Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

[LostinTrinity]

It's a great day for equality.

I would also think it's a great day for people who are in favor of less taxes...

[BackInTex]

It's a great day for equality.

I would also think it's a great day for people who are in favor of less taxes...

I'm in favor of less taxes, but what does this have to do with the government spending less?

[silverscreenselect]

It's a great day for equality.

I would also think it's a great day for people who are in favor of less taxes...

I'm in favor of less taxes, but what does this have to do with the government spending less?

The couple in this case (and a lot of couples who will be affected by this decision) had to pay higher taxes because they were not allowed to take advantage of tax breaks heterosexual married couples received (in this case the spousal exemption on estate tax). It was a six-figure inheritance tax in this particular case.

[jarnon]

It's a great day for equality.

I would also think it's a great day for people who are in favor of less taxes...

I'm in favor of less taxes, but what does this have to do with the government spending less?

The couple in this case (and a lot of couples who will be affected by this decision) had to pay higher taxes because they were not allowed to take advantage of tax breaks heterosexual married couples received (in this case the spousal exemption on estate tax). It was a six-figure inheritance tax in this particular case.

Many people will save on taxes, but the net effect will be small.

The Congressional Budget Office tried to estimate the effect on the federal budget of legalizing same-sex marriage in every state. On balance, the study said benefits and penalties would come close to equaling out and have relatively little effect on the federal budget.

I looked at the Americans for Tax Reform website, and they seem more concerned with the tax implications of some of the immigration reform proposals.

[BackInTex]

Your arguments support incestuos marriage, also. And polygamous marriage. Everything you've said to counter the DOMA supporters is usable as an argument for those relationships. Everything. Other than perhaps the line you draw based on your own personal morality.

"The opposing views on polygamous or incestuous couples' rights very often boil down to people trying to impose their views of religion and morality on matters of tax, estate, evidence, contract, and a wide variety of other areas of the law that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion and morality."

The answer to polygamous marriates is simple. Marriage is a releationship between two people; it's not a blank check to allow any number of people to throw themselves together to get a free pass on estate taxes or to piggyback on someone's health insurance.

Incest is a similar argument. Because marriage is a relationship that provides special benefits on the people involved, the state can place limits on those benefits (one obvious one being establishing minimum ages to get married). What they cannot do is arbitrarily place limits based on an improper classification such as race or sex. Saying that a gay man can marry some men does not mean he is allowed to marry every man. Incest laws would prevent a gay man from marrying his father or brother, just as they now prevent a man from marrying his mother or sister.

Morality has nothing to do with tax and estate benefits. A law that said a black spouse could not get the same estate tax exemption as a white spouse would never hold up.

You are trying to blur the line between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a civil institution. The day is long gone when anyone can say that marriage is simply a matter of morality or religion. It imparts a whole lot of civil benefits and has to be subject to our civil laws for that reason.

None of your 'definitions' above are anything but your (and others') definitions. My (and others') definition of marriage is one man and one woman. You've expanded that to two unrelated adults. But you've done nothing I've not done. You've injected your personal morals and beliefs into your definition. If you were more bent, you would be saying the same of polygamy or incest. None of your arguments for why a man should not marry his brother or sister is any stronger, or reason based, than my arguments on why a man should not marry a man. They are all moral arguments. Can you not see that?

[Flybrick]

Government expenditures are expected to rise as it will begin providing the same benefits to the spouses of those now considered married or will be - federal healthcare, pay and allowances for the military, etc, etc.


And the logic for those advocating polygamy, consenting incestual relationships, or other bizarre stuff that mankind can imagine have taken a great leap forward with this ruling.

If "marriage equality" is the point, then why aren't these other relationships as valid using the logic for this one?

I am not advocating for such, but sure as shootin', the challenges are probably already being filed. And by the logic being used, they have a point.

[silverscreenselect]

None of your 'definitions' above are anything but your (and others') definitions. My (and others') definition of marriage is one man and one woman. You've expanded that to two unrelated adults. But you've done nothing I've not done. You've injected your personal morals and beliefs into your definition. If you were more bent, you would be saying the same of polygamy or incest. None of your arguments for why a man should not marry his brother or sister is any stronger, or reason based, than my arguments on why a man should not marry a man. They are all moral arguments. Can you not see that?

About fifty years ago, the definition of marriage in some states was a black man and a black woman or a white man and a white woman but not a black man and a white woman or a white man and a black woman. And those laws were just as "reason based" as the ones you are referring to.

Courts recognize that legislatures have to draw lines, with those on one side of the line being treated differently from those on the other side of the line. Someone driving 64 miles an hour is within the law, while someone driving 66 miles an hour breaks the law. And it would probably be just as "reason based" to set the speed limit at 60 or 70 as at 65. For this reason, courts usually rule that as long as there is a rational basis for a legislature to make a particular distinction, the law is constitutional, even though the legislature might easily have made a different distinction.

However, under the 5th and 14th amendments, if the legislature draws the line on the basis or race or sex, a law has to pass a more stringent standard. It must advance a compelling state interest that couldn't be satisfied in a less obtrusive manner. Using that analysis, the laws that define who someone can marry according to their race were unconstitutional. As are laws that define who someone can marry according to their sex.

State and federal legislatures have given one specific type of couples enormous benefits that other couples do not have. In this case, what was at issue was an unlimited estate tax exemption that did not exist when passing property to anyone else in the world, even one's children, that was granted to a surviving spouse. Congress can decide to limit the exemption to married couples. It can't decide to limit it only to married couples consisting of one man and one woman instead of two men or two women.

[Flybrick]

It can't decide to limit it only to married couples consisting of one man and one woman instead of two men or two women.

Nor, logically, can it limit the definition of being 'married' to only a couple. I bet such lawsuits are even now being launched.

[silverscreenselect]

It can't decide to limit it only to married couples consisting of one man and one woman instead of two men or two women.

Nor, logically, can it limit the definition of being 'married' to only a couple. I bet such lawsuits are even now being launched.

But of course they can. That's the difference between making a classification on the basis of non-suspect criteria such as numbers (which is the basis for speed limits, tax codes, and all sorts of other distinctions) and making a classification on the basis of suspect criteria such as race or sex. There are rational bases for limiting the full scope of marital benefits under law to a contract between exactly two people.

This is fairly basic constitutional law. Not that the courts always get it right. In fact, the idea of suspect classifications was first introduced in World War II in the Japanese internment case in which the Court found a compelling justification for internment of Japanese-Americans despite the fact they were being singled out on a racial basis.

[Bob Juch]

[BackInTex]

It can't decide to limit it only to married couples consisting of one man and one woman instead of two men or two women.

Nor, logically, can it limit the definition of being 'married' to only a couple. I bet such lawsuits are even now being launched.

Or to married siblings or 1st cousins, or father/son/daughter. As long as a state sanctions such 'marriage'. Under your logic, anyway.


To: SSS (not Flybrick)
Why all the hate towards those wanting multiple spouses?
And your opposition to incestuous marriage indicates you may have repressed romantic feelings towards your brother which make you nervous. Makes me go 'hmmm'.

[silverscreenselect]

Or to married siblings or 1st cousins, or father/son/daughter. As long as a state sanctions such 'marriage'. Under your logic, anyway.

I'm not fully sure I follow what you're trying to say. States could sanction marriages between close relatives, and a few allow cousins to marry. If they choose not to do so on a non-suspect basis such as gender-neutral degree of relationship, there's no reason any court would overturn it and it's doubtful anyone is going to bring a serious court challenge of that nature.

To: SSS (not Flybrick)
Why all the hate towards those wanting multiple spouses?
And your opposition to incestuous marriage indicates you may have repressed romantic feelings towards your brother which make you nervous. Makes me go 'hmmm'.

Ignorance is bliss. You must enjoy a very blissful life.

[Bob Juch]

Laws regarding cousin marriage in the United States
DK BLUE First-cousin marriage
LT BLUE Allowed with restrictions or exceptions
LT RED Banned with exceptions
MD RED Statute bans first-cousin marriage
DK RED Criminal offense

[littlebeast13]

What's a little incest between family, anyway?

lb13

[SportsFan68]

What's a little incest between family, anyway?

lb13

Or pals? I just found this for today's observation.

#1: "I Kissed a Squirrel"

Debuted: 7/24/11



In 2009 it was a hug, in 2010 it was a romantic moment, and in 2011 it was a kiss. This avatar of MBRS planting a surprise kiss on the cheek of Angel was a work of perfection, but even I did not anticipate the one detail about it that really took it over the top and made it my selection for the best ES avatar of the year. The expression on Angel's face, eyes wide open and paw obscuring her mouth, is so perfectly abstract that the reaction those who commented on the avatar assigned to Angel was all over the map (And as a bonus, it inspired this wonderful little thread). Was she shocked? Appalled? Pleasantly surprised? Flustered? Aghast? Tickled? Her true reaction exists only in the eye of the beholder. MBRS and Angel make a most excellent team in my drawings. Whether or not they make a most excellent team in other things, well, that all may depend on what you see in Angel's face....

[LostinTrinity]

What are the red striped ones?

[jarnon]

What are the red striped ones?

Criminal offense with exceptions.
Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

[Bob Juch]

What are the red striped ones?

It didn't say. Perhaps criminal offense with exceptions?

[LostinTrinity]

So there is actually a law in California that says you can marry your first cousin? I've lived in California all my life and have never met anyone that would even consider getting married to their cousin, maybe since it never happens we figure go ahead if you really want to.

And now that I've thought about it for a minute since my wireless connection went out for a second. I'm surprised that it is looked up so much that someone actually made a map of the states where it's legal to marry your first cousin.

My husband just walked in, I asked him if he knew it was legal to marry your first cousin in California (he's 3rd gen Californian). His reaction was ewww and he doesn't even have a first cousin.

[Bob Juch]

So there is actually a law in California that says you can marry your first cousin? I've lived in California all my life and have never met anyone that would even consider getting married to their cousin, maybe since it never happens we figure go ahead if you really want to.

And now that I've thought about it for a minute since my wireless connection went out for a second. I'm surprised that it is looked up so much that someone actually made a map of the states where it's legal to marry your first cousin.

My husband just walked in, I asked him if he knew it was legal to marry your first cousin in California (he's 3rd gen Californian). His reaction was ewww and he doesn't even have a first cousin.

No, there's no law that prohibits marrying your first cousin. My parent were cousins,

Spoiler

eighth!

[TheConfessor]

What's all the fuss about?

Yeah, we're all cousins, that's what I believe,
'Cause we're all children, of Adam and Eve.

[DadofTwins]

Two legal questions based on these two rulings:

If first cousins marry in California then move to Texas, are they thrown in jail? Or does Texas have to give "full faith and credit" to their California marriage?

If a federal judge strikes down Obamacare as unconstitutional, and a sitting Republican President chooses not to appeal, would that be a "back door" to repeal since private citizens (or, presumably, states) would not have standing to defend the law?

[TheConfessor]

In states that criminalize first cousins marrying, how are you supposed to know? What about adoptions? Are you barred from marrying your adopted first cousin, who has no blood relationship, but free to marry your blood related cousin who was given up for adoption and may not know who his or her birth parents were?

[SportsFan68]

So there is actually a law in California that says you can marry your first cousin? I've lived in California all my life and have never met anyone that would even consider getting married to their cousin, maybe since it never happens we figure go ahead if you really want to.

And now that I've thought about it for a minute since my wireless connection went out for a second. I'm surprised that it is looked up so much that someone actually made a map of the states where it's legal to marry your first cousin.

My husband just walked in, I asked him if he knew it was legal to marry your first cousin in California (he's 3rd gen Californian). His reaction was ewww and he doesn't even have a first cousin.

I couldn't imagine it either until one of my best friends married his first cousin. Now it seems entirely normal and natural. His first wife was my best friend for 20 years, and I told him not long ago that it was his purpose in life to find best friends for me and marry them.

[littlebeast13]

I have to say I've never really understood the taboo of incest. I mean, regardless of whether you believe science's or the Bible's version of history, there still had to be an awful lot of incest going on at some point in time for us to all be here now....

lb13