And same sex marriage for all!

Petitioning the US Supreme Court to hear a case must be a lot like going to mom after dad says you can’t do something. Apparently, the way our judicial system works is this:  a case appears in court; there is a winner and there is a loser. The loser doesn’t like the fact that they lost, so they appeal the case. The case moves to a higher jurisdiction court and is heard by a different set of judges. Those judges decide whether the lower court made a mistake. If so, they send it back to the lower court for reconsideration, or they may simply act on the case itself.

A court case can follow that kind of path for a long time. As the two parties continue to argue about who is right and who is wrong, the case can move all the way through the state court system and up into the Federal court system. In the end, if the case has enough merit as determined by the US Supreme Court justices, it may be adjudicated at the highest court in the land.

But not necessarily so.

Take for instance the Supreme Court’s recent decision to not hear cases concerning same sex marriage. By not hearing the case, they leave intact a lower court ruling that legitimized same sex marriage, making that the law of the land. It also takes the onus off of them for making the decision.

Some would argue that the Supreme Court needs to make the final decision on this. But for my money, they already have. By not acting on the appeal, same-sex marriage is not a debate any longer. It is the de facto law of the land.

So what does one do when one is not satisfied with the ultimate court’s results? Apparently railing in the press seems to be the way to go. And right here in Virginia, that seems to be the way we go about things.

There are decidedly two sides to the whole same-sex marriage issue:  the side that favors it and the one that is adamantly opposed to it. The result of the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up petitions from the 4^th, 7^th, and 10^th U.S. Circuit courts that renders Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage null and void.

Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia stated recently her group’s disappointment in the Supreme Court. She claims that voters in the state supported the ban, and that the Supreme Court’s inaction takes away their right to create their own laws.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has sidestepped this important issue …” said Cobb. “Unfortunately, over 1 million Virginians who legally voted to adopt the marriage amendment have been disenfranchised, leaving them to wonder if their vote on any issue is safe from government reprisal.”

She said the issue was far from settled.

Eight years ago, 57 percent of Virginia voters backed an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A Quinnipiac University survey showed last march indicated that 50 percent of Virginia voters now supported allowing gay marriage, with only 42 percent opposed.

Other state legislators aver that the Supreme Court needs to step into the fray to settle the argument for all. Still, by not addressing the petitions, the Supreme Court made its statement by allowing the lower court rulings to stand. For some, that ruling will never be accepted. Still, if the Supreme Court were to act on the petitions and return the same or similar result, the same dissatisfaction would remain.