OK, so then you have the federal government treating homosexual employees with “partners” differently if they live in state “X” (which recognizes SSM) vs. state “Y” (which does not). Throw out the federal definition of marriage and you create the circumstances for the next lawsuit.
That’S just fine...the more confusion there is the more pressure for states NOT to adopt gay marriage.
Especially when they see that states that DO have gay marriage end up with WAY more confusion and expense in social services (taxes).
I wonder if anyone will respond to your post?
The ONLY thing wrong with your post is it should read ... “federal law suit’(s)”
TO be fair, his view is that there should be no federal law that makes any distinction between married and single people.
He doesn’t explain how that would work, but you would assume for example that there would be no “spouse” part of social security, each person would earn their own SS.
I don’t think that would be workable, but that is what he is talking about. And it would have the advantage of government not discriminating for or against people based on their life choices.
Those who support a definition of marriage for federal law generally argue that marriage as properly understood is an IMPORTANT part of society, and one that the federal government has an interest in supporting. So we tend to support the idea that if two people get married, they should get special treatment, like a wife could choose not to work and instead would have access to the spouses social security, and a family unit should get tax breaks because the one income is supporting one or more other people who otherwise would be on the federal dole.