The legal case was the recognition of the contract from state to state.
Honestly, I never understood why the states or Fed’s really give a hoot whether or not I am married. I stood before my family and God for that “contract.” No one else needs to know or care.
> The legal case was the recognition of the contract from state to state.
That is pretty different from one state recognizing or not recognizing the past fact of a murder (of a baby).
But this really has to go back to the states.
Which will make the split more evident.
States are going to have to not recognize invalid marriages from some other states.
That is pretty inconvenient, but not as bad as being forced to recognize bufu boys as being husband and wife.
That's why it should be up to the states to define "marriage". No one was getting their rights denied. That said, all 50 states should recognize "marriage".
But traditional marriage as we know it, that shouldn't be up to your church to recognize it. Two different things. Religious marriage. Civil union.
The Supreme Court was wrong. Especially when we did not have a Constitutional amendment on "marriage".