DETROIT, MI -- Lawyers for Louisiana on Tuesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review Michigan's landmark gay marriage case as well as a New Orleans federal district court ruling that upheld a same-sex marriage ban there.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last week also asked the high court to review the state's case, supporting a petition filed by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, the Hazel Park lesbian couple who sued the state over its voter-approved ban.

They sued Michigan because they can't jointly adopt their three children with the ban in place, and a federal district judge in March ruled in their favor, briefly making same-sex marriage legal in Michigan before the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that decision the next day and reversed it Nov. 6, upholding the ban.

The couple then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, topple the ban and decide the issue for the entire nation.

Schuette agreed that the high court should review the case, but argued for upholding the appeals court finding that the issue should be left for voters to decide.

Louisiana also supported the Supreme Court petition filed by gay couples in its case, seeking to skip a circuit decision and go straight to the high court.

"Louisiana's case squarely implicates a spiraling national controversy that has already nullified the marriage laws of over twenty States and spawned a four-to-one circuit split," state lawyers argued.

While a review of Michigan's case would address state bans against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, adding the Louisiana case to the docket would allow the high court to also take up the issue of recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, lawyers argued.

Having two cases with opposing parties each asking for review where there is clear conflict in lower courts builds momentum toward the Supreme Court taking up the issue soon, according to Lyle Denniston, a Supreme Court analyst for SCOTUS Blog.

"With the filing of Louisiana's views, paralleling the suggestion for early review made by Michigan in another case, the Supreme Court now has two new cases nearly ready for early consideration, perhaps in time for a final decision before the end of the current Term," Denniston wrote.

"Other cases on the issue are pending, but if the Court waits for all of the filings to be submitted in all of the cases, that could slow the process."

Couples in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky have also asked the Supreme Court to look at their cases, in which, alongside Michigan's case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld bans.

But lawyers for each of those states have yet to file responses.

Schuette in Michigan's Supreme Court filing argued:

"Reasonable people of good will might think it is at least debatable that this definition advances the State's interest in encouraging parents to stick together to care for and raise their children. And if it is at least debatable, then federal courts have no authority to overturn the people's legislative choice."

DeBoer and Rowse in their petition argued that the appeals court decision conflicts with previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

"In Loving [v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned bans against interracial marriage], this Court decided the core constitutional issues at hand rather than wait for further studies about the claimed perils (especially to the country's children) of blending the races," their lawyers argued.

The state in its response cited another past Supreme Court decision, one that came just this year, out of a Michigan case.

"As members of this Court recently observed, '[d]emocracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate,'" Schuette wrote, citing the case that upheld Michigan's voter-approved ban against affirmative action.

Michigan voters approved the ban against affirmative action in 2006.

Voters approved the same-sex marriage ban in 2004.

More: 4 reasons Supreme Court asked to review Michigan gay marriage case