A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) has upheld the bans on same-sex marriage in those states.
Now, this could be appealed to the full court of the 6th Circuit, or head straight for the Supreme Court. Unless the full 6th court overrules the panel, the Supremes almost have to hear this appeal, as it conflicts with all other federal court rulings on same-sex marriage.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/us/same-sex-marriag … ?hpt=hp_t2
But a Supreme Court ruling would settle the issue once and for all, so that wouldn't be a bad thing at all.
We still have 3 more circuit courts to rule. I wonder how long the Supremes will wait before taking a marriage rights case?
The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal. … Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent.
Mark Stern, writer for Slate, cover's Daughtrey's dissent--it's a good read: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/11/07/the … umane.html
"Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there," Daughtrey said, "my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court."