SCOTUS doesn’t act on gay-marriage cases
The Supreme Court took no action on any of the 10 gay-marriage petitions before it Friday, despite expectations that the justices would finally announce their plans regarding challenges to three separate laws denying recognition to same-sex couples.
The court could add any of those cases to its docket as soon as Monday, but more likely the justices will continue discussing the matter at their next private conference, scheduled for Dec. 7.
Most attention has focused on challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 statute denying federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex spouses. Federal appeals courts in Boston and New York have found the measure unconstitutional, finding that the government had insufficient justification to penalize gays and lesbians.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Can’t wait for the next Roberts ruling: they’re not really gay, they’re just on holiday.
John the Libertarian on November 30, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Roberts probably has much in common with the gays, having recently came out of the closet about his progressiveness.
astonerii on November 30, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Roberts hasn’t been stuffed with enough caviar and cocktails yet by the Washington special interests.
Daemonocracy on November 30, 2012 at 7:07 PM
I have my doubts as to whether Roberts is straight after his Obamacare travesty.
Let it BURN! Burn baby burn, DISCO INFERNO!
wildcat72 on November 30, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Well isn’t this just fabulous.
Bishop on November 30, 2012 at 7:19 PM
How’s it hangin’ Justice Roberts…?
Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2012 at 7:23 PM
It’s Super! Super!!, SUPER!!!
wildcat72 on November 30, 2012 at 7:31 PM
He’s bi cause he boned us all, male and female.
arnold ziffel on November 30, 2012 at 7:46 PM
I’m torn between hoping they will and won’t rule.
MelonCollie on November 30, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Once we can get some more gays on the court to join Kagan, Sotomeyer, and Roberts progress will be realized.
CorporatePiggy on November 30, 2012 at 7:49 PM
Chickens.
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 30, 2012 at 8:27 PM
What’s wrong with being gay? Why is it being used as an insult?
Why does another person’s sexuality have anything to do with my life?
Why would a conservative want federal-regulation of marriage at all?
Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 9:28 PM
What’s wrong with being gay? Why is it being used as an insult?Why does another person’s sexuality have anything to do with my life?
Why would a conservative want federal-regulation of marriage at all?
Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Yawn.
1st two questions are pointless because you know why.
3rd question is a non sequitur.
4th question is because we know that once homosexual marriage is federally accepted, they will come for our religious faith and our churches as they attempt to do with private corporations that express faith. Ex: Chick Fil-A
njrob on November 30, 2012 at 10:07 PM
What Constitution?
Capitalist Hog on November 30, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Dakine
hawkdriver on November 30, 2012 at 10:19 PM
1st Amendment – no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
njrob on December 1, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Ha! Check out the mudduck trying to sound cool. What a chump.
Capitalist Hog on December 1, 2012 at 3:34 AM
And many comments where there isn’t even an intelligent point. Just name-calling and insults. Too cowardly to be specific as to who it’s directed to though. Typical.
hawkdriver on December 1, 2012 at 5:52 AM
The proverbial “Pandora’s Box” was opened the moment state governments began issuing marriage licenses.
eaglescout_1998 on December 1, 2012 at 6:18 AM
How can a constitutional conservative support DOMA. It so clearly violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
libfreeordie on December 1, 2012 at 7:37 AM