Clarence Thomas faults Supreme Court for refusing to block gay marriage in Alabama

The most prominent sign that the Supreme Court is poised to recognize a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry nationwide came Monday from an unlikely source: conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The court is months away from hearing arguments in a landmark case about whether states are free to ban such unions. But Thomas said a majority of the justices may have already made up their minds, as reflected by the court’s “indecorous” decision Monday morning allowing same-sex marriages to proceed in Alabama.
swimming by mananaslam4009 “This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question,” Thomas wrote in a dissent from the court’s order refusing to stay the weddings. “This is not the proper way to discharge our . . . responsibilities.” He was joined by one other justice, Antonin Scalia, in saying the court should agree to postpone the weddings until the justices hear the same-sex-marriage case in April and rule by the end of their term in June.
barking during sleeping by mananaslam4009 The court’s action Monday was another signal that it might be paving the way for public acceptance of a decision that marriage is a fundamental right that states may not withhold from gay couples. Alabama became the 37th state (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples may marry. Much of the momentum has come from federal court decisions finding state bans unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been unwilling to put those decisions on hold and make same-sex couples wait to marry. As a result, nearly three in four Americans live in states where gay marriage is currently legal. As some judges in Alabama resisted the court’s action Monday, refusing to provide marriage licenses, there was fury on the right as well.
Dangerous playing by mananaslam4009 “A majority of the Supreme Court has cast disrepute on the impartiality of the Court by refusing to follow previous protocol and issue a stay of a lower court ruling while it is being considered by the Court,” said a statement from Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions. The challengers to Alabama’s ban, for their part, said the court was right not to stay a decision last month by a federal court judge in Mobile that constitutional rights were being violated. But there was recognition across the ideological spectrum that the Supreme Court’s moves, which have come mostly in unsigned and unexplained rulings on stay requests from various states, point only in one direction. “There’s little doubt that the Supreme Court’s order today irresponsibly declining to stay the federal-district court order against Alabama’s marriage laws signals that at least five justices have already made up their mind to concoct a constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex,” wrote Ed Whelan, a conservative commentator at the National Review Online. As a result of the court’s repeated decisions not to stay same-sex unions, thousands of marriages have taken place. Legal experts on both sides of the issue question whether the court would have allowed that to happen unless the justices believe that a majority of the court is willing to ultimately rule that states may not ban such unions.