I really agree with John Roberts’ dissent in the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage today:
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?
Every time someone writes that “the majority’s opinion would do X,” I always catch myself imagining that some future decision is going to cite the dissent and say “Yes. That. We hold that it does.”
Tragically this does not seem to be a thing, though I’m sure it happens sometimes. I guess courts prefer quoting people who don’t cast them as the villains. We could be powering the earth with the generators attached to the graves of distinguished former members of the Court!
Tags:
#marriage equality #in a broader sense #polyamory
Brinens and Things - Tumblr Mirror 