Replies

I was thinking along those lines. Maybe the states should just simply cease issuing "licenses" for marriage. That would remove any implication of "sanction" or "approval" by a government agency. For people of faith to whom it is important, the presiding clergy can still sign a Certificate of Marriage attesting that a marriage took place, and such could serve as a record to be deposited with appropriate agencies regarding legal issues associated with marriage. Such a record could also serve to validate the marriage in the religious realm, similar to Certificates of Baptism that some (most?) churches issue.

For others, they could have a notarized copy of the marriage contract deposited with the appropriate agency, covering whatever issues the two parties wish to cover, attesting to the natural issue of children that might result, and so forth. That would serve as legal proof that a marriage took place. Then of course there are civil unions, which could be modified so as to be recognized without the marriage license, but simply have a record of the marriage noted for legal purposes.

Doing this would remove the impression that the state, by issuing a marriage license, attaches its imprimatur to the pairing. The state still serves a recording and archival role in terms of the legal implications of the union, but its role is confined to that, basically being an observer of record and guardian of documents required for the legal processes involved.

The question of stability of the family unit is a valid one and I am not sure that would be adequately addressed by these suggestions. But it seems that wall has been breached already by this decision, and the flood has been unleashed for any number of future cases covering other (formerly) taboo parings, as other threads have discussed.

Conservativegranny said upthread:
“...There are legal aspects to marriage that protect children and provide for their support when the marriage falls apart,division of property, inheritance and estates,support of the spouse etc. ...”

To preface my point below: I do —NOT— support what the court just did, or gay “marriage”.

I posit that the supreme court didn’t have to hear this case ( and by so doing, and ruling, shred the constitution.)

Prenup contracts, divorce agreements, trusts, POD/TOD/beneficiary designations, medical POA, financial POA, ‘personal’ POA, would cover what conservativegranny mentioned.

Govt’s role - at the county/state level would be to keep records, like conservativegranny mentioned...

I would add that the county clerks office would have information packets about where to go for drawing up legal documents to cover prenups, etc.

Again, the SCOTUS could’ve said “we aren’t hearing this one; its up to the states”.