When the Son’s Fury Echoes: A “Hideous” Return to the Marriage Wars

There’s a photograph my mind cannot forget: a son’s fury erupting over pretension stretched into law—and the sheer gravity of calling someone a “hideous bitch” isn’t accidental. Sam Greisman, himself no stranger to the weight of public life as the son of Oscar icon Sally Field, loosed these words upon the news that Kim Davis had filed a Supreme Court appeal seeking to reverse the landmark Obergefell ruling that recognized same‑sex marriage across the nation. It’s not hyperbole; it’s the crack in the façade that reveals everything.

The legal machinery hums with phrases like “substantive due process” and “legal fiction”—but what does that mean when a real person steps forward to spare others the fight of becoming seen, becoming equal? Davis’s team calls it religious freedom. Her critics see hypocrisy—particularly given her multiple divorces and legal damages. In July 2025, she again petitioned the Court, igniting this flare-up, weeks before Sam’s X post: “Not this hideous bitch again.”

“A Reckoning in Four Scars”

Davis’s legal crusade isn’t new—it is a retread of old wounds that Obergefell sewn shut. But here, in Greisman’s visceral response, is the emotional weight behind that ruling: a mother’s advocacy, a son’s identity, a country’s unwinding. Sally Field has long fought publicly for her son—and for rights as fundamental as being who you are. The past and present collide with force.

“The Familiar Echo of Legal Theater”

It isn’t just another case. It is the same script, but with higher stakes. Liberty Counsel frames this as religious persecution; legal experts warn this is the “entering wedge” to erode equal marriage protections. And even as the petition drenches hundreds of pages in legalese, the core is embarrassingly simple: Will Sam—or any of us—actually be erased by law?

Yet beneath the pleading for religious freedom, there lies a glaring irony that cuts sharper than any argument: a woman married four times, facing the same judgment she refuses to grant others. Does sanctity vanish when self is on the line? Does fidelity to tradition require forfeiting empathy?

The headline screamed legal jargon. The tweet screamed heartbreak. Between those lies our challenge: can the Supreme Court stop legislating emotions? Can a society so afraid of emotion protect the rights born from it? So tell me—what do we lose when we court cruelty in the name of principle?