[WildHighlander57]

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”.

[WildHighlander57]

Adding on to my previous post:

Regarding what the SCOTUS just did..

I don’t want five unelected, appointed-for-life judges (two of which should’ve refused themselves) telling the people what marriage is, when the people in 38 states overwhelmingly voted for traditional definition of marriage.

What the SCOTUS just did amounts to total usurpation and destruction of inalienable God-given rights set forth in the constitution and bill of rights.

We are governed by God, not by five.

[trubolotta]

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

That is exactly right! With four solid elitists on the court and two wishy washies the court will stick its nose wherever it can. Until the court is fixed by impeachments and idiot Senators stop rubberstamping elitist nominees, the problem of lawlessness will remain.

Republicans dodging the issue, brewing fake secondary concerns and cowardly workarounds just invite further mischief and become unwitting accomplices in the court's usurpations.

There is no cure for an outlaw court. It must be confronted by any means possible.

[chimera]

When all this came up I checked my copy of the Constitution and could not find the word "marriage" written anywhere, from beginning to end. Therefore, it was my thought that the words of the 10th amendment would be the operable Constitutional law, and the case would be remanded to the state courts. By agreeing to hear the case they opened it to a somewhat tortured interpretation based on the 14th amendment, whereas the 10th amendment should have taken precedence.

I know people will say, well, there are a lot of things that are not mentioned by name or explicitly in the Constitution, but that is why we have representative government to work through those issues. And very often those are state and local agencies, staffed by officials elected or otherwise answerable to the people.