It does seem safe to say that if the court had any intention of reversing the lower court decisions it would not have issued today's determination to deny review.

I can't wait for the christards to start fucking whining. Should be good for some laughs.

Before Shirley Phelps can whine about it, she'll have to stop fellating Satan.

Amusing.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/s...?hpt=hp_t1

Quote:In Utah, just hours after word from the high court came down, Gov. Gary Herbert said at a press conference that he felt "surprised" and "disappointed" that there was no "finality" on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Hey, you mormon fuckhead, it's as "final" as you can get.

(October 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Amusing.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/politics/s...?hpt=hp_t1

Quote:In Utah, just hours after word from the high court came down, Gov. Gary Herbert said at a press conference that he felt "surprised" and "disappointed" that there was no "finality" on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Hey, you mormon fuckhead, it's as "final" as you can get.

Maybe by "finality" he was expecting a revelation from Jeebus?

He wanted a text from Planet Kolob.

Mormon fuckwit.

Hell, Mormons have had 2 bites at the apple in defining marriage, and they are still fucking wrong.

Mormons are weird

Well the American Family Association is losing its ever-loving mind. Good.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/bryan...-marriage/

Quote:Bryan Fischer freaks out over Supreme Court inaction on ‘sodomy-based marriage’

I'm sure in the coming days they will be all trying to outdo each other in expressing their outrage Should be wildly entertaining.

Yep, they are unlikely to grant cert on anything until there is a controversy among the circuits, UNLESS a voting block of the court wants to overturn. So no cert is good cert.

Also the Supreme Court's opinion on gay marriage was not that sweeping. They only held that states had to recognize each others marriages. And they held it under the good faith and credit clause, not the equal rights amendment. So the more states and Federal Circuits that hold that allowing gay marriage is constitutional required before the SC hears the matter the better.

They had previously set the groundwork in Romer v Evans, Jen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

Quote:Finding that "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," the Court inferred that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a "bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group".[2] The Court added: "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."(emphasis added)[