Tennessee opposes Supreme Court review of same-sex marriage case
Attorneys for the state of Tennessee urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to review a decision upholding the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, rejecting arguments made separately by several other states defending bans on same-sex marriage.
In a brief filed Monday in opposition to plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari, Tennessee argued that there is no reason why the Supreme Court should hear the case. The brief argues same-sex marriage is an issue of state public policy and the decision upholding Tennessee’s same-sex marriage ban does not conflict with Supreme Court precedents “in any other respect.”
In a 2-1 decision handed down Nov. 6, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld same-sex marriages bans in four states — Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee — breaking with other federal appeals courts that have considered the issue. The Supreme Court has been asked to consider all four state marriage bans by plaintiffs in the four cases.
But with today’s filing, Tennessee breaks with the other states in the 6th Circuit who have concurred with plaintiffs on Supreme Court review. Despite winning at the appellate court level, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan have all agreed that the Supreme Court should hear cases challenging those states’ respective same-sex marriage bans. Much like the petition filed with the Supreme Court by plaintiffs in the Tennessee case last month, they argue that the split among the circuits should be addressed and only the Supreme Court can resolve whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry.
Plaintiffs in a case challenging Lousiana’s same-sex marriage ban have asked the Supreme Court to hear their case before a federal appeals court has rendered judgment. The state of Louisiana has also agreed the high court should hear the case.
“Petitioners insist that the conflict engendered by the Sixth Circuit decision now calls for this Court’s intervention… The Court is not so compelled; certiorari is regularly denied in cases presenting a conflict of decision,” Tennessee’s attorneys countered in their brief filed Monday. “It is for this Court to decide whether it should now intervene by granting review of the Sixth Circuit decision. Respondents maintain, for the reasons discussed above, that it should not.”
Support Metro Weekly’s Journalism
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.