Gay couples race to wed over fears for future of same-sex marriage

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

As the Supreme Court tilts further right following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, some LGBTQ Americans are worried about the future of same-sex marriage.

A number of couples are taking matters into their own hands and rushing to the altar for fear of this recently won right being chipped away at or even reversed.

A week after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Barrett, Pastor Tori Jameson organized a series of wedding ceremonies outside St. Louis City Hall.

“I was really feeling upset about the nomination — she’s dangerous for LGBTQ people; she’s made it clear she wants to roll back our rights,” Jameson, who runs Lot’s Wife Trans and Queer Chaplaincy, said of the high court’s newest justice.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gay-couples-race-to-wed-over-fears-for-future-of-same-sex-marriage/ar-BB1au8vS?li=BBnb7Kz

[regnaD kciN]

1. I know clergy who are doing this...

...the problem, as I see it, is that, if the Court overturns Oberkfell, they're likely to simply declare all already-contracted same-sex marriages void.

[David__77]

2. The federal government wouldn't recognize them at a minimum.

...

[Buckeyeblue]

5. It would depend on how it was overturned I think

If they said the original ruling was incorrect and that bans on same-sex marriage do not violate equal protection then all of the laws and state constitutional amendments would be valid again. I think existing marriages would have to be grandfathered.

I think on the federal level the defense of marriage act could be replaced with a federal law that recognized that marriage is between two consenting adults, regardless of gender.

If this was done, the justices could overturn Oberkfell, but the the federal law would be the law of the land. Then, the question would be could states violate this rule? I don't think states would be able to violate it (meaning states would have o recognize th federal definition of marriage).

That's why if we win the presidency and the Senate there needs to be federal legislation affirming a number of human rights. It would be very difficult for the SC to say a federal law extending a right violated the constitution.

[bullwinkle428]

3. Maybe Contagious ACB can go double or nothing, and attempt to overturn Loving vs. Virginia.

Then she can explain to her now co-worker Clarence that his marriage to the lovely Ginny is no longer a thing!

[CaptYossarian]

4. If she's that religious, she has skeletons.

Just wait.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Bad idea . . .

It is not at all clear that if same gender marriage is abolished that being married will do any good. Theoretically, it should - since you are creating property rights in those things associated with marriage - but property rights can be taken away, as long as due process is followed.

Getting married because you might not be able to in the future is not a way to decide create a bond that (theoretically) is a lifetime bond. And - divorces are much, much harder if the marriage is not recognized. We spent a lot of time thinking about this before we went to Canada to have our marriage recognized. We have had a common law marriage (but for same gender) since 1981 - and once marriage was recognized, the full duration of our marriage was also. We also had a marriage in our faith community and, much later, obtained legal recognition for a statutory marriage in Canada.

The latter was the hardest decision to make, because we know too much about the law. In order to grant a divorce, the marriage must be recognized in the first place. Unlike marriages, divorces generally take place in the community in which one (or both) spouses reside for a period of time - so no quickly travel divorces. That meant that we were committing to be married not just theoretically forever - but if we ever wanted to end our legal relationship we were committing to one of us (at least) moving to a jurisdiction that recognized our marriage to end it.

So - marriages entered into in order to beat a perceived deadline may well create legal nightmares in the event the conservatives end up wiping out recognition of same gender marriages.

[Oneironaut]

7. Is there any use to it, though? Can't they just invalidate those marriages anyways?

That's what I wonder. Can't the Federal government just refuse to recognize gay marriages, thereby "canceling" all same-sex marriages?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. Unfuck.... actually, it's totally fucking believable. nt