WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Friday said it will review an appeals court ruling that upheld bans on same-sex marriages in four states.
The case will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June. The four states in question -- Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee -- are among 14 where gay couples are not allowed to marry.
The justices will consider two related questions: The first is whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Proponents of gay marriage said they expect the court to settle the matter once and for all with a decision that invalidates all state provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman.
"We are now that much closer to being fully recognized as a family, and we are thrilled," said April DeBoer, a hospital nurse from Hazel Park, Mich., after the justices said they would hear an appeal from DeBoer and her domestic partner Jayne Rowse. "This opportunity for our case to be heard by the Supreme Court gives us and families like ours so much reason to be hopeful."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama's administration would urge the court "to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans."
On the other side, advocates for traditional marriage want the court to let the political process play out, rather than have judges order states to allow same-sex couples to marry.
"The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws," said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for the anti-gay-marriage group Alliance Defending Freedom.
Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. That number is nearly double what it was three months ago, when the justices initially declined to hear gay-marriage appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans on same-sex marriage.
The effect of the court's action in October was to make final several lower court rulings that gay-marriage bans violated the Constitution. More than 70 percent of Americans now live in places where gay couples can marry; there are just 14 states in which gay couples cannot wed, including Arkansas.
How the U.S. Supreme Court's decision could affect federal and state challenges to Arkansas' gay-marriage ban remained unclear Friday.
In late November, federal Judge Kristine Baker struck down Arkansas' law as unconstitutional.
A mirror challenge was argued before the Arkansas Supreme Court on Nov. 20, six months after Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza struck down the state law.
It's unclear when the state's high court will rule or who will decide the case, since the makeup of the court has changed since the 2014 election.
Jack Wagoner, one of the attorneys representing gay couples in both legal challenges, said he didn't know what the recent move by the U.S. Supreme Court would affect.
"Well, it probably won't matter," Wagoner said. "[The federal and state court judges] could move to stay [the cases], but I doubt that will happen. There's no telling how long it will be before the Supreme Court hears it and makes a decision on them."
Wagoner added: "In the long term, though, [the U.S. Supreme Court] will answer the question for the nation. They're going to answer it once and for all."
Republican Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said she'll continue to fight to uphold the state ban.
"The appeal of the same-sex marriage case is moving forward. The U.S. Supreme Court may make a decision that impacts Arkansas before the 8th Circuit issues its ruling or before the Arkansas Supreme Court delivers its opinion," Rutledge said. "But until that time, our appeal process will aggressively move forward."
University of Arkansas at Little Rock law school professor Robert Steinbuch said the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case might bring the other legal challenges to a halt.
"It's perfectly reasonable to think the state court might want to wait and hear from a federal court. ... It's pretty clear the issue is going to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States," Steinbuch said. "It will be a factor that should be and likely will be considered by state courts in terms of whether or not they speedily address the issue or decide to wait and see what they do."
Added Steinbuch: "But you know you'll get an opinion from [the U.S. Supreme Court] by the end of the term."
Windsor ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in 2012 to hear a constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, which involved California's gay-marriage ban.
At that time, nine states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to marry.
When the court's ruling arrived in June 2013, a majority of the justices said the case was not properly before them, and none of them expressed a view on the ultimate question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage.
But a second decision the same day, in United States v. Windsor, provided momentum for the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. That decision struck down the part of the national Defense of Marriage Act that barred federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states that allowed such unions.
The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion stressing that states' decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, ones that emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffered from bans on same-sex marriage.
Since that ruling, a wave of lower courts across the country have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights.
James Esseks, leader of the American Civil Liberties Union's same-sex marriage efforts, recalled the first same-sex marriage that went before the court more than 40 years ago from Minnesota. There, the justices dismissed a gay couple's appeal in a single sentence.
"It did not go well because the country wasn't ready yet. But the country is ready for the freedom to marry today," Esseks said.
The court is extending the time it usually allots for argument from an hour to 2½ hours as it considers the two related questions.
A group that favors greater transparency at the court has called for opening the courtroom to television cameras for the first time. Another group is suggesting the court allow live audio of the arguments over the Internet, which also has never been done.
The appeals before the court come from gay plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees those four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing the rulings of federal judges in all four states.
It was the first, and so far only, appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage since the high court's 2013 decision.
One of the plaintiffs from Ohio, James Obergefell, said he was crying "tears of joy and sadness" after the court accepted his appeal.
In 2013, Obergefell flew to Maryland with his dying partner, John Arthur, so they could marry before Arthur's death. The couple sued to force Ohio to list Arthur as married on his death certificate, which would allow the men to be buried next to each other. Arthur died 15 months ago.
"I can't wait to walk up those steps and have the Supreme Court understand that we're just like everyone else," Obergefell said.
Gregory Bourke and Michael Deleon have been together for 32 years; were married in Canada in 2004; and live in Louisville, Ky.
"Our family is like any other family. We have children, we have jobs, we have lives, we are very much engaged in our community, and yet we don't feel like we are being treated yet as equal citizens," Bourke said.
Ten other states also prohibit such unions. In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down anti-gay-marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals. In Missouri, same-sex couples can marry in St. Louis and Kansas City only.
Louisiana is the only other state that has seen its gay-marriage ban upheld by a federal judge. There have been no rulings on lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and North Dakota.
Information for this article was contributed by Mark Sherman, Adam Beam, Travis Loller, Dan Sewell and Ed White of The Associated Press; by Adam Liptak of The New York Times; and by Spencer Willems of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
A Section on 01/17/2015