My problem is that the application for marriage created the marriage inequality problem in the first place. We should change the institution to recording instead of application. Just because you were issued one doesn't mean that it was automatic until today.
When you buy real estate, you simply record it. You don't need governmental approval to buy property as far as I know. You will, though, have to pay property tax.
It wasn't an application though. There was nothing that said "approve" or "deny" just that we were truthful. Its reasonable for the clerk to make sure that someone else wasn't trying to impersonate me to get married or we weren't children.
It wasn't the fact it was an "application" that was the problem - you could just say "previously some states refused to register same sex marriages" instead of "previously some states refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples" and it means the same thing.
The Lovings (of Loving v Virgina) were arrested for getting married in DC.
Refusing to register or to give a license is the same as denying an application.
I can apply for a liquor license and the state ABC can refuse to give me a liquor license or refuse to register a liquor license and it means the same thing.
Have you gotten married in the US? I think there's substantially less red tape in practice than you're imagining. People get married on the spot all the time.
Yes, I have gotten married in the US. I'm not sure how that is relevant. My problem is the wording--"application" as opposed to "registration." Even if it's as easy as applying for a passport, there is still room for denial.
When you buy real estate, you simply record it. You don't need governmental approval to buy property as far as I know. You will, though, have to pay property tax.