This, and I encourage her to do so if she cannot fulfill the duties of her position.

Personally I think people who get divorced twice should be barred from being married again.  How many bites at the apple should you give someone?  Thought it was until death do you part.

I don't see why it is any of the governmenta concern who you marry as long as they are consenting adults. IMHO the court should have got the government out of marriage but next we will see a SCOTUS case on having multiple partner marriages

 

Marriage is a legally binding contract, of course it's the governments business who gets to marry who.  Marriage requires the recognition of the state in order for it to be valid.  Try leaving the wife without paying spousal support, and in the majority of states a spouse can not be excluded from the will or disinherited.

Look at the facts of the case before the court in Obergefell vs. Hodges, the spouse of a dying man was prevented from being listed as the Surviving Spouse on the death certificate,  The surviving spouse is given certain legal privileges such as social security benefits.  Clearly, the government has to be in the marriage business.  

As long as this line of logic holds up to scrutiny, I suppose there are those who think it would also be acceptable for polygamous marriages, marriages to children granted with parental consent, marriages where parents are paid to give consent for underage marriages (pedophilia of either sexual orientation),  and just about any other type of relationship anyone could come up with.  

The logic has been "It is no one's business who I love".  I wonder if people think that applies to one, two, three and four year olds...as long as you can pay their parents enough money to give consent.

Because marriage is really all about tax breaks, benefits, and the transfers of property and wealth. With out government involvement, a simple piece of paper from the local church ain't gonna mean much when John Q Citizen dies and his gay partner wants the house while is sister is saying no.

 

It should be a rather simple process of notifying the government of the union/s singed by all parties with a witness rather than asking the government for permission to get married

 

Wouldn't a power of attorney, living will, will, beneficiary on bank accounts, beneficiary on stock accounts, beneficiary on pensions, beneficiary on 401k,  trust, and other estate planning tools take care of all this without needing to be legally married.

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow same-sex marriages than to do all that?  

 

Gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Its origin was racist. If it weren't, clerk's approval would not be required and this would be a non issue.

how are those two things even remotely similar.

The clerk could have resigned at any time.  Enlisted service members cannot resign.

 
Not everywhere....


But marriage does