Democrats revived calls to pack the Supreme Court with liberals last week after the court’s conservative majority decided several cases the wrong way, as liberals view it.

On Thursday and Friday, the Supreme Court handed down three decisions on multiple closely watched cases. The court ruled against Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s race-based admissions processes, it ruled in favor of a Christian graphic designer who did not want to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, and the court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.

Democrats and liberals raged at the high court, some calling to expand the court’s bench to dilute the conservative majority, which was cemented by former President Donald Trump’s three conservative nominees.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said it would not be “extreme” to add more justices.

“Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn’t extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are,” Schiff wrote in a tweet Friday.

Expanding the size of the Supreme Court isn’t extreme or unprecedented — but the opinions of this Court certainly are.

— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) June 30, 2023

Schiff repeated his call to pack the court in an email to supporters of his Senate campaign, but he switched the language, dubbing it “unpacking” the court.

“We must unpack the court by expanding the number of justices on the court, instituting term limits, and enacting a code of ethics like every other federal court,” Schiff wrote to supporters, according to Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard.

“I’ve spent years talking about the need to expand, unstack, and reform the Supreme Court after Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell stacked it with partisans. This week we saw firsthand the consequences of its imbalance,” Schiff added in the email.

Schiff was just censured last month in the House. The censure resolution accused Schiff of misleading the American public about Trump’s supposed ties to Russia while leading the House Intelligence Committee’s investigations into the president.

Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said Sunday that packing the court should be on the table.

“I think everything should be on the table,” Pressley said on MSNBC, responding to a question about whether she supports adding more justices.

The Supreme Court “has been emboldened in rolling back the hands of time, undermining and rolling back what should be fundamental civil human rights,” she added.

“So everything should be on the table: reform and expansion,” Pressley said.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has previously called for expanding the Supreme Court, and on Sunday she called for checking the court’s power.

“The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court,” Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday on CNN.

Some liberal academics called to pack the court as well.

“Biden Won’t Pack the Supreme Court, and It’s Killing Democracy,” read the headline of a Friday Newsweek opinion article by David Faris, an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University in the Chicago area.

“With or without Biden, court expansion must become a litmus test for any Democrat who wants to pursue federal office,” Faris wrote. “The alternative is to spend the next 15 Junes learning which part of American public life has been needlessly upended by corrupt, originalist fanatics, and which new ways the Supreme Court has made it easier for Republicans to gain and wield power.”

Meanwhile, most Americans do not support adding justices to the bench, although most Democrats appear to want a packed court.

About 55% of voters oppose expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices, while 64% of Democrats support adding the extra four justices, according to a survey last year from the Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports.

Society seems to be slowly chipping away at the institution of marriage. Progressive marriages are becoming more popular every day. Women are keeping their last names rather than taking their husband’s name. Husbands and wives are choosing not to have children because couples are declaring they do not want kids to “disrupt” how they live or impose on their financial security or hinder their travels around the world. Once upon a time, people got married to begin their own family, but now, that seems not to even be a consideration, which leaves me wondering why people are even getting married anymore.

Another phenomenon in this same vein is on the rise: Married couples do not want to blend their individual finances. This brings me to Gabrielle Union-Wade and Dwyane Wade. They have publicly discussed their marriage and their finances, which they split 50/50. Their version of splitting 50/50 means they split costs down the middle; they each pull from their separate accounts to make purchases. They do not combine finances; he has his money and she has hers. To me, this sounds more like what you do when you get divorced. So if this is how people are handling marriage these days — and it seems like more and more people are — then why even get married?

This marriage is definitely not traditional. Union, for example, did not want to lose her last name, so she chose to hyphenate: Union-Wade. They are raising Wade’s 16-year-old son from a previous relationship as a girl, who they are now calling Zaya, despite the fact Zaya’s mother, Siohvaughn, argues Zion is her son and is fighting them in court. Then in 2018, they chose surrogacy to have their child, Kaavia James. So, they have done some things differently in their marriage.

But the cherry on top was the interview Union did with Bloomberg. In this interview, she says everything in her household is split 50/50: “It’s weird to say I’m head of household because in this household, we split everything 50/50. But in the other households that each of us has to support, it puts this — there’s always like this gorilla on your back that’s like, ‘You better work! You better work! You want to sleep in? Somebody might not eat.’ And it’s hard.” To be clear, Gabrielle Union is worth about $50 million. Her husband, Dwyane Wade, is worth around $175 million.

Part of what made this interview so compelling and why it went viral is Wade’s net worth. Union says she feels like a gorilla is on her back to support her household when her husband is quite literally worth $175 million. This is bizarre. A couple weeks after Union’s interview, Wade answered some follow-up questions about this on the Club Shay Shay podcast saying, “I said something about it being my house that I paid for. My wife looked at me, and she was like, ‘You will never say that again when it’s something that we share.’ So when we moved to L.A., my wife said, ‘I got half on it. You will never say ‘my house’ again.’” He continues in the interview and says their purchases are all 50/50 — their home, anything for their child, anything in their lives — unless the responsibility falls solely to one person.

Wade stipulates there are some responsibilities like Union’s mother, her sisters, her dad — “she has a lot of things she’s responsible for” — that she pays 100% for. Dwyane Wade laughed a lot in this interview while talking about this topic, but does Union seem comfortable when saying she feels such stress because she knows she has other people to take care of? This is not a rash way to think in a marriage. This is not two people becoming one, but two people who have agreed they are comfortable being roommates for a long time.

I know that it has become common for people to normalize things that are so very clearly abnormal. But we should all address the fact this is not something that should be normalized. You are paying for your child as if you are divorced and there is a custody split. Enrolling your child in a private school, paying 50% of the semester while your spouse pays the other 50% of the semester, and taking this money from two separate accounts is not the way to handle finances in a marriage. Wade is professing this as though it’s cool and chic and forward-thinking — but it’s not.

So, what is the purpose of marriage? Marriage is when two people become one. However, now couples are changing what it even means to become one. They do not view marriage as a partnership or a family. Rather, they view marriage as an opportunity for Instagram moments. I think a lot of people get married because they want to have a wedding and post on social media. Couples date for seven years, then finally get married. And even if everyone wonders if they should have gotten married, the general thought is usually: What else were they going to do? She wants a ring, her wedding, and a white dress, and they need to take the tourist hand shot and she-said-yes photo we all see on Instagram after the engagement.

Another reason people seem to get married today is to resolve insecurities. In reality, people do not want to be alone — but that does not mean loneliness disappears once married. Maybe one in the pair experienced a bad relationship in the past or a horrific breakup and they think they will be safe in a marriage because it requires more commitment. After all, it is more difficult to break up a marriage and get lawyers involved. And then there is the obvious: Married couples get tax incentives. They think it makes more sense to be married for the tax break, rather than just agreeing to be roommates.

This is a conversation worth having because I believe if we talk about the corrosion of family values in society, we also need to know and understand that people are not even aspiring to have a family anymore, even when they are entering a union that is meant to represent family. The corrosive elements of these partnerships display anything but God, faith, and the core institution of family.