Originally Posted by Calico
I don't understand this train of thought. Gay people who can and will now marry are just as "romantically in love" as straight people who have been getting married ever since the concept of "romantic love" was established as one reason to marry.
I think you're making an assumption that all same sex marriages will be between gay people. I don't think so.
Like you, I believe "gay people who can and will now marry are just as "romantically in love" as straight people. But whether they are romantically in love or not, it would be best to recognize any additional obligations on systems that provide spousal benefits and prepare as needed.
Additionally, there are "marriages of convenience." And the SCOTUS has now opened the door for "marriages of convenience" between same sex folks (not necessarily gay) as well as heterosexual folks.
I haven't interpreted any of the posts as being against gay marriage. I have read posts (and written some) that respond to OP's question as to whether the SCOTUS decision could lead to increased pressure on SS and other financial benefits where marriage status can be a determining factor. As expressed, I think there will be additional pressure on benefit programs, such as SS, Medicare and pensions that allow for spousal benefits. But that is entirely different than expressing opinion on the concept of gay marriage in a moral sense.
Things change in society. It's better to make plans and have systems that are prepared to deal with increased financial pressure (even if only a small increase incrementally) than to blindly assume "it'll all be OK."
Subjectively "feelin' da love......" for folks of some status is OK. Pragmatically promoting being prepared to deliver promised benefits, such as spousal SS, is better. Just MHO.