect, while litigation over the Nevada law will continue.

On Wednesday the justices struck down a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied federal benefits to same-sex married couples.

The justices avoided deciding the constitutionality of a California law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage. The justices found that supporters of the law did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that struck it down.

The Arizona case concerns a law that limits health benefits to employees' spouses and dependants, thereby excluding domestic partners, including those in same-sex relationships. Gay marriage is not recognized in Arizona.

Prior to the law being enacted via a ballot initiative in November 2008, the state had for several months allowed same-sex domestic partners to receive health benefits.

Gay and lesbian state employees sued before the new law was due to go into effect in January 2011, saying it violated their equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the law from going in effect. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in September 2011, prompting the state's appeal to the Supreme Court.

In the other case, supporters of Nevada's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage asked the Supreme Court to rule definitively that states could limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The case arose when eight same-sex couples either tried to get married in Nevada or asked the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages. A federal court dismissed their claim. The case is pending before an appeals court, but the supporters of the ban asked the Supreme Court to take an early look at the issue.

The Arizona case is Brewer v. Diaz, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-33. The Nevada case is Coalition for the Protection of Marriage v. Sevick, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-689.

by Anonymousreply 1206/27/2013

[quote]We are chicken-shit rectionary demagogues who prefer not to address egregious human and civil rights inequities in Our country, in line with the pronouncements of our great model, Roger Taney. After all, it would get in the way of our continuing to support the radical Republican agenda, even as we pretend moderation. You did love those Bush years we gave you, didn't you, assholes?

by Anonymousreply 106/27/2013

Isn't the denial to hear the Arizona case good news?

by Anonymousreply 206/27/2013

Yes, R2. Essentially it means a majority agrees with the lower court.

by Anonymousreply 306/27/2013

I don't get, R1. Sounds like a good thing to me.

by Anonymousreply 406/27/2013

[quote]In the other case, supporters of Nevada's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage asked the Supreme Court to rule definitively that states could limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Good! Glad SCOTUS didn't waste their time validating these assholes.

by Anonymousreply 506/27/2013

WHen you see how people think the result of the Arizona case is bad for gays, is it any wonder that it takes so long to get moving toward equality for gays? There are too many people like R1, who get on a soapbox to start a rant when they haven't the slightest idea what the fuck they're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 606/27/2013

If I'm not mistaken, it only takes a vote of four for the Court to take up a case. So, in the Arizona case, if we assume that the majority from Windsor voted to decline, that means they were joined by at least one of the dissenting justices.

by Anonymousreply 706/27/2013

My point is the absurd gradualism and continued tilt towards supporting states' primacy and jurisdiction in these matters. In a country where yesterday's rulings do not meaningfully affect the 37 states where anti-gay discrimination is enforced, one way or another, I demand that the logic of the DOMA ruling be applied in toto.

Requiring American citizens to wait for bigots to change their minds is an unacceptable approach to core civil rights matters. The same constitutional defenses that cut DOMA could have been easily projected to a more fundamental assertion of rights, supported by other constitutional safeguards.

I celebrated yesterday.

Today I see the road ahead and curse the assholes demanding the continued march. It is unjust. Period.

We need one more SCOTUS vote. Until then it's this contorted and unsatisfactory dribbling and compromise. SCOTUS is not our friend, yet.

by Anonymousreply 806/27/2013

One more pro-gay decision and people are going to begin mistaking us for the girl group.

by Anonymousreply 906/27/2013

You can thank us for all of this!

by Anonymousreply 1006/27/2013

And the funny thing is the media has painted it that the decision was for ALL gays in the US.

Silly.

by Anonymousreply 1106/27/2013

"We need one more SCOTUS vote."

Totally!

by Anonymousreply 1206/27/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.