JP1
Believer
Remember that until recently, there was no kind of federal definition of "marriage," and there is no reason for there to be a federal definition of marriage at all. I doubt very much that the SCOTUS will create its own definition of marriage--what it's more likely to do is merely to rule that every state must accept each other's state-certified marriages.
All that would have to happen is that the states drop their own association with "marriage" and pass a law that replaces "marriage" with "domestic partnership contract" wherever it appears. Federal agencies would do the same by a federal law. They can grandfather current "marriage certificates" to be acceptable as "domestic partnership contracts," but they ought to pass additional legislation at the state level to define them more clearly going forward.
The context was whether clergy who feel that gay marriage is a sin would have to perform those marriages even if it goes against their religious beliefs. It goes beyond that even. Justice Alito brought up the point this last week regarding Christian schools and universities losing their tax exempt status if they opposed same sex marriage, and the response was "It's going to be an issue." Apparently in Bob Jones University vs. The United States (you can Google that), it was ruled that "the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the IRS from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy."
So, this current argument in front of the supreme court goes far beyond just whether 2 men or 2 women can marry one another. It is opening a whole can of worms.
Upvote
0