U.S. Supreme Court to Take Up Issue of Same Sex Marriage

[c.d.]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/us/court-marriage/index.html

c.d.

[Ally]

If the judges go by the law, I really don't see how they can fail to win this. It's fairly blatant discrimination when the government gives preferential taxation to one couple and not another. Should be interesting to see... does law or prejudice win out?

[jason_c]

If the judges go by the law, I really don't see how they can fail to win this. It's fairly blatant discrimination when the government gives preferential taxation to one couple and not another. Should be interesting to see... does law or prejudice win out?

Im pretty much in favour of same sex marriage, but doesn't the government discriminate against couples all the time in terms of taxation? Childless couples are taxed at a higher rate, I think. Rich couples are taxed at different rates than poor ones, couples and individuals in all areas of life are taxed differently. You get a rebate for driving "green" cars, your taxed lower for having income from investments rather than a salary, and you get taxed lower if you invest in certain sectors of the economy. All of these have been found legal so far; all can be argued as government prejudice.

[Ally]

The point is however, that you can choose or not to choose to buy a green car or whatever. They make it illegal for two people to wed, and then give preferential tax rates to people who are wed. That's discrimination.

But this isn't just about children this is inheritance tax and the right of the surviving spouse. A gay couple can be together for 35 years and the "spouse" pays HUGE tax on their "inheritance" when the other dies. A straight couple can be married for ten minutes and the surviving spouse pays nothing in inheritance tax.

That's pretty blatant discrimination. Clear cut. They make it illegal for them to wed, then penalize them for not being wed. Either they need to no longer give surviving spouse benefits to everyone or not block people who are committed to one another from enjoying the same benefits.

[Errata]

This has a fair shot of going spectacularly badly. The Federal government taxes at a different rate because it doesn't recognize same sex marriage. It isn't illegal, it just isn't a federal matter. But taxes are a federal matter, and so in order to tax a same sex couple at the same rate as a heterosexual couple, it has to recognize gay marriage, which it can't do without defining marriage. Which so far they have been very careful about not doing, because a federal definition of marriage is based almost universally on the concept of uniting property to pass down to children. Which means that any marriage that does not meet that standard would be considered invalid. Childless heterosexual couples included. The only way out is to declare that no marriage is a federal issue, but since a good portion of the tax code says otherwise, that's a pretty drastic rewrite.

People see it as the next Roe v. Wade. But they forget how incredibly dangerous Roe v. Wade actually was. At the time, no one was more than two states away from a state that allowed abortions. Clearly not ideal. However still better than no state in the Union allowing abortions because the ban was made Federal. It's a hell of a risky venture. The only reason governments are even in the marriage business is for the preservation of property and it's dissemination. The government makes money off of the results of marriage, children. Heirs to be exact. Take away heirs, and there is no reason for a government to allow marriage at all. There's nothing in it for them. So I'm hoping someone did a hell of a lot of research into Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights and taxation before bringing this suit.

[Ally]

Actually gay marriage is illegal. Illegal means "not sanctioned or authorized by law". Gay marriages are not sanctioned by the government or recognized as lawful. Therefore they are illegal. Which is not the same thing as being a crime.

DOMA passed and authorized marriages as being between one man and one woman, therefore illegal in the eyes of the federal government, not recognized by law.

[Errata]

Actually gay marriage is illegal. Illegal means "not sanctioned or authorized by law". Gay marriages are not sanctioned by the government or recognized as lawful. Therefore they are illegal. Which is not the same thing as being a crime.

DOMA passed and authorized marriages as being between one man and one woman, therefore illegal in the eyes of the federal government, not recognized by law.

Yeah, but DOMA got gutted when the federal government declined to defend anything involving section three on the grounds that it was likely unconstitutional, the actual definition of marriage part. So really all DOMA says now is that states don't have to recognize same sex marriages legal in other states.

It's sort of amazing how they can reverse a law without actually repealing it.

[Archaic]

I'm proud to live in Washington State, where the discrimination against same-sex couples has just been ended by a ballot measure passed on Election Day, and now same-sex couples have the same right to get married that any other citizens do. I have gay friends who have been together for 15 years who plan to get married, and they were so happy they cried.

The new law went into effect at midnight last night, and couples were already lined up waiting to be married- the first marriages got underway at 12:01 A.M! Two decorated veterans were among the first to get married.

I don't think allowing same-sex couples to marry "weakens" the institution of marriage, I think it actually strengthens it, because demonstrates how many people still value committed relationships and want to marry the one they love, just like their parents did.

What I think genuinely weakens the institution of marriage is the number of (so far heterosexual) people who get married frivolously, without making a serious commitment, then break their vows and get divorced, then get married again to someone else, then break their vows and get divorced again... you get my drift.

Elizabeth Taylor was married and divorced, what, 8 times? That's obscene. Yet each one was a perfectly legal marriage, no matter how "disposable" it was to the participants.

Even now the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" doesn't address the blatant abuse of marriage by many heterosexual couples. It just makes no sense to me.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Limehouse]

I'm proud to live in Washington State, where the discrimination against same-sex couples has just been ended by a ballot measure passed on Election Day, and now same-sex couples have the same right to get married that any other citizens do. I have gay friends who have been together for 15 years who plan to get married, and they were so happy they cried.

The new law went into effect at midnight last night, and couples were already lined up waiting to be married- the first marriages got underway at 12:01 A.M! Two decorated veterans were among the first to get married.

I don't think allowing same-sex couples to marry "weakens" the institution of marriage, I think it actually strengthens it, because demonstrates how many people still value committed relationships and want to marry the one they love, just like their parents did.

What I think genuinely weakens the institution of marriage is the number of (so far heterosexual) people who get married frivolously, without making a serious commitment, then break their vows and get divorced, then get married again to someone else, then break their vows and get divorced again... you get my drift.

Elizabeth Taylor was married and divorced, what, 8 times? That's obscene. Yet each one was a perfectly legal marriage, no matter how "disposable" it was to the participants.

Even now the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" doesn't address the blatant abuse of marriage by many heterosexual couples. It just makes no sense to me.

Best regards,
Archaic

I agree fully with everything expressed in this excellent post.

I have been happily married to my husband for almost three decades and I would never deny to any other couple, same sex or otherwise, the companionshipship, love and friendship I have enjoyed.

I believe God will bless any union that is based on love and respect.

Julie

[Phil H]

Much the same discussions are going on in the UK too.

It occurs to me that if much the same remarks on gay, lesbian etc rights had been said about the rights of coloured/black people in the 50s/60s - those words would now be looked back on as morally wrong.

All sorts of condescending arguments were employed in the US, in South Africa and elsewhere (including Britain) in regard to why certain people should not be allowed to vote or have equal rights because of their skin colour or place of birth. Similar arguments are now being advanced, I believe, on same-sex marriage.

This is, undoubtedly, a major change in society, but it is a change that has to be made and will be made at some time.

Same thing with women's rights - in Britain the suffragettes. But if we do not allow equal rights in our society because it foes against convention and certain religious doctrines, how can we argue strongly for women's rights in Middle-eastern and other countries where change is needed and woman's equality needs to be recognised?

Phil H

[RonIpstone]

So are we saying then that the government should force the Church to celebrate same sex marriages? The spivvy Dave Cameron has guaranteed that no religious body will be forced against its will to have same sex marriage ceremonies.

For the record my sincerely held belief is that marriage can only be between man and woman and anything else is not a marriage.

[c.d.]

Hello Ron,

No clergyman in the U.S. would be forced to perform a same sex marriage. Right now, thousands of marriages between a man and a woman take place in a civil ceremony.

You of course are entitled to your opinion but if the Supreme Court recognizes the validity of same sex marriage, they will be legally married in the eyes of the law.

c.d.