We also have to see if the homosexual activists will start suing churches over homosexual marriage. And if other activists sue for polygamy or group marriage.
I’m not a lawyer, so bear with me. But what we have seen in homosexual marriage court cases is a legal issue in which we have changed the definition of a legal term. Marriage had a definition. In order to accomplish the leftist goal here, courts have had to concoct a legal fiction that marriage between a man and a woman was discriminatory. Then, they had to change the definition of marriage. Has this ever happened with any other legal term??
Now that we have changed the definition of marriage through court order, it becomes much easier to legally change the definition of marriage to include polygamy or groups or any configuration of people you can imagine.
Sure, courts redefine plain English all the time. That is their function. Their sphere of authority is the law, and only the law. Of course, the law claims superiority over all, that's a natural attribute of a tyrant and bully.
At any rate, the law is riddled with terms of art, like "actual malice" (which contains no malice at all, in fact), "arms" (which means arms commonly possessed by citizens after the government unconstitutionally confiscates what it wants to), "taking for public use" (which means taking for private use), and don't get me going on the commerce clause. Heck, the day before he said that SCOTUS was not permitted to write law, Roberts redefined "exchanges established by a state" to "an exchange not established by a state."
"Married", "related" and other terms have legal definitions, and one should expect the legal definition to be nonsense, arbitrary, and unpredictable. Lawyers make big bucks by knowing the humpty-dumpty language of the courts.