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.
Call it what you like, but same sex marriage isn’t marriage.
I can call myself God if I choose, but really, would you bow down before me?
Issac
Interesting history about Chartres. I hadn’t known it was built so fast nor about the Madonna relic.
It’s a Whole lot more edifying than learning of the glories of segregation and reading the musings of commenter Liberty or Death.
Thanks.
Paul
Excellent work!
There is no use in trying to counter such brilliance. Duke Ellington! Leonard Bernstein! Handel! The Rose Window! Alabama marriage licenses from Massachusetts! Chocolate! Smoke! Mirrors!
I’ll leave you so you can luxuriate in your own private miasma.
Doctoryes
As an Architect and before that a student of history, literature, art, and architecture, I found the architecture to be my primary interest. One can read the philosophy and beliefs by studying the buildings as they transform through the ages. The most comprehensive expression of changing religious views can be found in the Sculptural Cycle of the Cathedral of Chartres. The Cathedral was built in under forty years which was extreme fast track in those times. The relic, the Madonna’s tunic was the most referred symbol in Christendom at the time was kept behind the alter in the Romanesque Cathedral that burned in the twelfth century. The tunic was thought to have been destroyed and the city was desperate. When it was found the people took it as a sign and rebuilt the Cathedral in rapid fashion. The financial and artisanal contributions were unprecedented. This is why the architecture of the Cathedral is so cohesive and not a mix of trends over centuries as with most other buildings.
The Sculptural Cycle, however, was added over centuries and as one follows the works around the building one can see the changes in the forms that reflected the views of the times. Kings and figures from the bible seem other worldly with huge heads and toes weightlessly pointing downwards at first. Little by little zig zag design originating from the nomadic art forms predating Christianity in the area give way to curvilinear more relaxed forms and eventually at the end, centuries after beginning the forms are humanistic with a Madonna’s Mona Lisa grin. One can see opinions change as the church opened up the interior to light and represented the characters in the bible as human, just like the parishioners.
Add some music and one can understand how belief is born and kept.
issac – at Chartes one only needs to look at the Rose Window to have belief.
Issac
Carreras is superb.
The best thing about religion…..the music.
Paul
I don’t know, Paul. You may have sung at a couple of pontifical masses, but that is no guarantee that you’re not a Muslim. Maybe lovely Lisa can offer her opinion. She seems to have her Muslim-Radar in fine working order.
doctoryes – what we are discussing is whether my signing those proved I was Catholic and I said no. A friend of mine wrote a Te Deum for the Catholic Archbishop of Omaha, he is Church of England (or was at the time). Duke Ellington wrote a stunning jazz mass. Not sure he was any particular religion.
doctoryes
I have a few of his albums/discs. The one on his ‘Passion’ disc was the one I got hooked on. He has this one without choir. The voice is incredible.
Issac
I’m not sure if I prefer a choir performance
Issac
Gorgeous! Thanks.
The Messiah is not a Roman Catholic composition. Handel was a Protestant as was the librettist.
doctoryes – it was late 50s and we sang every thing. However, I did sing lead soprano at 5 pontifical high masses. Those were Catholic as hell.
Paul
Can you sing Panis angelicas?
issac – I was a boy soprano, I sang a lot of church music.
de la paz
What can you expect?
It is well known that all tyrants, i.e.: Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, used teleprompters.
Teleprompters are the very mark of the tyrant – in fact, they bear the mark of Cain! NEVER trust a man who uses a teleprompter!.
I don’t know about you, but I would rather have a President who takes all my guns, than have a President who uses a teleprompter.
But take comfort, de la paz. HISTORY will record thousands and thousands of pages of his shameful use of the teleprompter. He shall not escape our scornful gaze and the jeers of our children.
Big Hand for Lovely Lisa! Not a single error in her 5:07 posting!
Lovely Lisa says:
“Interesting artical by Col. Allen West.” .
Bless her heart. Far be it from me to point out any difficulty
Furthermore – NOTHING will ever beat the “denial of maternity insurance due to a ‘preconceived condition’.”
Although 5 ROPES was pretty good, too.
@G De La Paz
~~ BOOM!
doctoyes,
regarding the song Obama sings, funny how he can be so religious on one hand and then put down religion on the other. Obama is a professional “give them what they want to get their votes for the party,” person.
BTW if you look at him closely you can tell he was using a TV prompter.
In ten to twenty years will people be able to marry their siblings? Will bestiality be accepted?
Dusty,
You often have very good insight into the world of finance. I’m curious about your concerns about Social Security and other tax matters with regard to SSM. Can you provide some specifics on potential difficulties?
I guess I am lacking imagination today – I can’t see any formidable difficulties.
Allen West is insane.
Lovely Lisa is as pretty as she can be but she is beyond the reactionary right.
She is still stuck with the craziness that Obama is a Muslim.
Sure he is. Watch how he sings that well known Muslim hymn, ‘Amazing Grace’.
doctoryes – I can sing the Hallelujah chorus but it does not make me a Catholic. BTW, I can also sing Ave Maria.
for lovely lisa
Watch how all the evil James Madison students beat the anti-gay preacher.