Connect with us

GOP Governors Refusing To Allow Same-Sex Marriage Despite Supreme Court Announcement

Published

on

Despite yesterday’s announcement from the Supreme Court and rulings at the appellate court level, Republican governors are refusing to follow the law on same-sex marriage.

When the Supreme Court declined to review any of seven same-sex marriage case from five states, rulings by the appellate courts became the final ruling and all stays the Supreme Court and the appellate courts had place on those rulings were lifted.

The immediate effect was that same-sex couples in Virginia, Utah, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma were allowed to marry, and they did. 

But the next effect is that all states in the same judicial circuit, or region, as those cases were in, must follow the ruling of that Circuit Court.

LOOK: The Same-Sex Marriage Map Just Changed Dramatically – Here’s What It Looks Like

Virginia, for example, is part of the 4th Circuit. West Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina make up the rest of that Circuit, so same-sex marriage should be, theoretically, legal in those states as well.

Utah is part of the 10th Circuit, so same-sex marriage should be, theoretically, legal in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as well.

So, same-sex marriage should now be legal in 30 states — the previous 19 plus the five from yesterday’s announcement and the additional six states that are part of those Circuits. Technically, states can wait for federal judges or their state supreme courts to specifically declare their marriage bans unconstitutional, but since the judges have no choice but to make that declaration, any wait is both manipulative and political — not to mention cruel and punitive. Governors or attorneys general could easily decide to make marriage available to same-sex couples now, without delay, as Colorado’s Republican Attorney General did today based on an earlier court ruling, or they could petition their state supreme court to overturn the ban immediately, or the rule immediately on an existing case.

In other words, they could take action to pave the way for marriage, rather than promising to block it.

As The New Civil Rights Movement reported yesterday, state and local officials are applying the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage announcement differently.

And unfortunately, governors and attorneys general in some of the six states are outright refusing to follow what is now, whether they like it or not and whether they agree or not, the law.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, a supposed devout Roman Catholic who has turned Kansas into an unmitigated disaster and is in a very rough re-election campaign, yesterday announced he would not follow the law.

“I swore an oath to support the Constitution of the State of Kansas,” Brownback in a statement  “An overwhelming majority of Kansas voters amended the Constitution to include a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Activist judges should not overrule the people of Kansas.” 

It’s unclear when the most conservative Supreme Court in recent history became “activists” on same-sex marriage (although on other issues, yes.)

Couples in Kansas have been denied their now legal right to marry.

In South Carolina, Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson is also refusing to follow the law. The AP reports Wilson “pointed out that a judge has not ruled on a lawsuit by a gay couple legally married in Washington, D.C., seeking to overturn the South Carolina gay marriage ban.”

The State reports Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, along with AG Wilson, “said Monday they would keeping on fighting in federal court a lawsuit filed in 2013 by a South Carolina same-sex couple.”

“Governor Haley,” a spokesperson said, “agrees with Attorney General Wilson – our voter-approved state law should be followed until a court rules on it directly.”

In other words, stalling until the inevitable arrives.

In Wyoming, Republican Gov. Matt Mead, who, ironically is an attorney, said that the “decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has no impact on the case before the Wyoming District Court.”

“The attorney general will continue to defend Wyoming’s Constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman,” Mead added.

Same-sex couples will have to wait there, too.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin, as The New Civil Rights Movement reported last night, made clear she is vehemently opposed to allowing same-sex marriage. The divorced GOP governor actually railed against “unelected federal justices” and their “D.C. values.”

How long can these anti-gay Republicans stall?

Not much longer.

UPDATE: Breaking: Colorado Same-Sex Couples Begin Marrying – State Becomes First Of Six States

Editor’s note: This post has been updated for clarity.

 

Image: Sam Brownback, via Facebook
Hat tip: AmericaBlog

 

Related At The New Civil Rights Movement:

Long View: Why SCOTUS’ Same-Sex Marriage Decision Was Only Proper Option

What Did The National Organization For Marriage Say About The Supreme Court Announcement?

So, Ted Cruz Has Something To Say About The Supreme Court’s Marriage Announcement…

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Did Not Rule Against Trump’s Tariffs’: Bessent Offers Alternative Interpretation

Published

on

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent delivered an alternative interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday that struck down the legal basis for the president’s sweeping global tariffs, which the justices ruled was an unlawful use of executive authority.

“President Trump will always put our national security and Americans first,” Bessent told the Economic Club of Dallas, as Mediaite reported.

“Let’s be clear about what today’s ruling was and what it wasn’t. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base — the court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs,” Bessent insisted.

Rather, he continued, the six justices “simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue.”

He vowed that the Trump administration would “invoke alternative legal authorities” to replace the vehicle used to collect tariffs, which he said would be “virtually” equal to the level that was previously being collected.

The Secretary, commenting on whether consumers will get refunds from the approximately $175 billion in tariffs already collected, also said, “I got a feeling the American people won’t see it.”

READ MORE: Bush-Era ‘Torture Memo’ Author Warns Trump to Stop Smearing SCOTUS Over Tariff Ruling

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Bush-Era ‘Torture Memo’ Author Warns Trump to Stop Smearing SCOTUS Over Tariff Ruling

Published

on

A former Bush Justice Department official is warning President Donald Trump against smearing the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices delivered a highly anticipated ruling that struck down the legal foundation of his sweeping global tariffs — a major setback for his economic agenda.

“It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” the president said on Friday, as the Guardian reported. Trump said he was “ashamed” of the six justices who sided with the majority opinion. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

“They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the Rinos [Republicans in name only] and the radical left Democrats, and not that they should have anything at all to do with it,” Trump added. “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution.”

John Yoo, the prominent Bush administration Deputy Assistant Attorney General known for writing what have been called the “torture memos,” appeared on Fox News on Friday and warned the president.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s Very Bad Day

“I think President Trump would be wise to no longer call the justices somehow tools of foreign influence,” he said, reminding him that the Roberts Supreme Court has been giving him “a number of wins.”

Yoo also noted that, had he been at the DOJ under President Trump, he would have been “shuddering” when he heard him speak about the court as he did, “because President Trump has got a number of other big cases pending at the court, like whether it can fire the heads of independent commissions, whether it can fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, whether redistricting can go on.”

Even Fox News is telling Trump to pump the brakes on accusing SCOTUS of being controlled by foreign actors, reminding him he has other “big cases” before the court.

John Yoo: “I think President Trump would be wise to no longer call the justices somehow tools of foreign influence.”

[image or embed]

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social) February 20, 2026 at 2:31 PM


READ MORE: ‘Can’t Play Cute With Me’: Trump Tries to Spin Big-Power Snub of Peace Board
 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

Epstein Files Scandal Is ‘Never Going to Go Away’: Carville

Published

on

Political commentator and strategist James Carville says the Epstein files scandal is not ever going to go away.

“It’s never gonna go away, and if you think about it, it can’t go away,” Carville told to Al Hunt on their Politicon podcast.

“What do you have?” he continued. “You have a really rich guy, filthy rich … with a glamorous woman who’s harvesting young women around the world. You got princes, and Ivy League professors, and politicians, and bankers, and sports organizers, and didn’t get all of that. And then you got a dead body.”

“And then you got secrecy everywhere, and it’s not going away 30 years from now. They’re gonna still be digging through that stuff. They lied about everything,” Carville said.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s Very Bad Day

“There’s nothing you can say to make this go away,” he continued. “And there’s so much s — — we don’t know.”

“You know, I didn’t — I must say, six months ago, I did not think that the Epstein issue would still be with us, and certainly not with us through the 2026 campaign,” Hunt said. “I was wrong.”

“There are three reasons it’s not going away. Number one, the dissembling, by the White House, and its subsidiary, the Justice Department — there clearly is a cover up of some stuff,” he added.

“Two, Ro Khanna, a liberal Democrat, and Tom Massey, a conservative Republican, are leading the fight for full exposure. They have proven to be bulldogs, and they won’t give up,” Hunt said.

He added that the third reason the Epstein files are here to stay “is those victims, the women who have courageously spoken up against the sexual abuse trafficking of Epstein and his accomplice, Maxwell, won’t be silenced until the Justice Department ends this limited hangout approach.”

Hunt also pointed to “a headline in Wednesday’s Washington Post, quote, Epstein fallout rattles the globe. Many powerful people face consequences,” which he noted was “true in every place but the Trump administration.”

READ MORE: ‘Can’t Play Cute With Me’: Trump Tries to Spin Big-Power Snub of Peace Board

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.