{"id":8127,"date":"2014-10-10T16:24:37","date_gmt":"2014-10-10T20:24:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=8127"},"modified":"2014-10-10T16:28:39","modified_gmt":"2014-10-10T20:28:39","slug":"the-supreme-courts-silence-is-golden","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/the-supreme-courts-silence-is-golden\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court\u2019s Silence is Golden"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court doled out a landmark victory on Monday, October 6\u00a0for\u00a0gay marriage supporters by rejecting appeals cases from five states\u2014Virginia (4th<\/sup> Cir.), Oklahoma (10th <\/sup>Cir.), Utah (10th<\/sup> Cir.), Wisconsin (7th<\/sup> Cir.), and Indiana (7th<\/sup> Cir.). The move surprised many observers of the court and left the public speculating about the reasons behind the cert denial. A few important questions stand out:<\/p>\n

What were the immediate effects of the decision?*<\/em><\/p>\n

The move allowed same-sex marriages<\/a> to proceed\u00a0in those five states as soon as the circuits put their respective rulings into effect. Gay and lesbian couples in the Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin, and Indiana were able to marry<\/a> almost immediately.<\/p>\n

What could happen as a result of the decision?*<\/em><\/p>\n

Other states in the 4th<\/sup> Circuit (NC, SC, and WV) and 10th<\/sup> Circuit (CO, KS, WY) could soon follow. Same-sex marriage cases pending before the 5th<\/sup>, 6th<\/sup>, 9th<\/sup>, and 11th<\/sup> Circuits could also see movement soon. Indeed, the 9th<\/sup> Circuit on Tuesday ruled that\u00a0same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada are unconstitutional. However, early Wednesday morning, Idaho state officials filed an emergency request for an immediate stay on same-sex marriages. Justice Kennedy issued an order granting the request and applying the stay to Idaho and Nevada. However, that same day, Kennedy narrowed<\/a> the stay to apply only to Idaho cases<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Why <\/em>not<\/strong> decide the issue now?<\/em><\/p>\n

Although the Court\u2019s decision to decline to rule was a boon for gay marriage supporters, many questioned why the Court punted on such an important issue. The technical reason backing the Court\u2019s move is that there was no conflict among the circuits below, meaning the Court did not have much to add in the face of unanimity. But, ideologically speaking, perhaps the Court did not care to \u201cfan[] the flames of controversy<\/a>\u201d as it did with the 1973 Roe v. Wade<\/em> decision. \u00a0In Roe v. Wade<\/em>, some believed that the court should not have unilaterally decided the legality of abortion and instead should have left such an important political issue up to the states.<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/em><\/a> features a 2009 quote from Jonathan Rauch, a Brookings Institution scholar and gay marriage supporter, describing the potential aftermath of a decision from the Court allowing same-sex marriage nationwide:<\/p>\n

\u201c[S]o abrupt and heavy-handed a means would undermine the desired end by fomenting a fierce backlash and making gay marriage a bone of national political contention for decades to come \u2014 if it did not produce a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage for good.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Suzanne Goldberg, guest writer at SCOTUSblog, cheers<\/a> for the newfound marriage equality in many states, but also points out that the decision \u201cbrings no end to the suffering of same-sex couples who live in places where they are prevented from marrying or having their marriages recognized.\u201d<\/p>\n

Will the Court ever take on gay marriage?<\/em><\/p>\n

Possibly. If the 5th<\/sup> Circuit \u201cupholds same-sex marriage bans in Texas and Louisiana later this year, becoming the first appeals court to do so, the Supremes will have a harder time staying on the sidelines<\/a>,\u201d and could hear a case in the spring. In the meantime, the number of states allowing gay marriage could exceed thirty<\/a>, a definite victory for same-sex couples in those states. Advocates hope the states on the sidelines will soon follow suit.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*N.B.: This post is current as of Friday, October 10, 2014 at 4:00pm. The Washington Post<\/em> has a handy map<\/a>\u00a0showing up-to-date status of status of same-sex marriage in each state.<\/p>\n

Photo 1 credit<\/a>\u00a0\/ Photo 2 credit<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court doled out a landmark victory on Monday, October 6\u00a0for\u00a0gay marriage supporters by rejecting appeals cases from five […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":92,"featured_media":8128,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,44,33],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-8127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-lgbtq-rights"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/80\/2014\/10\/supreme-court.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-275","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/92"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8127\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8128"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8127"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}