Supreme Court Declines To Intervene In Gay Marriage Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it will not intervene with gay marriage cases in the U.S., effectively clearing the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage in five states, including Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
The Supreme Court's move was seen as a surprise, and its decision dismissed federal appeals in the states that sought to overturn lower court rulings for gay marriage. The Supreme Court's decision to not intercede proved unexpected because the issue of gay marriage is such a prominent issue in the U.S., and many believed the court would want to provide its ruling on such a matter.
Monday's decision also affects other states currently going through an appeals process on same-sex marriage, increasing the number of states where the union is legal from 19 to 30.
The decision has been described as a victory from pro-same-sex marriage groups. "The court's letting stand these victories means that gay couples will soon share in the freedom to marry in 30 states, representing 60% of the American people," Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in a statement to USA Today. "But we are one country, with one Constitution, and the court's delay in affirming the freedom to marry nationwide prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places."
In a previous Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Windsor, the highest court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, thus allowing certain federal benefits for same-sex couples. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented from the decision, writing in his opinion that the higher court does not have the power to trump the decisions of individual states.
"The court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide the distinct question whether the states, in the exercise of their 'historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,' may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage," he wrote.