Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 60

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

21 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

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?    If  not  having  the  oppor-
tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay
and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of
this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subor-
dinate  people  who  find  fulfillment  in  polyamorous  rela-
tionships?  See  Bennett,  Polyamory:  The  Next  Sexual 
Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000
polyamorous  families  in  the  United  States);  Li,  Married
Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr.
23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for 
a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.
1977 (2015).

I  do  not  mean  to  equate  marriage  between  same-sex 
couples with plural marriages in all respects.  There may
well  be  relevant  differences  that  compel  different  legal
analysis.  But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to 
any.  When  asked  about  a  plural  marital  union  at  oral
argument,  petitioners  asserted  that  a  State  “doesn’t  have 
such an institution.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. 
But  that  is  exactly  the  point:  the  States  at  issue  here  do 
not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. 

4 

Near the end of its opinion, the majority offers perhaps 
the clearest insight into its decision.  Expanding marriage 
to  include  same-sex  couples,  the  majority  insists,  would 
“pose  no  risk  of  harm  to  themselves  or  third  parties.” 
Ante,  at  27.  This  argument  again  echoes  Lochner,  which 
relied on its assessment that “we think that a law like the 
one  before  us  involves  neither  the  safety,  the  morals  nor
the  welfare  of  the  public,  and  that  the  interest  of  the
public  is  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affected  by  such  an
act.”  198 U. S., at 57.