I would be happy with marriage being limited to a religious institution.We never should have tied any sort of benefits to marriage in the first place
I’d be happy to remove them.
"License" is a misnomer here. The license becomes the marriage certificate, the actual legal form that creates the marriage, the legal kinship recognition as soon as it is filed with the correct people. The marriage "license" becomes like a birth certificate, legal documentation establishing legal kinship unless dissolved by a court or other agreement.
No. Limiting it to two can be justified with the logistics of how marriage and spousal kinship works. Having only one person considered your "closest next of kin" is part of the reason why we recognize spouses to begin with.
SCOTUS has generally been favorable to religious rights. I dont know about rulings on religious workplace rights..
SCOTUS has never been favorable to a person using their capacity as a government official to impose their personal religious beliefs on the citizenry they serve (and certainly not in defiance of a SCOTUS ruling and court order) or requiring their official subordinates to comply with their personal religious beliefs. Kim Davis is a clown who doesn’t stand a chance in a court of law. She must be a glutton for punishment because she’s already lost in court at least half a dozen times and SCOTUS has already told her to go away at least once.
Challenge the laws.
I would not. They do not own marriage and my marriage shouldn't mean less, my spouse as my legally recognized spouse, my inlaws legally recognized as such simply because some don't like the idea of others getting their spousal relationships, legal kinships recognized at the same level. Marriages as they are allow people to receive that recognition based on just signing a simple piece of paper, rather than having to spend hundreds or more to set up individual arrangements when most need the same thing or similar.
well, pragmatically we'd need something legal to replace it. If you want to substitute the words "secular contracted partner", that would be fine legally, but again pragmatically, you'd be fighting many years of culture and tradition. Simple enough to stick with marriage, which can be performed in any venue, and becomes legal when the appropriate paperwork is filed.
I was hoping Citizens United.
I've long wondered about the certificate 'need' of marriage, when common-law marriage is a very real, and very binding thing.
Well they still overturned Roe-v-Wade, so I'm not certain of anything they'll do.
Roe v. Wade was a poorly crafted political compromise not a ruling of constitutional law. Even Ginsberg acknowledged that.
Republicans lied to their Log Cabin Republicans, beginning with Melania.
Never underestimate MAGAs desire for control. We don't know what SCOTUS will do, and MAGA is quite determined to drag us backward. So maybe they'd uphold the previous rulings and arguments, but there's good probability they won't as well. There's no such thing as "settled law" with MAGA.
There has never been such a thing as forever “settled law” and for that you should be grateful.
www.alreporter.com
Ergo, you do not know that SCOTUS will uphold same-sex marriage. Despite it being a rational decision to uphold it, based on proper argument and law, MAGA isn't rational. So the probability DOES exist that they might overturn it.
