On Wednesday, Nov. 12, the Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages in Kansas to continue, making it the 33rd state in which gay unions are permitted and lifting a provisional deferment issued two days prior by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, according to the The New York Times.

The Washington Post reports "the decision indicated that the justices are content to allow the list of states where gay marriages are sanctioned to expand, even as it seems more likely that they eventually will have to answer for the nation whether gays have a constitutional right to marry."

Following a trend in decision-making on similar cases by the Supreme Court, which has declined repetitively to arbitrate in the legal battles over same-sex marriage, this verdict to proceed left more questions than answers.

The New York Times noted that in an effort to urge justices to intervene, Kansas officials depended on the ruling from Cincinnati's federal appeals court, which safeguards numerous gay marriage state bans; it would have pushed the Supreme Court to resolve whether gay marriage is a constitutional right to be recognized.

The two-sentence order made Wednesday night, however, promoted Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to express that they would have granted the stay in place, though neither of them gave a reason.

According to The Washington Post, Derek Schmidt (R), the Kansas attorney general, requested the court suspend issuing state licenses until the justices settled the constitutional question.

Trailing the precedent made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, the verdict came after a federal judge struck down the gay marriage ban in Kansas. However, without providing a reason, the court declined to review.

"Unless and until this court provides an answer to that important constitutional question," Schmidt told the justices in an emergency solicitation. "Applicants respectfully request that lower federal courts in this case not be allowed by preliminary injunction to disable a democratically enacted provision of the Kansas Constitution."

In a testimony to justices, the plaintiffs -- two couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union -- expressed that "there was no reason to treat the Kansas officials' request differently from similar stay applications from Idaho and Alaska." However, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Related