Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

Sister Wives Case Cited In Supreme Court’s Historic Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

240px-sister_wives_tv_series_logo220px-File-Official_roberts_CJ_croppedI am still doing commentary on today’s history ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. It was a remarkable day for all of us outside of the Court. As many of us quickly read through the opinions, hundreds of people broke out into song: singing our national anthem. It never sounded so beautiful or so meaningful. As I went live with Jake Tapper on CNN, I noticed a familiar reference however. The Chief Justice cited to the Sister Wives litigation now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I am lead counsel for the Brown family, which prevailed in striking down the criminalization of cohabitation in Utah. The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets also discussed our case.


IMG_2864

First we should start with a quote from the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

“Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”

“In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Here is the portion of Chief Roberts’ decision that cites to the Brown case:

One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi- tion is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14- 4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi- tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is important to note that our case is about the criminalization of cohabitation and not the recognition of plural marriage. In that sense, Brown is closer to the ruling over ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. Nevertheless, there is language and analysis in the opinion that certainly amplifies our arguments on challenging the criminalization of these relationships. I expect that the case will be cited in our upcoming argument in Denver.

I have long support same-sex marriage and I was honored to be there at that historic moment. After I had finished with coverage in front of the Court, I was going to a car to go to the studio when I passed a choir singing our anthem (which was sung repeatedly today). It was as moving as the first time and beautifully sung by this choir. This was a truly transcendent moment for our country. I tried to point out on the air that those opposing this decision have some valid arguments about the Court’s role in our society and should not be dismissed as bigots or intolerant. While I disagree with the dissenters, there are valid concerns when the Court steps into an issue with such great political and social and religious divisions. Nevertheless, this was a moment when the Court truly rendered a transformative decision that I believe makes this country a better place.

204 thoughts on “Sister Wives Case Cited In Supreme Court’s Historic Same-Sex Marriage Ruling”

  1. When the topic of polygamy or even incestuous marriage being the next thing coming down the pike after SSM, is raised the supporters of SSM always said something along the lines of “no no no….THAT’LL never happen”. Well, according to Roberts is is the next thing coming down the pike. We all knew that it was going to be coming once SSM was rammed through the system. No surprise here.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I could give the same flying ‘fork’ about polygamy as I do about SSM, which is none. As long as it is consensual and doesn’t harm children or animals…whatever floats your boat.

    What people decide to do isn’t any of my business…..UNTIL….UNTIL….they start dipping into the taxpayers pockets to support their lifestyles. The main issue with the illegal polygamists was the welfare and other subsidies that they were receiving based on the legality of being singles while the reality of living as marrieds would have not allowed those benefits. Double, triple dipping. Gaming the system.

    Do what you want, people. Just don’t force those who may not approve of your morality to financially support you.

    So, you can say no no no all you wanted….we knew you were lying or more likely just deluding yourselves. Next man marries dog. Woman marries horse. Son marries mother….good way to avoid the estate tax!!!

  2. I have always thought that the discussion about same sex marriage or living together without a marriage license regardless of sex involved, is not the discussion that we, the American people, should be having. Quite frankly, when two adults love each other—who cares about their home lives. The point of concern for society is the point when children enter the equation whether through adoption or biological birth. We must change the discussion to raising children–the most difficult and unselfish act–and I believe the silent majority!
    Our laws, our tax code, our moral fiber should be devoted to this difficult, expensive and selfless act. We have a demographic problem that is not being discussed—we have a declining birth rate. We must help the ‘family’—the cost, stress, and delay of personal life to those choosing to raise a family. Our country will slowly disappear if this issue is not addressed. Let’s change our tax code to make it less financially burdensome for those struggling families, let’s improve our public school system (children born into lower income families deserve an education and those parents should not be discouraged from the idea of family). I have friends, traditional marriage with no children and same sex couples with no children, and although they are my friends, I get annoyed at their narcissistic lifestyle. Every decision my husband and I make is made with our children in mind. Our children are our greatest joy–and I know this country will be better because of them and all the children of parents just like my husband and me. But, in honesty, it feels like an uphill battle—let’s change the discussion!

  5. @PaulCS

    That isn’t what I meant. The majority of so-called gay marriages are NOT monogamous in the least. They are openly contemplative of extra lovers to the mix. Which is why I call them “gay special snowflake marriages” Sooo, like is 4 people in bed a monogamous gay marriage? Or 11??? Who knows when you can go to court to get your own special definitions.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – you could say exactly the same about heterosexual marriages.

  6. When the ruling applies to you, you have a right to be upset, if you don’t like it, however why do people involve themselves in other people’s lives that have never done anything to them.

  7. @Olly

    LOL! Oh isn’t that the truth! I bet the singing was touching. And the touching was probably touching, too. I am sure that thoughts of gay monogamous relationships are filling their minds even as we speak. But I wonder, how many people there are in a monogamous gay relationship???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – I think the number of monogamous relationships are the same as for heterosexuals. And they break up at about the same rate as heterosexuals.

  8. I’m not so sure about polygamy finding the same support. SCOTUS has proven itself to be a purely political institution, and polygamists don’t have the same level of political leverage as do gays. Polygamists are generally perceived as kooks who live in rural Idaho. Gays are perceived primarily as narcissistic young white men who are highly educated and have enormous sending power. As a consequence, they hold considerable sway with commercial interests and have well-funded political pressure groups. I can’t see the politicians and SCOTUS being intimidated by polygamists the way they are afraid to deny gays what they want.

    1. TinEar – I think the Court will be hard press to ignore polygamy after the same-sex decision. The thinking is the same. Once you accept the thinking, it is all down hill from there.

  10. As I stated before there is great hope for polygamy and polyandry.

  11. It is easy to discover if a single person is a bigot but much more difficult to determine if “they” are bigots.
    Unexpectedly, years ago, I worked in a setting with lots of christian fundamentalists. It was my first sustained exposure to people with those beliefs. It’s where I learned that people with views so contrary to mine weren’t necessarily bigots. They just had very different values than I did and I grew to love them.

  12. There are the marriages with one husband and more than one wife where the wives desire the lifestyle and decide without any coercion whatsoever, religious or otherwise. Then there are the men with multiple wives who, because they will be tossed from their religion otherwise, go along with it. The issue is not so simple.

  14. When they prove themselves to be bigots, time after time, one has a difficult time denying it.

  15. Correction- should be “by both sides” and “…are far more powerful and a reflection of human decency”.

  16. Here, here, JT. And also thanks for noting that those who oppose this decision should not be labelled as intolerant or bigoted because they may not be. They also MIGHT be but we shouldn’t assume either way.

  17. I heard the choir singing the National Anthem and yes indeed it was moving, so beautiful. Many tears shed there and elsewhere today, by those sides I imagine. The tears of joy however are far more powerful and human decency. Thank goodness we have a Judicial branch that respects the right to marry between two non related consenting adults and be afforded the legal protections thereof. Such a long wait, but it’s here now.

  18. I’m prepared for the lonely, spooky cat lady, living in her apartment, insisting on marrying her cat. The animal rights people, who are working hard to give animals rights afforded humans and end “species bigotry,” will take on her cause. This is not a joke.

Comments are closed.