Quote:
Originally Posted by xibair
Please bear with me on this since I have little knowledge on the legal system and the constitution.
Why wouldn't the Supreme Court take this argument? As it is, only a few states recognize same sex marriages. Wouldn't it be beneficial for all states to recognize same sex marriages?
|
There are a few reasons the Supreme Court might not take it. First, they are asked to hear 7000+ cases every year. They take about 100 of those cases. As a general rule, they take the cases where there is a "split"among the Circuits -- that is, where different federal courts of appeals (or state supreme courts dealing with a federal issue) are reaching differing conclusions on the same legal issues. They tend to like to let cases "percolate" through the lower courts and only take the ones where they truly need to settle the issue.
If I recall correctly, there is one decision (from the 8th Circuit) saying that state laws confining marriage to male-female couples do not violate the US Constitution, and now this decision from the 9th Circuit saying that California's law does violate the Constitution. They may wait to let more lower courts consider and weigh in to see if a consensus develops.
Also, as I understand it, the California case is fact-based. The holding there was that those defending the California law (which was not the Governor or state Attorney General, which is a whole different issue) did not offer sufficient evidence to justify the law. (Laws that discriminate must have some reasonable justification, with the level of justification required depending on the kind of discrimination.) That theoretically, at least, means that elsewhere, sufficient evidence could be shown. So it wouldn't necessarily have the effect you suggest of establishing a national standard.
Beyond that, as Vito says, whether it is "beneficial" would be a matter of opinion. There is a well-established school of federalist thought (which isn't necessarily opposed to same-sex marriages) that would say marriage has always been a matter of state law and that it should remain a decision for the states, not the federal government or federal Constitutional law. Right now, marriage laws vary widely from state to state in terms of age, prohibited degree of kinships, whether common law marriages can be formed, who can officiate, etc. Some would say this falls into that same category -- something that each state should decide for itself. Others, of course, would take a different view and say this is a matter of equal protection of the laws. But that's one of the places where the debate is.
Threaded Mode
