The US Supreme Court dismissed the subsequent appeal for "want of [a] substantial federal question."

—when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question."

—dismissing for want of a substantial federal question an appeal from a ruling by the Supreme Court of Minnesota that a state law ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution

Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that same-sex marriage is not marriage and not a fundamental right.

Although today there is a nationwide public debate raging over whether same-sex marriage should be authorized under the laws or constitutions of the various states, the framers of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution, much less the drafters of our marriage statutes, could not have imagined that the liberty right protected by Article I, Paragraph 1 embraced the right of a …

In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a Minnesota statute that defined marriage as a union between persons of the opposite-sex did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the federal Constitution.

—the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a broad-based federal constitutional challenge to a statute which, as interpreted by the trial court and the State Supreme Court, did not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.(291 Minn 310, 311-313, 191 NW2d 185, 186 [1971].)

—of Minnesota cited biblical authority and Supreme Court precedent, respectively, when it observed that “[t] he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within family, is as old as the book of Genesis,”