The Supreme Court began its fall session last week by deciding not to look at cases brought up by five states regarding the legality of same-sex marriage. In all five states, the appeals court had struck down bans on gay marriage, and the states had appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Daily Orange talked with three experts on the Syracuse University campus, Thomas Keck, a political science professor and Michael O. Sawyer Chair of Constitutional Law and Politics at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Keith Bybee, a political science and law professor and director of the Institute for the Study of the Judiciary, Politics and the Media and Tucker Culbertson, a law and LGBT studies professor about what the non-decision means.

The Daily Orange: What does this mean for the states that brought the cases forward? Does the appeals court decision stay? What does this mean for the LGBT community?

Keck: The Court did not decide the cases; it just decided not to hear them. The effect of that is that the lower court decision stands, at least for the moment. So in those states, same-sex couples have the right to legally marry, and there are multiple cases ongoing in other states, and the court has not decided those cases yet. Additional appeals from other states could come to the Supreme Court. They could continue to decline to rule, or eventually decide to hear one of the cases. Right now, the outcome has not changed for the other states, until legal proceedings take place.

Culbertson: There is a massive effect to this non-decision. The Court essentially mandated the issuing of marriage licenses in the five states. These circuit courts cover many states, and the law of the circuit is the law of the circuit. You arguably have 11 states, from the fourth circuit, the seventh circuit and the 10th circuit, that all have to issue marriage licenses. Realistically, there are going to be 11 states issuing licenses in the near future.

The D.O.: What was your reaction to this decision?

Bybee: I was expecting the Supreme Court to decide to hear one or more of these cases. One of the reasons is that there were a lot of these cases, and more coming up. Also, both sides of the case, including those that had lost in the appeals court and won, were both asking the Supreme Court to take the case. This is unusual — usually the loser wants the Court to take it. The winners wanted this case to go to the Court because they wanted a national ruling.

The D.O.: What was the role of conservative and liberal justices in this case? Why do you think they decided not to review the case?

Culbertson: There are four conservative justices, four liberal justices and Justice (Anthony) Kennedy in the middle. Both sides felt that though they could call the issue for review, they didn’t know which way Kennedy would sway. They are more or less waiting for popular opinion to see which way he would side.

The D.O.: What do you think this means in the short term and long term for America?

Keck: Short term, there will be continued litigation on the issue of same-sex marriage. Federal courts around the country, for the most part, will continue to hold the view that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married. I don’t think it will take that long, so medium term, same-sex marriage will be legalized across the country.

Culbertson: I think its crucial for us to recognize how necessary but very limited the gains of same-sex marriage is for the LGBTQ community. I hope folks will keep in mind that the official declaration that all states must recognize same-sex marriage only does so much to affect the lives and injuries continually suffered by certain parts of the LGBTQ community. There’s a lot more work to be done beyond the official declaration of marriage.

Published on October 13, 2014 at 12:01 am

Contact Hanna: hrhorvat@syr.edu