Despite Supreme Court actions, experts warn marriage not a done deal

[DonViejo]

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week to decline a stay on Alabama same-sex marriages was heralded as a surefire sign justices are ready to issue a decision in favor of nationwide marriage equality, but some legal experts are warning: Not so fast.

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University, said there’s “no such thing as a done deal involving the Supreme Court” and justices could still determine state prohibitions on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

“The court seems to have taken the position that it will not stop the implementation of whatever results come out of the lower federal courts for the period of time before it issues its own final adjudication,” Hunter said. “For the moment, this means that same-sex marriages are proceeding in many jurisdictions. But it is also the case that the negative ruling by the Sixth Circuit is likewise remaining in effect, so that couples are not able to marry in the states in that circuit. My best guess is that the court does not want to get ahead of itself by seeming to weigh in prematurely.”

Hunter added this approach “leaves all options open for the court’s decision on the merits,” but conveys a message there’s “no alarm” over states opposing same-sex marriage being forced to permit them by court order.

- See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/11/despite-supreme-court-actions-experts-warn-marriage-not-done-deal/?

[merrily]

1. Of course it's not a done deal.

I've been fearing this since DOMA, when the feds sunk their legislative hooks into marriages for what may have been the first time in US history. I thought marriage equality had a better shot in the states than with the gang of nine. At the same time, I hope like anything that I am wrong and they will do the correct and just thing.

Kennedy's opinion made me more optimistic. But the other Republican nominees are just @@##$$!! And I read a few years ago--maybe just before she was confirmed?-- that Kagan had said (not in court) that she did not think there was a federal constitutional right to equal marriage. If my memory is correct, I sure hope to hell she's evolved on that.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Kagan later clarified her statement...

See: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/senate-confirms-elena-kagan-but-same-sex-marriage-case-looms/2719/

[merrily]

4. Thank you, but which part of that article were you referring to?

The bit where she says courts aren't all there is, in connection with the California case?

[PoliticAverse]

6. "Kagan said she meant only that the courts had _not yet_ interpreted the Constitution

as guaranteeing same-sex couples the right to marry."

[merrily]

7. I'll take it. That's not usually what lawyers mean when they say

"there is no Constitutional right to XYZ," but I'll take and eagerly.

[William769]

3. They are full of shit and I will bet any one right here right now any amount of money

Come June with the decision, Marriage equality will be in all 50 States.

Bookmark my post.

[merrily]

5. I think we know 7 of the votes. Kennedy and Kagan have to do the just thing.

[William769]

8. I venture to say it will be 6 to 7 votes for.

[melm00se]

9. I think it will all depend upon how they chose to

interpret the underlying case.

If they take it from the narrow point of view "is marriage a constitutionally protected right?", it could be dicey.

If, however, they look at it from a 14th Amendment equal protection clause and/or a "full faith and credit" issue, it will probably come down on the correct side of the ledger.