The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to step aside and not hear seven cases involving state bans on same-sex marriage continues to be controversial. The court’s inaction lets stand lower-court rulings that struck down the bans and was a victory for same-sex marriage in those states. But that’s not as definitive as some people on both sides of the debate want. They’d rather have a clear decision by the highest court in the land saying whether same-sex marriage bans are constitutional. Should the Supreme Court confront this challenge directly, or is it enough to let lower courts handle it?
The Supreme Court of the United States should have ruled on gay marriage.
The case is that lower court judges are acting like activist judges. If we take time to research these judges, the majority have been nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate now controlled by the Democrats.
I’m just saying, the people of the states have spoken or in this case had spoken on the issue through their vote.
The voice of the people in the ballot is sacred.
Here come activist judges who are not elected by the people and overturn a law put in place by the voters or their respective legislatures.
The judicial branch is not to legislate from the bench of a courtroom. If these judges wanted to legislate, they should have run for office.
— Gabriel Valdez, Fort Worth
In the 1970s, the question of whether or not homosexuality is congenital or a choice began to be asked.
By ’73 the American Psychiatric Association (APA) no longer recognized being gay as being “mentally” ill, and in the 1990s the APA said being straight or gay is “normal.”
Today, some studies indicate a strong biological influence on sexual orientation, so we can say it’s normal to be born with one’s predisposition for future expression of his or her sexual orientation.
Young people — those under 30 — don’t have a problem with this statement, so regardless of what the Supreme Court does or doesn’t do, I predict within another generation gay marriage will no longer be an issue in the United States, and within two generations Americans will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
— Dr. Hugh T. Lefler Jr., Fort Worth
Political correctness has already infected the Supreme Court on homosexual issues. “Gay marriage” should have already been clearly invalidated as an equal right.
The legal logic used in equal rights to make two different things one escapes me.
What couples of opposite gender do has no bearing in attempt to validate the sexual conduct between those of the same gender as befitting marriage.
Anything of a sexual nature between same genders is factually physiologically abnormal. The citing of “gay marriage” as somehow equal to marriage between those of opposite gender is but one false example, being no more than an oxymoron.
While law protects sexual proclivities of same-sex adults in private, their public pronouncement in “gay marriage” remains obvious.
So, where does this social deception end? Next it will likely be threesome marriages, “gay, straight and transgender” … Why not?
The court already misuses “love,” “orientation” and political correctness to invalidate normality.
— Richard M. Holbrook, Weatherford
The Supreme Court’s primary function is to interpret laws that are challenged in court, and it is the land’s definitive arbiter.
The decisions are binding and sometimes controversial.
However, its decision not to hear seven cases regarding same-sex marriage is based on the polarization of the court and their individual beliefs, but it’s their prerogative to pass on any case and allow lower courts to negotiate a viable solution.
If every case that comes along and proponents and opponents can’t seem to come to an amicable solution and press for the Supreme Court’s intervention, then why have state courts?
— April Rogers, Fort Worth
The Supreme Court’s decision not to accept the gay-marriage cases is inexplicable. The court largely started this controversy — it should end it.
There are two ways the court could go. It could decide there is a constitutional right to “marriage” that any two people who want can have.
Or, it could decide states have the prerogative to limit marriage benefits based on state objectives for recognizing that status.
As a matter of principle, by not taking these cases the court is allowing federal judges to usurp states’ rights without ruling that they have that prerogative.
As a matter of practicality, the court is requiring states to spend millions of dollars in lawsuits that they could best be using in more constructive fashions.
It is unconscionable.
— Thomas F. Harkins Jr., Fort Worth
To date, all appellate courts have ruled against gay marriage bans.
By taking no action, the Supreme Court is saying that it agrees with the lower courts; thus, its action is definitive.
Lower courts must disagree before the Supreme Court has reason to act.
If any appellate court supports a gay marriage ban, then the Supreme Court will surely accept that case and overturn the ruling.
They probably hope to avoid such a case because of the controversy over Roe v. Wade.
However, this case is much clearer than Roe; we can disagree about when legal personhood begins, but there’s no debating equal protection of the law.
— George Michael Sherry, Fort Worth