There’s something to say for it if one party gave up work to become a stay at home parent I guess. You’re at a pretty severe disadvantage if you need to enter the job market with a significant gap in your resume. So if you consider marriage a contract wherein one person put themselves at a disadvantage to raise the children o the condition that the other would in turn provide for the both of them, you could argue that they’re entitled to some form of compensation when that contract is broken. Whether that compensation should be indefinite I leave on the table.

I do not get how these 6 states were determined to have standing in the first place? Isn’t the whole US justice system predicated on the fact that you need to experience direct or indirect harm, be an actually involved party for you to be able to sue? They’re federal loans, so federal money, where does their standing come from?