Complete tangent, but that reminds me of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's awesome rebuttal, during the Obergefell v Hodges case last year, when the US Supreme Court ruled gay marriage discrimination unconstitutional. The prosecutor argued the government didn't have the right to redefine marriage. Ginsburg pointed out they already have:for example: LGBT discrimination
along with slavery, women being possessions
Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this Court's decision in 1982 when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. And no State was allowed to have such a [] marriage anymore. Would that be a choice that a State should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?
and THAT is why I have The Notorious RBG on my audio book list. It's up next, in fact.