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. Funny thing is that Clarence Thomas thinks Loving V. Virginia was about cohabitation…
    … Maybe he should ask Gini, his lobbyist wife (who’s white).

    1. Max-1 – Justice Thomas is exactly right about the case. The cops broke into the house hoping to catch them having sex. They were sleeping. “When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth” that was brought against them.”

  3. The losers cry even when this ruling makes them a winner, too!
    ALL Americans, not JUST straight Americans!
    ~ 14th Amendment!

  4. Lisa, I think all women physically capable should take some defensive training and/or have some type of weapon training. I am heartened to see so many young women taking personal responsibility for their own safety.

  5. Patty Adams: I agree that we should be concerned about the quality of life and education of our children. As a gay father, my answer is that more children should be raised by gay parents. Just ask the children of Susan Smith or Andrea Yates–oh, too bad, you can’t. Their mothers — both straight and very religious — drowned all of seven of them. Those are only two examples where children have died at the hands of incompetent and crazy heterosexual parents.

    Gay parents tend to want the kids we have, which places the children at an immediate advantage. Also, many gay parents have higher levels of education and make more money, therefore providing life experiences for our children which are broad and far-reaching. With today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, the lives of all present and future children of gay parents should improve even more.

    As for the heterosexuals entrusted with raising the majority of children in the world, they really must do a better job.

  6. Squeeky (kill the gays) said what?

    Um dear,
    I even left a video where it is detailed as to the Supreme Court’s historical rulings on MARRIAGE, and yes, dear, the 14th Amendment does cover marriage.

    YOU LOSER!

  9. @SF
    ~~ Great post.

    @Nick Spinelli
    ~~ My brother took karate and so did we when we were growing up. Lived in Louisville for a few years and we were bused to an all black school and it was in downtown, so you had to be street smart and learn to protect your back. They even had metal detectors that we had to walk through back in the 70’s. I got my azz kicked a couple of times, but that’s all it took. Then a couple of years ago, I became certified in ryukyu kempo. It takes little effort and minimum contact.

    @Paul Schulte
    ~~ 4 brothers will definitely get you an azz whipping many times in your life. 🙂

  10. Correction: *Incapable*.

    We saw the way true Christians displayed the love in their hearts today, didn’t we?

  11. No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. 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. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

    It is so ordered.

    ~ Justice Anthony Kennedy

  14. I grew up in a blue collar, ethnic town in Ct. It was infamous for brawling. If you came to town w/ a chip on your shoulder, you were going to get your ass kicked. I did not like to fight. But, I was taught that if a fight was inevitable. firstly get in the first punch and keep punching, kicking, biting, WHATEVER it took. Because in a street fight there’s is only one rule. In the words of the late, Al Davis, “Just win baby.”

    1. Lisa Metzger – I grew with 4 brothers and a lot of male neighbors. You learn to take physical punishment. 🙂

    1. Lisa Metzger – one thing I learned about fighting to the death is to get in low, take as many punches as it takes to get your arms around them and take them off their center. When they are on the ground beat the crap out of them.

Comments are closed.