Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeals on same-sex marriages may now pave the way for equal marriage rights for gay couples around the nation.
The justices’ decision directly affected five states: Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin. The lower appeals courts for these states lifted the bans on same-sex marriages, and since the U.S. Supreme Court did not make a ruling, within hours couples were having marriage licenses issued.
No one outside the high court can say with complete exactitude as to why the justices did not hear the appeals but many people have their opinions.
Steven J. Mulroy, Professor of Law at the University of Memphis’ Cecil C. Humphreys School of law, said he believes same-sex marriage advocates sued these states for banning same-sex marriages on grounds that such bans are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
“The U.S. Supreme Court would have heard the cases if any of those lower state courts would have ruled against same-sex marriages,” Mulroy said. “I am a little troubled by them not taking the appeals. What are they waiting for?”
Mulroy’s other reason as to why the high court refused to hear the appeals is because some states like Tennessee which is in the 6th circuit currently have same-sex marriage cases pending and the high court is waiting to see the outcome of those pending cases.
Mulroy believes that by the high court not getting involved is really a celebration for people in favor of same-sex marriages.
“Staying out if it is letting their revolutionary pro-gay rights stand,” Mulroy said. “It’s only a matter of time that all those states that have bans on same-sex marriages will be removed.”
Democratic Delegate Sam Rasoul, of the Virginia House of Delegates represents the 11th House District, believes the high court denied to hear the appeals because they did not believe there was any reason for them to weigh in on a state decision.
“Unless the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority many issues are left to the states to determine per the 10th Amendment, Rasoul said “ And that might possibly be why the chose not to hear the appeal.”
Since Virginia is one of the states affected by this appeal case, Rasoul said the state of Virginia has yet to determine the repercussions of the appeal.
“This appeal case just deals with marriage equality which is on a state level, but this appeal comes with federal level issues such as taxation and healthcare for gay couples,” Rasoul said. “So for right now such federal level benefits in Virginia are unclear.”
Rasoul said it is unfortunate the high courts did not hear the appeal because he personally believes they would have found grounds that same-sex marriage is constitutional.
“In retrospect Virginia has landed on the right side of history,” Rasoul said. “We have sent a strong message that discrimination in any form will not be tolerated.”
Republican Senator Mark Norris, of the Tennessee General Assembly represents District 32,which includes Tipton County and parts of Shelby County said it is unclear why the high court declined to hear the appeals.
“It is likely they did so because of the absence of a sufficient ‘split’ between the Circuits so far,” Norris said.
Regarding the two pending cases sueing the state of Tennesse for banning same-sex mariages, Norris said that Monday’s high court decision has not impacted the status of these cases and that are still under review in the 6th circuit.
“But a decision by the 6th circuit upholding Tennessee’s Constitution may provide the ‘split’ needed for the Supreme Court to undertake review,” Norris said.
Norris commented on where he stands on the issue of same-sex marriages while explaining Tennessee’s stance to ban gay marriages.
“I believe there is a rational basis for Tennessee’s recognition of marriage between one man and one women,” Norris said.
Regarding Tennessee’s ban on same-sex marriages, Norris said he supported the resolution to give the people the right to vote whether to amend our state constitution because the citizens of Tennessee adopted the amendment overwhelmingly.
“It is the law of the land and of our state, and I support it,” Norris said.
Same-sex marriage is a controversial issue that has been hotly debated by people on both sides of the argument. Some U of M students have their own opinions on the topic.
Freshman biology major Jennifer Ouellette, 21, said she is not against a civil union between two people of the same gender, but it should not be called marriage.
“Marriage is a Christian institution,” Ouellette said. “The Bible says marriage is between a man and women.”
Lillian Hill, 29, a psychology major at the U of M and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said as a Mormon she understands the religious viewpoint on gay marriage.
“I understand the religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and woman, and know it is unpopular these days to be against same-sex marriages,” Hill said. “I want to be tolerant because I also believe what people do in their own lives is their own business.”
Hill went on to say that she has an issue with gay couples getting married in a religious temple, because by doing so they are making a commitment to God. She has no issue with a gay couple signing a legal contract with a state.
Sophomore psychology student Joshua Taylor, 19, is the secretary of the Stonewall Tigers, the university’s gay-straight alliance. He was excited to hear that same-sex marriages could be constitutional in the near future.
“It is the dream of millions of gay people to be able to marry the person they love,” Taylor said. “It is so humbling to know that gay marriages could be legalized fairly soon.”
Taylor is currently working on a new organization on campus called Campus United. The goal of Campus United is to educate people about all forms of discrimination and prevent division because of it.
Studio arts senior Anna Irace, 28, also supports same-sex marriages.
“People don’t take sanctity of marriage serious anymore, so why is it such a big deal now,” Irace said. “This country was based on separation of church and state, so why is religion involved in politics anyway?”
