Your Oct. 25 editorial “ Berger’s folly,” concerning issues relating to powers of states (and potential actions of state officials) with regard to marriage, was largely a highly simplified statement of advocacy.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court indeed recently issued an order denying review of several pertinent decisions of lower courts, the nation’s highest court has not ruled on the merits of those decisions. As one prominent attorney, a former official in the U.S. Department of Justice and a former law clerk to a current U.S. Supreme Court justice, noted, there was no public dissent in the Supreme Court’s recent order denying review, a singular interesting fact.
The effect of the Supreme Court’s order of denial of review could thus be considered as one that prevented the court from placing an imprimatur on decisions of lower courts with regard to this issue, and the issue of state powers in this area remains highly charged.
Regardless of – or perhaps because of – this issue’s controversial nature, the so-called “debate” relating to the issue is clearly not over, contrary to your editorial’s view.