What's ahead for the Supreme Court after refusal to hear marriage case?

Every year, on the first Monday in October, the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term. This year it began with a bang. The court refused to hear the largest number of petitions requesting certiorari — all of which raised the question of traditional marriage vs. same-sex unions.

Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma and Utah were asking for reviews of circuit court decisions that ruled their state laws are unconstitutional because they defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

What makes the Supreme Court rejecting these cases all the more shocking is that the court operates under the “rule of four” — it takes four justices to agree to hear a case. Observers believed that given their earlier dissents in the Windsor case, Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia would be likely to make up the four. Why that did not happen remains a mystery. Secondly, observers had their eyes on two cases, one in Texas and one in Louisiana, which are slated to be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and are, according to veteran Court-watcher, Lyle Denniston, likely to result in upholding traditional marriage laws. This would create a “split” in the circuits which the Supreme Court would hopefully want to resolve.

What are the issues at stake? What are the implications of the court sweeping these petitions off the table?

The one-man-one-woman standard for a marriage provides a naturally procreative relationship in a committed union which connects children to their mother and father in a way that no other arrangement can. Traditional marriage creates reasonably stable family units that, in turn, reduce the likelihood of other social problems. Blithely redefining a fundamental social institution — marriage — is a profound change.

State government would lose the right to determine marriage policy because the courts “arrogated the power to themselves by construing the Constitution to nationalize a genderless definition of marriage.” This will be the effect of the Supreme Court’s refusal to take these cases in those circuits where traditional marriage has been struck down unless the high court, later in this term, decides to address the question.

The Supreme Court, by refusing to hear these cases, casts a shadow of uncertainty over two of the central institutions of organized society — marriage and family. The court’s refusal appears to favor judicial over legislative power, and the court’s silence threatens American federalism which recognizes that state governments retain powers to act which cannot be usurped by federal courts or Congress.

The Supreme Court should end this silence and hear petitions requesting certiorari.

— Dr. John A. Sparks is the retired dean of the Calderwood School of Arts & Letters, Grove City College, Grove City, Penn.