The Supremes are Choosing Two Cases, Is Two better than one?


                                                                      
In announcing Friday it would hear arguments in April on marriage equality, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would address the two fundamental same-sex marriage issues that S.C. federal judges ruled on in November in separate opinions.
Judge Richard Gergel of Charleston ruled that under the 14th Amendment to the constitution, a same-sex couple from Charleston has the same right to be issued a state marriage license and get married as opposite sex couples do.
Judge Michelle Childs of Columbia ruled in the case of a Lexington County couple that the state of South Carolina must recognize valid marriages between same-sex couples who get married in other states.
“It’s like the two cases we have exactly,” said Malissa Burnette, who was one of a team of lawyers who won the historic Charleston decision from Gergel.
“The fact that the Supreme Court will address both those issues underscores why it was important to have two different cases in South Carolina,” Burnette said. “This will resolve the issue for the entire nation, stop all appeals, and there will be consistency.”
John Nichols, one of the lawyers who convinced Childs to rule that South Carolina should recognize the valid out-of-state marriage of a Lexington County couple, said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday makes sense.
“I’m not surprised the court feels the need to settle the issue, now that there’s a conflict,” said Nichols, who represented Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin.
Nichols also pointed out that the 6th Circuit Court’s recent decision has been cited by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson in legal filings as a major reason why he continues to fight to uphold South Carolina’s gay marriage bans.
“It creates uncertainty for the 6th Circuit case to be out there,” Nichols said of the Ohio-based court. "The 6th Circuit created a situation that is untenable - you would have four states in the middle of the country that uphold the ban, while surrounding states are not upholding the ban and are recognizing the validity of these marriages."
Wilson issued this statement Friday: “We have always expected the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this issue. Until the court resolves this important question there can be no finality. We are pleased the Supreme Court is hearing this case.”
A confident Burnette said, “The attorney general always said he would fight in South Carolina until he gets his final ruling. Well, he’s going to get his final ruling.”

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2015/01/16/3932844/sc-attorneys-attorney-general.html#storylink=cpy

Comments