Captain Obvious
08-20-2014, 03:35 PM
Ironically it's on NPR's "The Two Way" segment:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/20/341944611/same-sex-marriages-on-hold-in-virginia-after-supreme-court-weighs-in
The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to block a federal appeals court ruling that would have allowed gay marriages to begin in Virginia on Thursday.
The decision was widely expected and tells little about how the high court will ultimately rule on the issue. It merely preserves the status quo.
Indeed, while Virginia officials urged the Supreme Court to strike down the ban on gay marriage, they also urged the court to put a hold on the immediate issuing of marriage licenses.
In asking the court to grant the stay, Virginia officials noted that one of the factors the court traditionally considers is whether failure to temporarily block the lower court ruling would result in "a likelihood of irreparable harm." In a brief filed with the court, state officials acknowledged that the loss of the right to marry, "even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute irreparable injury." On the other hand, the state said, if the Supreme Court ultimately were to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage, it would have "rendered doubtful" hundreds of thousands of same-sex marriages that would have taken place in the interim.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/20/341944611/same-sex-marriages-on-hold-in-virginia-after-supreme-court-weighs-in
The U.S. Supreme Court has stepped in to block a federal appeals court ruling that would have allowed gay marriages to begin in Virginia on Thursday.
The decision was widely expected and tells little about how the high court will ultimately rule on the issue. It merely preserves the status quo.
Indeed, while Virginia officials urged the Supreme Court to strike down the ban on gay marriage, they also urged the court to put a hold on the immediate issuing of marriage licenses.
In asking the court to grant the stay, Virginia officials noted that one of the factors the court traditionally considers is whether failure to temporarily block the lower court ruling would result in "a likelihood of irreparable harm." In a brief filed with the court, state officials acknowledged that the loss of the right to marry, "even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute irreparable injury." On the other hand, the state said, if the Supreme Court ultimately were to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage, it would have "rendered doubtful" hundreds of thousands of same-sex marriages that would have taken place in the interim.