Good, reverse it. The sooner, the better.
Over 25 states would immediately find their state constitutional marriage amendments newly in force if Obergefell were overturned. Man, would that elicit screeching from the left.
Reversing it only means to take it out of the religious context of marriage. It would therefore continue to allow legal unions.
As far as the government is concerned it’s a tax issue. The Gov’t wants a cut of the action. Which guarantees a resolution for these unions to continue.
Personally I’m against marriage as an institution because it has gone from holy matrimony to a legal union, or civil union with governmental underpinnings tied directly to the IRS.
Do people wishing to avoid the tax ramifications but and still enter into a union? Certainly they do it’s called holy matrimony and they don’t need a preacher with a state license to conduct a ceremony or a civilian to conduct a ceremony for 50 bucks a shot.
The downside is the divorce rate because if you’re legally married the legal entitlement through divorce would be strictly adhered to, where if you just went and got your holy man to perform the ceremony for you it would be more of a mutual agreement. Even a whisper of getting an attorney involved with legal prenuptial agreements is probably impossible and would also be a tip-off to the IRS.
Plain and simple - it’s all about the Franklin’s.