The social issues have been big losers for Republicans.
SCOTUS ruled on this a year or two ago. Don’t think they’ll go back and reverse it at this point.
Rubio was just saying whatever he thought he had to say to get elected.
I disagreed with the ruling at the time it was made.
I disagreed with the Dred Scott ruling at the time it was made ...
SCOTUS was wrong.
It’s OK to say it.
>The social issues have been big losers for Republicans.
Yep. Let’s get the illegals, islam and Constitution solidified.
For example ...
Suppose you have a good medical insurance plan at work, and you also have a close friend of the same gender (or either gender, for that matter) who is uninsured. There's nothing that prevents the two of you from "getting married" just for the sake of getting him insured through your employer's group plan.
There are probably dozens of similar situations where there are legal and financial advantages to being "married" to someone even if you have no romantic interest in him.
If the Federal government wants to turn the institution of marriage into a farce, I can play that game too.
The ruling by SCOTUS is only a freeze moment in time. Some day, someone, who DOES have standing, is going to challenge the ruling, and it shall either be reversed, or vacated, as an irrelevancy.
The law, which in many ways has been interpreted as a reflection of popular opinion, is not a static and immovable fortress, but a marketplace, with its own fashions, styles, and trends. Right now the trend is to support hedonism and “feel-good” rulings, but eventually, the social experimentation is going to be once again held in low regard, and a series of reversals of existing rulings will chip away at the supposed “new normal”, as a different “new normal” displaces the formerly acceptable practices.
Remember, cocaine dissolved in alcohol, laudanum, was once freely available as a patent medicine, right over the counter, but it was finally ruled unacceptable, and was forced off the market as a result of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and later tightening regulations on ALL opiates.
The efforts to regulate the patent medicine industry – specifically, to regulate the therapeutic claims that patent medicine firms made about their products – were largely unsuccessful. In US v. Johnson (1911), the Supreme Court ruled that therapeutic claims were essentially subjective and hence beyond the reach of this law.
This made a number of revisions to the original law, and it was not until 1938 that effective regulation of over-the-counter drugs was first applied, with the requirement that the product not be an outright fraud, unable to supply the intended effects.