• stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      I suspect that the courts decided that the legislature has to create a mechanism to recognize but can no longer block marriages.

      • QueriesQueried
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        IIRC that’s correct. Their paperwork is only strictly defining a man and woman, not just “two persons” or something like that.

      • WillySpreadum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        US Common Law directly traces its lineage to English Common Law, which in turn has its roots in Anglo-Saxon law. Courts still occasionally cite centuries old English legal cases.

          • WillySpreadum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Justice Alito cited the 13th century English legal treatise De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae when he allowed states to ban abortion so I guess it’s pretty inspiring.

            Source

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Eh the Japanese pretty much imported the BGB wholesale, a metric fuckton of countries have civil and criminal codes that root in either the French or German traditions. Their system is also generally firmly rooted in civil law, that is, precedent is non-binding.

            This is mostly a case of politicians not wanting to stir controversy, I think: While most Japanese would be in favour it’s a change and on top of that a change that would really piss off a minority so in the interest of conflict averseness the can is getting kicked down the road.