[JURIST] Seven same-sex couples submitted a petition [text, PDF] on Thursday asking the US Supreme Court [official website] to review the district court’s decision to uphold Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban before it proceeds to the federal appeals court. The petition presents the court with the question of whether a state’s constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. While the Supreme Court usually does not hear cases before they are appealed to a circuit court, the court rules do allow the practice. The petitioners’ lawyers cite four reasons for seeking early review. First, they point to the silence in the court’s decision in United States v. Windsor [JURIST report] on the power of the states to limit same-sex marriages. Second, they emphasize the fact that the case contains both new and existing same-sex marriages, and that a decision in this case will set precedent for both. Third, the case is an “optimal vehicle to clarify growing confusion regarding the limits of judicial deference to democratic processes when the majority has denied constitutionally protected rights to members of a minority group.” And finally, a decision in this case could have national impact, because should the Supreme Court also grant certiorari to any case from the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website], the result would be geographically significant.

The debate on same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] has continued as courts across the country have rendered disparate decisions. On Wednesday a federal judge struck down Montana’s same-sex marriage ban, while on Thursday the Supreme Court issued an order [JURIST reports] refusing to block same-sex marriages in South Carolina. Many states now seek to take their legislation on same-sex marriages to the highest court in the land. On Monday the Supreme Court was asked to review [JURIST report] bans from Michigan and Kentucky that were recently upheld by the Sixth Circuit.