Discuss whether polygamy may be prohibited after the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage using the information provided.

Supreme Court Ruling - Gay Marriage A Constitutional Right

14th Amendment requires states license same-sex marriage and recognize other state marriages.

The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

At current count, 37 states have gay marriage: 8 by legislative action, 3 by popular vote, 26 by court order. (via Byron York)

The decision has just been released (here), with the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The answer to both questions was YES.

We will update this post until we've gone through all 5 opinions

Majority Opinion

Via Scotusblog:

Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex... And to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when a marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.

We will update

The first line of the majority opinion set the tone, and would be a focus of Justice Scalia's dissent:

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and havingtheir marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex. [at 1]

Scalia would write of this opening:

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began, 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." [at 7, fn. 22]

The Court identified the following underlying principles:

The first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is thatthe right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherentin the concept of individual autonomy. [at 12]

A second principle in this Court's jurisprudence is thatthe right to marry is fundamental because it supports atwo-person union unlike any other in its importance to committed individuals. [at 13]

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that itsafeguards children and families and thus draws meaningfrom related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.

Fourth and finally, this Court's cases and the nation'straditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of oursocial order. [at 16]

Here are some of the quotes from the majority opinion:

The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of historyand tradition, but rights do not come from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better-informed understandingof how constitutional imperatives define a liberty thatremains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sexmarriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based ondecent and honorable religious or philosophical premises,and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enactedlaw and public policy, the necessary consequence is toput the imprimatur of the state itself on an exclusion thatsoon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty isthen denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couplesseek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sexcouples, and it would disparage their choices and diminishtheir personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part ofthe liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment isderived, too, from that Amendment's guarantee of theequal protection of the laws. [at 18-19, hard breaks added.]

...

It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here, the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry. [at 22]

The Court summed up the 14th Amendment conclusion as follows:

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the state laws challenged by petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. [at 22-23]

The Court rejected the assertion that such an issue should await the democratic process.

Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. This holds true even when protecting individual rights affects issues of the utmost importance and sensitivity.

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. [at 24]

And in conclusion, the majority writes:

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 becomesomething greater than they once were. As some ofthe petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. Itwould misunderstand these men and women to say theydisrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they dorespect itrespect it so deeply that they seek to find itsfulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemnedto live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization'soldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in theeyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Dissent ROBERTS

Roberts focused on the Court not focusing on results-based reasoning, whereby a "good" result results in analysis meant to achieve that result:

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven states and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allowmarriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what The law is not what it should be. [at 1-2]

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage. And a state's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples or to retain the historic definition.

Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening. [at 2]

Perhaps harkening back to how Roe v. Wade resulted in decades of acrimony because it usurped the political and cultural process, Roberts wrote:

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuadingtheir fellow citizensthrough the democratic processto adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will, for many, cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. [at 2]

"Just who do we think we are?"

The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial "caution" and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake societyaccording to its own "new insight" into the "nature of injustice." Ante, at 11, 23,. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Roberts rejected the "right to marry" line of case law as being irrelevant to this issue:

In short, the "right to marry" cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a state change its definition of marriage, which isthe right petitioners actually seek here. [at 16]

And also the "right to privacy" cases:

Neither Lawrence nor any other precedent in the privacy line of cases supports the right that petitioners assert here. Unlike criminal laws banning contraceptives and sodomy, the marriage laws at issue here involve no government intrusion. They create no crime and impose no punishment. Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their familiesas they see fit. No one is "condemned to live in loneliness" by the laws challenged in these casesno one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the "right to be let alone." [at 16-17]

Roberts then went down the logical slippery slope to polygamy:

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," ante, at13, 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," ante, at 15, why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? [at 20-21]

[Further updating now by Amy: as WAJ has appointment, he can't change.]

Roberts' closing thoughts provide an excellent summary:

If you are among the many Americansof whatever sexual orientationwho favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

SCALIA

Scalia sets the context for his opinion by drawing a line between the subject matter of today's holding and how it came about:

The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequencesand the public approval that confers the name of marriage evidencecan perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.

We've seen this problem beforethe problem of "creating" constitutional rightsand Scalia is quick to point it out:

The opinion in these cases is the furthest extensionaand the furthest extension one can even imagineof the Court's claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.

Scalia goes into great detail describing the evolution of the gay marriage debate in America and recognizes how the conversation has highlighted the best that democracy has to offer. Additionally, he says, there's "no doubt" that the people alive when the Amendment was drafted never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couplesso debate must be allowed.

But the Court ends this debate in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its "reasoned judgment," thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

Scalia calls the majority decision "judge-empowering" and criticizes the majority's use of the "four principles" that led the majority to their conclusion, as opposed to the people's understanding of liberty.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislativeindeed, super-legislativepower, a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the people, the states are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed justices' "reasoned judgment." A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

He points out the "unrepresentative" nature of the Court, saying that this drastic change in policy violates the principle of "no social transformation without representation."

The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question of whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not.

Scalia being Scalia, he took the opportunity to (rightfully) lampoon Kennedy's sweeping opinion and propensity to wax emotional.

It is one thing for separate contradictory or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course, the opinion's showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality." 23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spiritualitywhatever that meanswere freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think freedom of intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Ask the nearest hippie. Make this man our king, America.

Scalia's main concern? Taking these decisions away from the people and putting them into the hands of a panel of 9:

Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride, and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the "least dangerous" of the federal branches because it has "neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm" and the States, "even for the efficacy of its judgments." With each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to themwith each decision that is unabashedly based not on law but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Courtwe move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

He did not "respectfully dissent."

THOMAS

Thomas' dissent was heavy on history, taking things back all the way to the Magna Carta, Blackstone's commentary, and the original intent of the Framers.

In enacting the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Framers similarly chose to employ the "life, liberty, or property" formulation, though they otherwise deviated substantially from the States' use of Magna Carta's language in the Clause. When read in light of the history of that formulation, it is hard to see how the "liberty" protected by the Clause could be interpreted to include anything broader than freedom from physical restraint.

That was the consistent usage of the time when "liberty" was paired with "life" and "property." And that usage avoids rendering superfluous those protections for "life" and "property."

If the Fifth Amendment uses "liberty" in this narrow sense, then the Fourteenth Amendment likely does as well. Indeed, this Court has previously commented, "The conclusion is . . . irresistible, that when the same phrase was employed in the Fourteenth Amendment [as was used in the Fifth Amendment], it was used in the same sense and with no greater extent."

He then moves on to describe how "freedom" has been defined (we embrace oxymorons in the legal profession) by the Court and contrasts that usage with what Kennedy did in his ruling:

Even assuming that the "liberty" in those clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular government entitlement.

What is liberty? "Locomotion," freedom, or something else entirely? It doesn't matter for the purposes of Thomas' argument because what he's concerned with is the depravation of liberty.

Whether we define "liberty" as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it.

Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of "liberty," that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in states that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all states. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically re-strained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit.

Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions.

Does Thomas believe the Framers would have recognized a liberty interest in these disputed government entitlements? No.

Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that, as a matter of "liberty," they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the state's imprimatur on their marriageson state-issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of "liberty" that the Framers would have recognized.

The Court took the debate and decision away from the people and endangered liberty as a result.

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the people have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court's constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political processas the Constitution requiresthe people could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Lastly, he rejects the majority's claim that today they have done great work to preserve "dignity."

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

We would do well to remember that.

ALITO

Alito gives it up in the first paragraph:

The question in these cases, however, is not what states should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each state.

It's the 10th Amendment argument we've all been looking for. Along for the ride comes the procreation and "purpose of marriage" argument:

Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to people who marry. Here, the States defending their adherence to the traditional understanding of marriage have explained their position using the pragmatic vocabulary that characterizes most American political discourse. Their basic argument is that states formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children. They thus argue that there are reasonable secular grounds for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. ... It is far beyond the outer reaches of this Court's authority to say that a state may not adhere to the understanding of marriage that has long prevailed, not just in this country and others with similar cultural roots, but also in a great variety of countries and cultures all around the globe.

As for the rights of individual dissent, Alito wastes no time saying what many conservatives are thinking:

Today's decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Alito does a good job tying the concepts of federalism to the rights of conscience that he believes have been threatened by today's ruling:

The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the United States, it is likely that some states would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some states would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

Alito rejects the majority's creation and imposition of a new right and, above all, laments the breakdown of restraint exemplified in the majority opinion.

I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.

Most Americansunderstandablywill cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends.