Following a circuit court decision upholding the same-sex marriage bans in four states, including Tennessee, a team of lawyers from across the state filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States last Friday in order to appeal the ruling.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton and published on Nov. 6, covered all six cases in Tennessee, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio and ruled that marriage equality and recognition should be decided either by popular election in each individual state or by the Supreme Court.

Sophie Jesty, one of the Tennessee plaintiffs and a professor in the UT College of Veterinary Medicine along with her wife Val Tanco, said she disagreed with Sutton’s opinion on the grounds that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens, not just the majority.

“There are plenty of issues which are appropriate to vote on and allow for a majority decision, but whether to grant people constitutional rights isn’t one of them,” Jesty said. “These rights are guaranteed to all people in this country, regardless of whether that person is a minority of any kind.”

Maureen Holland, a civil rights attorney in Memphis and one of the lawyers arguing the Tennessee case, agreed with Jesty, stating civil rights are not appropriate items for the ballot.

“When you have constitutional rights as an issue, waiting for a much slower and not necessarily predictable process is not helpful,” Holland said.

Regina Lambert, an adjunct professor at the UT College of Law and one of the lawyers representing the Tennessee plaintiffs, said the decision reflected the conservative nature of the 6th Circuit.

“The 6th Circuit has a reputation for being a much more conservative circuit than a lot of others,” Lambert said. “We were aware that it was going to be an uphill challenge, and when the opinion came out we were disappointed, but not shocked.”

The 6th Circuit decision deviates from the other four circuits that have heard cases pertaining to same-sex marriage and ruled bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. By deciding to uphold the ban, the 6th Circuit caused a “split” in the courts and therefore, Lambert said, increased the likelihood the Supreme Court will decide to hear any combination of the cases involved in the 6th Circuit decision.

Chris Geidner, legal editor at BuzzFeed and award-winning journalist on LGBT issues, said based on comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the differing opinions in the circuit courts, a Supreme Court case is almost inevitable.

“Justice Ginsburg said that there was no urgency for the court to take it unless there was a circuit split, and they have a circuit split now,” Geidner said. “There’s very little question about whether the court will have to take this up. The only question is whether they’re going to take it this term or next term.”

In order to better their chances of being chosen this upcoming term, Lambert said she and the team of Tennessee lawyers pushed to have their petition for writ of certiorari in by last Friday. Tennessee joined Ohio as the first two states to file petitions to the Supreme Court in regard to the 6th Circuit decision.

Geidner said Michigan and Kentucky will likely follow on Monday.

The petition reads that the state of Tennessee is violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the U.S. Constitution by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, which the plaintiffs include as a larger violation of the plaintiff’s right to marry.

“The couples in Tennessee who are married elsewhere are being penalized by the state of Tennessee for exercising the right to marry,” Geidner explained.

This, along with the claim that Tennessee is violating the plaintiff’s right to interstate travel by refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriages, forms the basis of their petition.

However, while the Tennessee petition addresses the larger violation of the right to marry, all of the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case are already married, while plaintiffs in Michigan and Kentucky are not.

In order to ensure that the Supreme Court addresses the larger issue instead of choosing to focus on marriage recognition alone, Geidner said he thinks having plaintiffs with marriage and marriage recognition claims should both, ideally, appear before the Supreme Court.

“Having both of those arguments forcefully and directly in front of the justices,” Geidner said, “I think that is the most clear and complete presentation of the issue.”

Holland, however, said beyond the legal ramifications of the case, many citizens are being negatively affected by the 6th Circuit decision in Tennessee.

“It’s not so much necessarily about an obligation to address certain legal concepts as much as it is the importance of looking at the impact it has on individual’s lives,” Holland said.

“That’s why we immediately decided to appeal, because our clients are suffering irreparable harm.”

This harm, Holland notes, includes being unable to make private medical decisions for one’s spouse or own property.

For Jesty, Val and their daughter Emilia, the decision provides many difficulties unique to LGBT families with children.

“The decision keeps our family, and many other families in the state of Tennessee, legally divided and therefore unprotected in thousands of ways,” Jesty said. “I cannot make health care decisions for Emilia or Val, Emilia doesn’t have a right to my social security benefits, the list goes on and on.”

Donna Braquet, director of the OUTreach center at UT, said she has experienced similar difficulties in her own marriage of 17 years.

“When we got married in San Francisco, we somehow felt different, we felt like we were full citizens,” Braquet said of her marriage, which isn’t recognized in Tennessee.

“Like our government said ‘yes, you’re just as important as everyone else.’ And then when we came back to Tennessee, we felt that discrimination again. We’re not treated like everybody else is.”

Despite these circumstances, the Tennessee lawyers and plaintiffs involved view the 6th Circuit decision and subsequent circuit split as a silver lining.

“The silver lining is that the Supreme Court might take this case and might make an affirmative decision,” Holland explained.

For the Tennessee lawyers, the possible opportunity to argue for marriage equality in front of the Supreme Court of the United States is an honor and a challenge.

“It’s exciting, it’s daunting, it’s humbling, it’s hopeful,” Lambert said. “All of these things.”