Posted on 11/10/2025 7:16:07 AM PST by Beave Meister
I’ve said it a million times: Marriage is contract between two people with God as a witness. The “state” has no place in that process.
If the state (be it Federal or State) wants to establish rules for property and asset management, inheritance, and healthcare...go ahead and base it on whatever you want.
The two have been joined for too long.
Which proves what I always say about the law being a comedy and a tragedy at the same time.
The state handles property and inheritance. How do you separate this responsibility from marriage?
Why should anyone cater to these mentally ill people?
Agreed—if Oregon wants to declare a civil union with dogs and cats is legally acceptable they can go for it.
The rest of us would not have to deal with their silliness.
That is up to your church to verify the marriage.
If a state wants to enforce it as a legal contract, then they can do that. But the Feds should have nothing to do with it.
Marriage belongs to the state—it's one of the several reasons why we have a low birth rate.
Fair enough. However...
>> Horrible decision, but extreme difficult to unwind/undo.
As with many acts of repentance, the undoing of Obergefell would in fact be easy, and liberating, but not without difficult consequences (”the unwinding”). But those consequences would primarily be born by the sexual deviants who embraced gay “marriage” as a “right” in the first place. The rest would be bureaucratic, and that’s what bureaucrats do.
>> Why should anyone cater to these mentally ill people?
^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^
Supreme Court declines to revisit landmark same-sex marriage precedent
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Misguided voters with too much voting power (17th Amendment; 17A) keep reelecting the same compromised lawmakers who not only confirm state sovereignty-ignoring justices to the Supreme Court, but then protect justices instead of impeaching and removing them from the bench for giving the green light to Constitution-ignoring, elite Democratic and RINO vote-winning politically correct civil rights.
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature. —Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
So get rid of 17A.
They usually don’t.
Because in the case of probate there are often others involved.
Because the detrimental reliance argument is much stronger than in cases like Roe v. Wade.
As I said elsewhere, I still think it should be undone. But I also understand the factors the Court considers when overruling a precedent, one of which is detrimental reliance. That's why justices that voted the other way in Obergefell didn't want to overrule it.
The problem is that you have all sorts of federal benefits/laws that vary depending on whether or not people are married, and it also kicks in heavily in things like insurance and inheritance. When you have 50 states and people crossing state lines as often as they do to change residences, it could get confusing as well.
I think the Defense of Marriage Act got it right. Too bad SCOTUS kicked it.
Creditors get theirs..
I think the Defense of Marriage Act got it right. Too bad SCOTUS kicked it.
It's a mess.
Now we have the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022.
Like you said, it's complicated now. Especially with federal benefits/laws involved.
On certain things, I'm more of a libertarian. Really I don't care what you do in your private life as long as you leave me alone.
However, matters like this affects every American.
In Russia, they are protecting traditional values because a gay couple cannot legally get married.
But in America, traditional values are under attack.
It doesn’t need to.
Oh, but but abortion and LGBTQ are not winnable positions (because the GOP did have the heart to defeat the arguments for them), and we must appeal to the suburban women, and double income, never children fornicating couples.
Yeah, that shouldn’t be a difficult decision. There exists proof enough that there are only two sexes. If someone or some state wants to declare differently, let them get started on proving their case. Any other decision just results in mass confusion, rather like what we have now. I believe we started out as basically a Christian nation. There’s no reason I know of not to contonue in that fashion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.