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. No Paul, because he has stated the reason HIMSELF in this very blog NUMEROUS times. I don’t invade others privacy like he does. I don’t disrespect others that way. Good night Max, yes we ALL won.

    1. Inga – in a 5-4 decision we don’t ALL win, a big bunch of us lose. In a 6-3 decision fewer of us lose. In a 7-2 decision a few outliers lose. In an 8-1 decision one or two outliers lose. In a 9-0 decision we ALL win.

  2. @randyjet

    ~~ That’s what will come next and it will come. Also feel our courts will be throttled with divorce cases that this ruling will add to the case loads already.

    I actually had an insurance company deny me insurance for the birth of my first child because back then, I was living with my daughters father and not married to him yet. They called it a preconceived condition that was not covered. Then that company made an announcement that they will begin covering same sex couples. This angered us. I was living in a house of a male & female and they refused to cover the birth of my child, yet if I had been living with a woman, it would have been covered.

    So I contacted a lawyer and sent a letter of my intention to sue them to kingdom come. Then I got a letter with a reversal of their previous decision. I was discriminated against for being straight. We were really stressed about it because of the cost of hospital stays. I was so stressed.

  3. Now that we have cured homophobia once and for all, the next natural progression is to cure polyphobia and incest- phobia. With the redefiniton of marraige, and the politically correct view that the love of anyone for anyone else must be legally sanctioned in a union of marriage, we’re really making progress here.
    The “cures” for all of these” phobias” may be at hand, if SCOTUS is to be consistent.

    1. Tom Nash – Chief Justice Roberts has teed up the ball for the next game.

  5. Inga – have you broken any HIPPA laws to find out why he has a script for medical marijuana? If not, I would keep my mouth shut.

  6. Paul C.
    Your contrarian nature had you misquoting Loving V. Virginia.

    Read Nick’s compulsive remark.

    1. Max-1 – if I misquoted Loving, then so did Wikipedia. But, just for giggles, quote it correctly.

  7. Humpindog,
    Would that dog in your scenario have a free will and choice in the matter?
    How would it answer in a court of Law?

  8. We once again have seen what pure ugliness ensues at the end of these sorts of blog posts. The vileness of these people always surfaces like pond scum.

  9. Paul C.
    You are not qualified to speak on Supreme Court rulings if you can not do your research first.

    1. Max-1 – I did my research, just forgot to cite until the next one. The part I quoted is directly from Wikipedia, much as I hate Wikipedia.

      And, really, who are you to say I cannot comment on SC cases?

  10. I think HumpinDog should have his fiance bring the lawsuit for the right of a human to marry a dog. I say this because I fear that the dog would have a standing to sue problem– four legs good to legs bad wont sell in a federal court. Betty Sue Thelma Liz is intent on getting this marriage certificate and a marriage ceremony condoned by the state. The marriage license is the toughest hurdle. A fall back position would be for her and HumpinDog to go to Cuba where human and dog marriages are recognized and then try to force their state to recognize the out of state marriage.

    We think that there is a county in our state which has a clerk who will issue the marriage license because he is so upset with the gay marriage decision. We will know more Monday.

  12. As usual I agree with Prof Turley on most things that his case is closer to Lawrence than the current case that was decided today. It is impossible for a state to police the law on cohabitation plus there is no demonstrated vital state interest in it. Such laws strike at the very heart of liberty. The gay marriage case ruling had nothing to do with liberty or rights though. Gays were perfectly free to love and live with whoever they chose, but they were asking the state for a favor of a contract of marriage. My problem that is that it makes the state simply a grab bag of goodies for any and all. It also as Roberts noted leads to the inevitable legalization of plural marriages as well since their reasoning is FAR more on point for that too. Denying plural marriage is an outright violation of the religious establishment clause since it denies Muslims, and some Mormons their religious rights.

  14. Annie,
    Had the Supreme Court ruled against Obergefell, would Conservatives still be calling to recall the Judges?

    They have such sads… on such a happy day, such debbie downers!

    1. Max-1 – I am very conservative and I have no problem with either decision today. Today’s decision on the ACA was the best thing they could do to kill it. Minute those next increases hit and the employer thingies hit, it is all over.

  15. Inga – how do you know that Nick and Lisa do not enjoy even more love from their families than you do? Hell, I might even enjoy more love from my dog than you do from you latest grandchild.

  17. Lisa, Or you can go to the new blog, Pansies for Plato, we can speak candidly there.

  19. If you repeat something over and over and over, eventually you start to believe it. We have seen it here is action tonight.

  20. @NickS

    What is ironic, is that the more gay-kissing puke pictures a person sees, the more they can’t stand it! It grosses most people out, and makes them harbor bad feelings towards gays. The more people know about gay behavior, they less they like gays. That’s why cops in San Francisco can’t stand them. They have to deal with the reality.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.