'Sister Wives' family points to same-sex marriage cases in arguing against Utah polygamy ban | The Salt Lake Tribune

 You know that "slippery slope" the bigots are always talking about?  Well this isn't it,,,

The family of Kody Brown on Wednesday answered Utah's appeal to reinstate a ban on polygamy, and the family's brief is notable for what's there now that wasn't before. 

The Browns' attorney Jonathan Turley wages many of the same arguments that were successful in the lower court. But now Turley also cites recent rulings affirming same-sex marriage. 

That includes the U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court upheld the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, and Kitchen v. Herbert, the case that brought same-sex marriage to Utah. Turley also cites a Supreme Court case that decriminalized all gay sex as sodomy, Lawrence V. Texas. 

"From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions," Turley wrote in his answer to Utah's appeal.

I will be the first to admit that I struggle with the whole idea of polygamy, I just don't get it.  But I will also admit that my POV is biased in the sense that I can't completely get past the abuses - ie Warren Jeffs. With that in mind though, it boils down to one thing, as noted above, "states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions."

What makes this case interesting from a legal standpoint, it has nothing to do with polygamy per se.  The Browns' are not seeking legal recognition for the multiple spouses.  There are no laws concerning age of consent being broken or challenged. And finally, everywhere but Utah, their living arrangement is perfectly legal. This is about whether Brown can live with multiple woman in Utah as he could anywhere else in the country.  Hence the 14th Amendment challenge.

'Sister Wives' family points to same-sex marriage cases in arguing against Utah polygamy ban | The Salt Lake Tribune

How John Bingham's edits to the 14th Amendment paved the way for gay marriage.

A pre-SCOTUS look at one of the main issues:

Bingham’s key move was to craft a new provision that promised “equal protection of the laws” for all persons, not just African Americans. In one of the most important edits in American history, Bingham added text that was, as he later explained, “a simple, strong, plain declaration that equal laws and equal and exact justice shall hereafter be secured within every State of the Union,” guaranteeing “equal protection” for “any person, no matter whence he comes, or how poor, how weak, how simple—no matter how friendless.” 

Without Bingham’s revisions to Section 1, it’s entirely possible that the equal protection clause would have outlawed only racial discrimination—a major addition to our Constitution, to be sure, but a long way from the provision that we have today. Instead, Bingham incorporated into our Constitution the broad promise of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” Better still, he perfected and universalized it by substituting the word “person” for Jefferson’s “men.”

How John Bingham's edits to the 14th Amendment paved the way for gay marriage.

Ben Carson: Congress Should Oust Judges Who Rule For Marriage Equality | Right Wing Watch

Speaking last night with Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace, Carson said that Congress should “reprimand or remove” federal judges who issue “unconstitutional” rulings striking down state bans on same-sex marriage.

What the president and what the Supreme Court need to reiterate is that the states have a mechanism whereby they can determine the will of the people, it’s called ballot referendum. It has been done multiple times already, 32 states have indicated that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a few judges have come and overturned that. That, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional, and Congress actually has oversight of all what they call the inferior courts, everything below the Supreme Court, and that’s where those overturns have come. And when judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them.

After Deace alleged that a Supreme Court victory for marriage equality advocates would undermine freedom and lead to the “persecution of the church” and “open season on Christians,” Carson said Congress should intercede if the Supreme Court deems same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

“We certainly cannot give up if, in fact, that turns out to be the case because we do still have the Congressional mechanism,” Carson said. “And the key here in our country, values and principles cannot be drummed out of us. They’re going to try and the only way we maintain a country with values and principles is we have to be brave enough to stand up for what we believe.”

Two issues with what Carson states. First, he is ignoring the Constitutional promise of equality, saying it should be voted on. Second, Congress cannot simply remove a judge for ruling in a way the majority disagrees with. Governing by intimidation never works

And whilst pondering that, Carson, has never held an office of public trust; but at the same time he is motivated by his religion, not by a deep understanding of American political history. I am wondering what exactly does this man think he would be doing if the SCOTUS had decided to let each and every state decide if he was more than three fifths of a person? Does Jim Crow ring a bell?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil rights are not up for a vote. They are dependent on the Constitution, which guarantees them.

Ben Carson: Congress Should Oust Judges Who Rule For Marriage Equality | Right Wing Watch

Supreme Court Will Hear Four Cases Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Bans - BuzzFeed News

The cases ask the justices whether Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee bans on same-sex couples’ marriages and bans on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages from out of state violate the Constitution’s due process and equal protection guarantees.

The two questions granted by the court for argument are: 1) “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and 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?”

There will be 90 minutes of argument on the marriage question and 60 minutes of argument on the marriage recognition question, per the court’s order.

The coming showdown before the justices over same-sex couples’ marriage rights has quickly become seen as inevitable following the Nov. 6, 2014, decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The ruling set up a disagreement with other appeals courts to have considered the issue; the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 10th Circuit courts of appeals all have struck down such bans on various grounds.

The justices generally step in once such a circuit split has been created — a fact referenced last year by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was discussing the pending marriage cases across the country — and, on Friday, the justices took the leap.

Supreme Court Will Hear Four Cases Challenging Same-Sex Marriage Bans - BuzzFeed News