Supporters of Same-Sex Marriage ask Supreme Court to Decline California Case

On Friday, a petition was moved by two California couples asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decline hearing an appeal made by opponents to gay marriages. The ban, known as Proposition 8 in California has already been struck down by two lower courts. Currently, same-sex marriage is an open option in California, which might go if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to uphold Proposition 8.

Last month, the backers of Proposition 8 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reassess the decisions of the lower courts made in striking down the ban on same-sex marriage. The request was made following another petition in a separate Massachusetts case which asked the Supreme Court to review the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as an union exclusively between parties differentiated physically by gender into man and woman.

The two petitions have moved the issues over same-sex marriage rights and related legal issues closer to receiving a review by the Supreme Court. According to many, a decision before November elections can have an influence in the elections as President Obama has already adopted a view in support of same-sex marriage and declined to defend the DOMA any further. At the same time, the DOMA is defended by a Republican Committee and also by Obama’s political opponent, Mitt Romney.

		Get JD Journal in Your Mail Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

In the filing made by the California gay couples, the lawyers observed that the case over Proposition 8 could be an “attractive vehicle” for the Supreme Court in resolving the issue. However, the petition claimed, review by the Supreme Court was “not warranted” as the 9^th Circuit had already applied the correct legal precedent.

The case in the Supreme Court of the United States is Dennis Hollingsworth et al. vs. Kristin Perry et al., 12-144.

Posted by EmploymentCrossing on August 25, 2012. Filed under Legal News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.