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. What the he!! is ‘an act below the office of President of the United States”?

    I ask because “words are important”

    and darn it – I can’t find a hippie.

    1. doctoryes – Bill Clinton set a low bar of acts of the President. So I would say there is no act too low for a President.

  3. Lisa, my wife? My dear young lady, I am a straight woman, formerly married to a male for 20 years, mother of four, grandmother of four, who does not see those as having a different sexual orientation as myself as less than me. I believe they are deserving of equal rights to the rest of us. Is it inconceivable to you that there are heterosexual people out there in the big world that are in favor of equality for homosexuals? Do you know any homosexuals? What do they think of your hateful attitude?

    1. Inga – I have lesbian friends (married) who were married to men, have children and grandchildren. The grandchildren gave them away at the wedding.

      1. That’s nice Paul. Sorry to disappoint anyone here, but I’m a heterosexual. However I have a lesbian cousin, a gay relative of an in law, two actually and a few gay friends. I don’t think one can be “conditioned” to be gay by associating with gay family members of friends, lol.

  17. @ Tony Vieira

    ~~ I’ve have heard that Senator Tom Coburn is going to convene or has started to convene Article 5 amongst the states. A huge step but there are 34 states that have signed up already. The midterm saw alot of blue turn to red states in governor races. I feel today’s decision will motivate the evangelicals in 2016. I do however, believe that the Article 5 action is needed, to slap the wrists of the activist supreme court. Impeach them all except Scalia, Thomas ad Aledo.

    I am now worried about the U.S. House of Representatives v Burwell. . . does anyone know when that will be decided?

  18. Oh, I would like to rewrite that crock from Kennedy, into

    …“In forming a marital union gay marital union, two people become something greater than once they were… three people, four people, heck, even the pizza guy. . .that makes five. . .oh look, the cable man. . .hey Larry, come make a connection back here! in the eyes of the law. The Constitution GRANTS them that right. the right to free medical care!”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl reporter

  19. A quote from the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy:

    …“In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were… in the eyes of the law. The Constitution GRANTS them that right.” (My emphasis).

    Since when did the constitution have rights to grant? Since when did the government by use of the constitution have any rights to grant? Kennedy has it backwards. The government exists to protect rights. The constitution is only to restrain government power. It recognizes pre-existent rights. Recall the Declaration of Independence and that notion of “all men” being “born with certain inalienable rights”? The rights of the people precede the constitution. They are in no sense granted by it. A slip of the pen? I doubt it.

  20. Taking from hard working people and gaming the govt. is the new American pastime. The dole is getting bigger.

Comments are closed.