Comments on: SCOTUS Asked To Overturn Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Ruling /news/scotus-asked-to-overturn-landmark-same-sex-marriage-ruling/238027 Setting Australia’s LGBTI agenda since 1979 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 04:15:23 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 By: Chuck Anziulewicz /news/scotus-asked-to-overturn-landmark-same-sex-marriage-ruling/238027#comment-668268 Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:03:26 +0000 /?p=238027#comment-668268 I suspect the Supreme Court isn’t going to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges. You would have to prove that same-sex couples marrying harms anyone, and there is no evidence of that. Fact is, marriage equality for same-sex couples shouldn’t have taken as long as it did. There was never any constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same right to marry that Straight couples have always taken for granted. What more legal reasoning do you need?

Churches have never been forced to provide weddings for anyone, and it’s a moot point anyway, since the legal benefits of marriage don’t come from the church, they come from the federal government. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant also, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for a marriage license.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) there are 1,138 legal protections, regulations, and responsibilities that pertain specifically to married couples. Much of this has to do with Social Security, inheritance, healthcare, etc. If the government wanted to get out of the marriage business altogether, it would be a legal quagmire.

Some would also suggest that marriage should be left up to individual states, but the point would be moot since a marriage honored in one state is honored across state lines. Marriage is fundamentally a contractual agreement between two adults. Any couple can fly off to Las Vegas for the weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored back home, thanks to the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic, but I don’t think SCOTUS will reconsider the issue. Frankly, they wouldn’t DARE.

]]>