Your friend is nuts.
Her solution to the government involved in marriage is more government involvement.
Conservatives wanted the government to “define” marriage. Well it just did.
How do you like it?
L
Which conservatives were that?
I know only of those that wanted to protect First Amendment rights.
This decision goes far beyond marriage. “sex” now means GBLTQPB, not just male or female. They cited the 14th amendment and the “intent” that was never noticed before.
It’s the government’s obligation to enforce contracts. The State has an interest in monogamy because monogamy reduces illegitimate, impoverished children and the spread of disease.
But we weakened the contract so that there’s really nothing left to enforce.
So why cry when others want the benefits without a price?
If you don’t agree that marriage is a legal contract - then why bother to be upset when the SC rules that anyone can have the benefits of marriage without paying any price? What’s the problem?
My friend is right that WE’VE hollowed out the institution to the point where people can wander in and out at will without fear of consequence. She’s also right that it wasn’t always this way. In the past, straying from marriage meant pain. Hell, there was no such thing as divorce until King Henry. Marriage was a lifetime commitment. The very thought of breaking the unbreakable bond was unthinkable.
Now people can walk away just because they’re ‘not quite feelin’ it.’
If marriage means so little to US, then why do we give a crap about anyone else who chooses to throw a party and say, “I’m married!”
Hell, at this point, a couple of kids playing in a playhouse has the same weight of commitment that marriage has today.