by Sandy » Mon Jun 29, 2015 4:56 pm
This particular decision was about as narrow in its scope as you can get when it comes to the Supreme Court. All it did was establish marriage as a civil institution, and since it has the authority of civil government behind it, both in the way it is recognized by the federal government, and as it is assigned by the states, it was within its constitutional limits to do so. The definition was narrow, simply recognizing that it is a civil right, and since states all have different standards in applying the law, the court equalized the status. It does not end marriage as we know it, it will most likely involve a very small minority of the population, and in the narrowness of its decision, the court did not provide any platform at all for hauling churches and ministers into court who refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies, or discriminate against businesses that refuse to provide services or products for same-sex weddings. Since the civil authority recognizes marriage, and in fact, puts the power of its enforcement behind it in that it requires a court, or at least filing a legal proceeding, to dissolve a marriage, this is an expected outcome.