I read these articles but they never state what's the argument being used. What's the argument the court would consider? That States have the right to regulate these independently? That marriage is (by inherent definition) is between opposite sexes? That public employees have a right to not participate by refusing to file forms, witness marriage, etc.?

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

that the 2015 decision was "inconsistent with originalism", aka they're just making up whatever the fuck they want, like they've been doing for decades (a hallmark of common law actually, true democracies are much better off under civil law)...and now that it looks like the tide is going heavily towards the christofacist right even more...time to start shrinking that in-group