I 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.
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.
Interesting artical by Col. Allen West. . .
http://conservativepost.com/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/
“LOVE…wins”. . . . the emotional caveat to changing a Constitutional law. What’s next. . .
http://i52.tinypic.com/97204j.jpg
Why do Obama and his sycophants on the Supreme Court fear a vote of the People on Obamacare and Homosexual Marriage?
That’s weird when you think about it. Votes against homosexuality have been thrown out by judges.
Liars fear a vote of the People.
The Founders ended the tyranny and oppression of the King.
It’s baaaaaack!!!
The decision made a lot of people happy. That’s nice.
The decision also indicates yet again that the United States is no longer a democratic republic. The houses of Congress ceded power to the executive branch over the last century to the satisfaction of the political left. The judiciary has been ‘legislating from the bench’ for decades to great acclaim. Roe v Wade, Bush v Gore, etc etc.
This aspect (loss of republic) of yesterday’s decision made me sad, but it was no shock. I am over it and will live in happiness paddling my own canoe and helping others at my own discretion along the way. These are interesting times.
“I love her and so pursue her though she never requite me. I fawn and beautiful eyes never turn my way. I give though it never be given in recompense. Am I a fool? How else can I be?”
—
LOVE…”wins”?
@doctoryes
~~ You are always right there to excoriate someone’s spelling mistakes with put downs of where someone lives, hiding behind a pseudonym. So now your the spelling cop too. If you had any gonads, of which I have yet to witness, you would use your real name like I do and add some credibility to your constant blabbering. I usually skip over your comments because they lack depth. I hope your constant put downs of others give rise to your two inch monkey spank. Get off the meds doctor oui oui. 🍼
Re: religious prohibitions in Utah, how they became criminal prohibitions. It goes back to reefer madness. “In 1910, the Mormon Church … decreed polygamy to be a religious mistake”. “…this is how things were in Utah in those days — in October of 1915, the state legislature met and enacted every religious prohibition as a criminal law.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
I feel sorry for the judges who will hear these divorce cases. . . it will be like watching Jerry Springer.
THIS is one of the upsides of the whole enchilada of SSM. The divorce court proceedings will be quite entertaining.
Too bad I’m not still in my business [financial planning and investments]. I can see a booming market in arranging the finances, setting up trusts, protecting the assets, tax strategies etc for the newly married and the about to be divorced. I would be more than happy to take on those clients!!!! Actually, some of my best clients back in the day were same sex couples who needed to be very careful about their finances and inheritances since they were not covered under the same State and Federal rules as hetero marrieds.
You all do realize that this ruling by the Supremes doesn’t yet change anything in the IRS, Social Security or other tax areas. Those behemoth agencies will need to slowly turn and change their codes. It will be like turning the Queen Mary…..takes time. Looking forward to when THAT realization sinks in to the numbskulls of all those who are doing a happy dance right now.
Fromm and Lisa should get married – they are a perfect couple of bigots who can’t stand to see other people be happy.
What is it about other people living their lives as they see fit that is a problem for you? What part of that harms you in any way?
Love has been weaponized against the people who best understand and practice it.
The object of the Love of America has changed, where it was once the Creator, it is now self and everything against the Creator’s wishes.
History demonstrates the path we’re forging (with great fanfare). The speed with which our society crumbles, though, may astound.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
At a marriage ceremony each half must speak up and say: “I Do! ” Some will say it with an exclamation point. If a dog marries a human the dog will have to speak up. “Woof!” will do it. There are some who will say that the dog did not say yes. Be there or be square and watch the ceremony. You will be convinced that the dog said yes and agreed. We are thinking of televising the wedding ceremony of HumpinDog and Betty Lou Thelma Liz. On Monday we will know if we will have to have them have that ceremony performed in Cuba where it is said to be legal and at least available at one place in Havana. Then we can work on state recognition of the marriage back here in their home state. We are forming an organization to champion our cause. It is called: Different strokes for different folks.
Lovely Lisa cannot tell the difference between ropes and robes. It all goes right through her pretty little head.
That’s Texas for ya.
Home schoolin’ and football
And Louis Gohmert.
A remarkable state.
@Lisa
And I think maybe the Big Corporations are all for gay rights for selfish reasons. I mean, do you really need a “Real Man” to serve coffee at Starbucks??? Or sell IPads to fanbois??? No, a little non-procreating drone will work just fine. The little drone won’t reproduce, and won’t need a Real Man’s salary to support a wife. If he gets HIV, and dies young, then there is less pension costs.
I mean in olden times, they used to geld male prisoners, because it made them easier to deal with. Now, you can get the same thing from a metrosexual or little twink gay boy.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You are correct doctoryes. Never again, will their decisions have the impact they used to have. I no longer respect that body, because the rule of law is gone. Liberals will rue the day they turned it all upside down. They own this one and the biggest financial disaster about to hit the middle American’s pocket book in October, called SCOTUS Obamacare. The thing is, it will hit Liberals as much as Conservatives.
Nobody will ever take five black ropes seriously, so you can relax lovely lisa.
The thing with this law is: 5 people in black ropes may condone it but it will never ever be accepted in the eyes of God. You can’t seriously argue that “traditional” marriage deprives a gay man of his dignity. Marriage is an institution. As such, it has certain parameters and lines of distinction. The existence of those lines does not constitute an imposition on, or persecution of, those outside of it. It merely distinguishes one thing from another, that’s all.
This is what I can’t stand about progressivism. It doesn’t even have the guts or intelligence to come up with new ideas. It just takes bits of the old idea, removes the parts that seem challenging and inconvenient, and then randomly asserts that everyone should accept their weird, dismembered version of things.
What a homosexual is experiencing is a compulsion, a temptation, a proclivity. He is not defined by it unless he chooses to be. He is defined in part ~ at least on a physical level ~ by his race and sex, but his sexual desires do not control him or create him or enslave him. They are just urges. And two men can never procreate with God to conceive a child together. And it is simply preposterous and insane to afford special rights to a man’s urges.
So, gay people now have permission to ask the government for permission to be married. Nice. Congrats on becoming as miserable as the rest of us.
@I.Annie
Hello mates, how is all, and what you would like to say concerning this piece of writing, in my view its actually remarkable designed for me.But when playing online, the argument goes, participants are actually communicating in complex social ways. I savour, lead to I discovered exactly what I used to be looking for. You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye!
Oh, I am OK. I was just collecting up some of the spam that hit the Patent thread here. Some of it is really bizarre! Sooo, I just wanted to see if anybody was actually reading anything.
You passed the test!
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
lovely lisa,
you’re gonna lose all Spinelli’s love if you start whining.
OMG, word salad. Are you OK Squeeky?