"The Supreme Court will take up a challenge...to California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure which amends the state’s constitution to hold that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
The outcome could range from requiring all states to accept gay marriage or decreeing such bans constitutional. The justices could also dodge the issue."
The outcome could range from requiring all states to accept gay marriage or decreeing such bans constitutional. The justices could also dodge the issue."
The reach of such a decision would be important for future gay marriage battles. “Of course, if they strike it down they could write the opinion narrowly, just about Section 3 of DOMA, or broadly in a way that recognizes a constitutional right to marriage equality,” says Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law professor at UC-Irvine."
Polls in 2013
A March Washington Post poll shows that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% oppose. The poll indicates that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old now support gay marriage.
A March Quinnipiac University poll found 47% support and 43% opposed among all voters.
A March Fox News poll indicated that 46% of Americans both support and oppose same-sex marriage.
A February 6-10 CBS News Poll shows that 54% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 46% oppose.As the above polls indicate, a majority of Americas have come to understand that marriage equality is a civil right, not a privilege, and marriage equality certainly should not be denied through religious prohibitions that would be imposed on a secular society such as ours. No religious organization will be forced to perform marriages it is opposed to. So those who object to marriage equality can rest assured that if his or her religion forbids such unions, his or her place of worship is in no danger. Happily there are religions that have embraced marriage equality and welcome couples who wish to marry into their community.
Unfortunately many Americans still do not support this basic civil right: Marriage equality:
"Among G.O.P. Voters, Little Support for Same-Sex Marriage
By NATE SILVER
The decision by the Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, to announce his support for same-sex marriage may come to be seen as a watershed moment for gay rights advocates.
Mr. Portman’s announcement, which he said he made in part because his son is gay, has so far yielded relatively little pushback from Republicans on blogs and social media, or from other Republican office-holders. Instead, gay rights advocates are increasingly finding support from influential Republicans.
But the rank and file of the Republican Party may be different, and the polling suggests that they have largely not changed their views on same-sex marriage."
I remain very hopeful that the SCOTUS will rule favorably later this year on these two issues, since I cannot find any legal or moral reason that it should not. I'm pretty certain all of us know gays and lesbians either through our circle of friends or through family members; and any arguments against extending equal rights to our LGBT family and friends would be a step backward and a betrayal of the fundamental guarantees America was founded on.
Let's hope America does the moral and just thing in this case.
56 comments:
I can hear the crickets. When all is said and done I belive just decisions will ne handed down.
RN, I accidentally hit "delete" instead of "publish." Sorry. Again.
I hear the crickets chirping in opposition.
When all is said and done I believe just desicions will be handed down.
I am not holding out hope that the SCOTUS will do anything sensible.
Gays will only be allowed to marry when they are a LARGE CORPORATION that contributes a lot of money to the Republican Party.
Justice does not prevail in a Court that is politically motivated.
Clearly, RN, Blogger is out to get me today.
Blogger, and a certain aNon are out to get me everyday. I chuckle and revel in the knowledge and satisfaction neither has a clue.
Shaw... and it is the rank and file that determine the GOP nominee... at least and until we see a Sistah Souljah smackdown of people like Rush, Levine, Santorum, Coulter and the loudest voices of the right leaning bloggers who revel in being malcontented...
The decision(s) won't come for weeks.
Most conservatives whom I personally -- many evangelical Christians -- know don't seem to care much about this issue. That is, they won't be all riled up if the SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage.
"A March Washington Post poll shows that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36%oppose."
For the record, I support same sex marriage; before Obama, before Hillary.
Having said thst, the numbers quoted sound similar to those measuring how many Americans oppose Obamacare -- and oppose the President's handling of the economy.
So what? The President will do what he can; and the SCOTUS will do what they feel is right. I trust the court far more than a man whose goal is to carry the 2014elections -- damn the economy!
Christopher Ott writing in the Boston Globe:
"Opponents of equality for lesbian and gay people have understood one thing: how quickly their support would evaporate if the freedom to marry arrived and survived anywhere. The speed with which their support collapsed and made way for equality has astonished even most us who worked for it.
In just under a decade since the pioneering Massachusetts breakthrough for equality in 2004, the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples has gone from something unimagined, by most people, to growing a reality — some might say even commonplace. Nine states plus the District of Columbia have legalized it, Rhode Island recognizes marriages performed elsewhere, and this trend shows no signs of stopping."
Who could trust a person who says they support same sex marriage, but also supports ChickFlick and it's anti gay positions and donations to legislators who authored anti gay bills.
"Stabbing Spree At Target Leaves 6 Wounded"
Customers subdued the assailant with baseball bats from the sports department, all survived.
Proof that a knife wielding nut is easier to tackle than a gun wielding nut; and deaths during a knife attack are MUCH less than deaths during a gun attack.
What do your gun nut readers say now?
I used to have a friend who starred on the soap "Days Of Our Lives". I watched it everyday. Then I didn't watch it once for six months. When I turned it back on, I realized I hadn't missed anything! Just had Deja Vu :-)
The handwriting is on the wall for opponents of this move toward basic fairness. But whether the Supremes will do the right thing or not remains to be seen. The court is on a knife edge, and is often blithely out of sync with American society.
Ultimately, a constitutional amendment might be required to settle the matter with finality. Given the large and growing support for gay marriage, an amendment seems doable. If the court rules in a negative way, it could provide the impetus needed to end this with a constitutional amendment.
Far to much time and effort spent on Gay marriage and abortion. If we spent half the resources on creating quality jobs we would be far better off.
There is suppose to be a division of church and state in this country so just accept the fact that killing the unborn is a personal choice as is who you sleep with and marry. Neither of these things should be regulated by the federalists.
"Far to much time and effort spent on Gay marriage and abortion."--skudrunner
That you can so easily dismiss an issue that deals with the very foundation of this country--equality under the law--reveals an underlying bigotry toward people you think should continue to endure less than full citizenship under the law.
That is deplorable and wholly unAmerican.
You apparently do NOT believe in the pledge of allegiance, especially the part that says "...with liberty and justice for all."
"Too much time" spent on fighting for that injustice?
Only in your narrow little world.
Wonders never ceasing, Skudrunner wrote, "Far to much time and effort spent on Gay marriage and abortion. If we spent half the resources on creating quality jobs we would be far better off."
Excellent observation, but you made it in the wrong place. Please write your Republican U.S. and state reps and senators. If you don't have any, write to Speaker John Boehner and other Republican leaders in Congress. They're the ones who've been wasting time and effort on anti-abortion legislation that's going nowhere, defending DOMA and ignoring and obstructing anything that might create jobs.
Ms Shaw
You blew a gasket over a post where I agree with you. If you read my post I said it is none of the federalists business and they should stay out of it. Abortion is the law and gay marriage is a personal choice.
Where did the not believing in the pledge of allegiance come from.
There is suppose to be a division between church and state but there is not. Religion should stay out of politics and politics should stay out of religion. I protested a few years ago because our voting place was a church and I felt that breached that divide. They changed it to a school.
I believe abortion and gay marriage are personal choices and the federalists should stay out of both.
That should read "fighting for that justice."
BTW, Massachusetts legalized marriage equality in May of 2004.
It has been 9 years since then, and for everyone's edification, Massachusetts marriages are not in any peril.
Massachusetts divorce rate has fallen and is the lowest in the USA.
Same sex marriage seems to have had a beneficial impact on marriage in our state.
That statement, of course, is meant to deflate the puffed-up argument that many people have given: That same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage.
In actuality, it is DIVORCE that destroys marriages and families. And I've never seen a movement on the part of evangelicals to end it for heterosexual couples.
Well Shaw you inject a valid observation with divorce. As difficult and destabilizing to a family as divorce is sometimes it is vastly preferable to the alternative.
In as much as the government should not prohibit divorce neither should it prohibit the right of one to marry whom one choses.
Whether gay marriage is legal or not will not impact the number of people who are gay or lesbion. But there is the question of "the pursuit of happiness." This natural right applies to all. It is, or at least should be, self evident.
The State should not be in the business of marriage at all. I should not have to pay for a license, give blood, or anything if I want to get married.
Marriage is a religious institution. If Churches want to marry gays, fine, if not, fine.
The kind of benefits like tax deductions for married couples should not be given by the State.
Certainly equality should be the rule.
Gay couples who cannot have a say in their partners medical care, death benefits, taxes, should be equal.
Life can be tough. Still, most of us, even those of us who struggle with early death of family members, cancer, prejudice, loss of a home, a business and a greater sense of security; often have more than we need.
I don’t find it necessary to be right all the time. I do want to be at peace. I control part two even with all the variables above in play!
Not too optimistic about this.
In a wider sense this is a generational issue and full marriage equality is going to have to wait for he younger set.
@? --- Marriage is a religious institution.
----
Sorry, marriage is a civil contract.
On this morning's news -- CBS local affiliate, I think -- I heard that 1183 benefits would be affected with the recognition of gay marriage. I can't recall which benefits were listed as the top four, but I do recall that health insurance was one of those four.
A homosexual couple was interviewed, and much was made of the possibility of their filing a joint return for the first time if the SCOTUS recognized gay marriage as legal; inheritance rights -- the estate exemption for a married couple -- were also mentioned. Something like "We worked all these years to build our business [a gay bar in D.C.], and whichever one of us dies first would like to pass along that money to the survivor."
I hear a lot about equal treatment under gay marriage, but the story on this morning's news focused on the financial benefits of gay marriage. Along with those financial benefits, of course, would come less money for the tax coffers. I think.
In any case, the issue of civil rights was nowhere to be found in the discussion that I heard this morning.
The financial benefits of marriage are a double-edged sword, particularly if one member of the couple starts running up medical bills such as my husband has done since 2009. I'm on the hook for those bills as long as we are married, and no assets that I had prior to the marriage are exempt.
@ Anon Dimbulb: "Proof that a knife wielding nut is easier to tackle than a gun wielding nut; and deaths during a knife attack are MUCH less than deaths during a gun attack.
What do your gun nut readers say now?"
I say you have obviously not looked at statistics of shootings. The vast majority are not "mass shootings," which make up a small fraction of 1% of all shootings.
The opposite lesson is what needs to be drawn. A murderous person can still take out multiple people without a gun.
A knife is very dangerous. This is why cops shoot a threatening knife wielder, and keep shooting, until the person goes down.
Does no one appreciate the incredible irony of congress -- the supposed representatives of the CITIZENRY as a WHOLE -- having abdicated their responsibility and handed over their authority to a de facto oligarchy of NINE quasi-DICTATORS in black robes?
Your right to pursue happiness -- my right to pursue happiness -- and the rights of any and all minorities to pursue happiness are now defined, determined, restricted and controlled by loose consensus among NINE little people each of whom steps into his trousers or her panties one leg at a time just like the rest of us.
Often it works out that FIVE little people in black robes determines the fate of a nation comprising more than THREE-HUNDRED MILLION souls.
Whether these de facto oligarchs do the "right thing" according to your understanding, or my understanding, or not is not -- nor should it be -- our main concern.
If we abandon the concept of Separation of Powers and permit any one of the three branches of government to assume dictatorial control over the others, we are in grave danger of losing our Representative Republic -- and thus losing any measure of control we, as citizens, have over the powers that govern us.
We may love this when it appears to work in "our" favor, but in abandoning Principle in favor of Sentiment -- even the noblest, most generous, most merciful, most high-minded sentiment -- we also abandon our Liberty.
This Gay Marriage issue might purport to be about achieving "equality" for a misunderstood, traditionally despised minority --- and I'm sure for many ill-informed individuals, who do not care about anything that does not appear to affect their little lives directly that is true --- but regardless of anyone's personal feelings and fondest wishes, the movement is rooted NOT in a passion for "Social Justice," but in a fiendish desire to assume DICTATORIAL POWER and thus the ability to push perceived ideological enemies around at will.
THREE RELEVANT QUOTATIONS from DISTINGUISHED SAGES:
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."
~ Socrates (470-399 B. C.)
"We can never be sure that the opinion we wish to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
~ John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
"The only prize much cared for by the powerful is power. The prize of the General is not a bigger tent, but command."
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought –– not free thought for those that agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
~ Oliver W. Holmes (1841-1935)
And finally an observation from Alexis de Tocqueville that ought to pique our interest and spur serious thought and sober conversation:
"Democratic nations care little for what has been but are haunted by visions of what will be . . . Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever on himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him to the solitude of his own heart."
~ Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
AOW: "I hear a lot about equal treatment under gay marriage, but the story on this morning's news focused on the financial benefits of gay marriage. Along with those financial benefits, of course, would come less money for the tax coffers. I think."
But this country gives financial benefits in the form of subsidies to mega-billion corporations. Wouldn't you say those benefits would impact our coffers more so than those from same-sex marriages?
Why should having more married people receive concern about the impact on our revenues? It is also true that many heteros choose not to marry. I don't know the numbers, so perhaps that would offset those same-sex couples who DO marry.
AOW: "In any case, the issue of civil rights was nowhere to be found in the discussion that I heard this morning."
If the same-sex couples were discussing financial benefits allowed to hetero married couples by LAW in the tax code, etc., then that is by definition a civil rights issue--because the LAW, local, state and federal allows those benefits.
Benefits are given to hetero married couples, but disallowed unless same-sex marriage is recognized in a state--and disallowed because of DOMA.
This is not constitutional. We do not condone discrimination against a group of people that are not in the majority.
AOW: "The financial benefits of marriage are a double-edged sword, particularly if one member of the couple starts running up medical bills such as my husband has done since 2009. I'm on the hook for those bills as long as we are married, and no assets that I had prior to the marriage are exempt."
I'm pretty sure that given the choice, same-sex couples would rather take that risk in order to be married. Afterall, you did.
Mr. Free Thinke,
I couldn't disagree more.
If left to the individual states, tell us how slavery, or anti-miscegenation laws would have fared?
There are some principles that are overarching and part of the very fabric of this country.
It is NOT dictatorial for a minority to expect equal treatment under our Constitution.
I detect something more than just disagreement in your answer. Especially when the word "despised" is used to describe homosexuals.
I don't know what sort of family you grew up in, but there was no such detestation of homosexuals--or for that matter, any minority--in our family.
I'm fortunate, I know. But I can say with complete truthfulness that I never heard my parents utter a nasty word about any religion or cultural group.
"You've got to be taught how to hate."
FT, I'm reminded of the very real dangers that exist when the individual must live under the tyranny of the majority.
Something many seem to be overlooking.
With all due repect FT, on this issue it is not those supporting marriage equality that are of a dictatorial mindset.
In answer to Ducky's comment:
"A CNN poll tells you all you need to know about the public’s view of the core argument on DOMA – that the feds have no right to choose which state-sanctioned civil marriages it recognizes:
In total, 56 percent of respondents supported federal legal recognition of same-sex marriage while 43 percent opposed it.
The breakdown among party affiliation and generation is stark. Admong those 18-34-years-old, 77 percent support federal recognition. Among those over 65-years-old, just 39 percent support it. Those in-between 34 and 65 hover around the 50 percent mark.
Along party lines, 75 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of independents and 28 percent of Republicans support recognition.
The GOP is increasingly isolated, with Independents closer to the Dems on this, and the next generation overwhelmingly for it. Meanwhile the fundamentalist base cannot change their minds – since their minds are made up by the Bible, not current reality. And the court’s seeming reluctance to end this debate will only prolong the agony. I think of this wedge boomerang as Karl Rove’s parting gift to the Republican coalition he played such a central part in destroying."
Maybe good news, Kennedy's questioning on the repeal of DOMA indicates he favors repeal.
It's likely just my opinion, but, this issue transcends partisan politics.
RN, I think what you mean is that this issue SHOULD transcend partisan politics; but as we all know, there are regions of this country that are very conservative and guided by religious dogma, not civil law.
@FT --- Does no one appreciate the incredible irony of congress -- the supposed representatives of the CITIZENRY as a WHOLE -- having abdicated their responsibility and handed over their authority to a de facto oligarchy of NINE quasi-DICTATORS in black robes?
----
In other words, the function of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution should be null and void, FT?
You aren't making sense.
Now, given the marriage contract as a civil contract regulated by the states and several states ruling that denial of the marriage contract to groups of people perfectly able to fulfill its requirements is arbitrary and a denial of equal protection, why are you against SCOTUS ruling on DOMA?
Equality? wrote: "The State should not be in the business of marriage at all. I should not have to pay for a license, give blood, or anything if I want to get married."
In some states and the District of Columbia, you don't. It's called common law marriage. Look it up.
FTR, for most, marriage can be entered into in a civil service performed by a justice of the peace, judge, mayor, governor, ship's captain, etc., or in a religious ceremony performed by a cleric. In either case, excepting common-law marriage, a license is required.
What I meant is the issue, in and of itself transcends paritian politics (as well as the religion(s) of man).
I recognize my remark is controversial. However, if mankind (humankind for the PC sensative) is to ever achieve full rational understanding thinking beyond 2 -6 thousand year old words of man founded in faith (mysticism) will be required. IMO.
Same problem "some States." It should not matter which State I live in. Rights of federal equality should apply no matter where I live.
Shaw,
About the financial disadvantages of marriage....
When we are young, we don't consider what can happen financially when chronic and debilitating illness strikes the one we love. How many of us realize what those financial burdens can entail in such a case -- when assets cannot be separated? State laws vary on this matter, but here in Virginia, all of the couples assets, regardless of origin, are on the table so as to pay medical bills.
In the case of my father-in-law, he tended my mother-in-law, who has Alzheimer's, for over two decades. Finally, the day came when she had to go into a facility.
When my father-in-law remarried a few years later, he specifically avoided marriage per se precisely because of the financial implications should his new wife fall ill. So, they "married" via a civil union that will not require that he liquidate his assets for her medical care, should she need that care. I don't know if all states have that kind of civil union, but apparently California does.
BTW, time and again, I was advised to divorce Mr. AOW -- for financial reasons directly related to his medical care. The issue, of course, was paying for residency in a long-term care facility. The one that Mr. AOW was in cost about 4
15,000/month in 2009.
Oh, and one more thing....Financial ruin can also ensue if one's spouse is in a car accident if that accident results in a law suit that exceeds that amount of insurance coverage. Again, all assets of the couple are on the table.
Shaw,
All tax breaks, whatever they are, originate from statutes enacted by Congress and administered by the IRS.
In my view, the flat tax for individuals (no exemptions, no deductions) may be the fairest to all. But I know of nobody who wants that kind of flat tax -- particularly if it affects the mortgage-interest deduction, the child tax credit, medical deductions, etc.
The flat tax on business would be more problematic. Gross receipts and net income are often quite different. Local governments, BTW, do tax gross receipts but at a mere 1% or less; property owned by the business, property used in record keeping or to generate income, is also taxed -- my cell phone, my computer, etc. I'm sure that all we who are in business could cut back on what we buy as business property -- cheaper computers, for example -- but such a cut back would have a domino effect on the economy.
What I do have a problem with when it comes to corporations: all those bonuses to pencil pushers.
Curious how a snapshot of public opinion, under a comment posted earlier, somehow ended up assimilated into another comment. My interest was in showing a change in public opinion over time, including the demographic spread along age, partisan, denominational and geographic lines. All very predictable stuff except for the underlying legal argument …
Inalienable rights! “Inalienable” as in above the mood swings of public opinion, and beyond bigotry, prejudice, hysteria and mob rule. As Jessie Ventura once stated so succinctly: “If civil rights were left to public opinion, we’d still have slavery.”
Politics may bring certain issues to the forefront for public debate; opinion may change over time; however, all matters of jurisprudence will end up bereft of politics and decided on the basis of Constitution Law – specifically under the “equal protection” provision. Bottom line: The anti-gay side has run out of arguments.
I am surprised how uninformed Free Thinke seems about the fundamental workings of American government. The operant words are “balance of power.” The SCOTUS was not envisioned to be a “de facto oligarchy” but a hedge against the caprice of the executive branch and the “mob rule” of Congress – subject to foundations of Law as set forth in the Constitution.
To parse a quotation offered earlier by Free Thinke (March 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM) within this context…
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." Socrates (470-399 B. C.)
… the pointe of this quote being a vector that points back to Free Thinke, who chooses to validate only his own viewpoint.
BTW, Free Thinke, didn't you know? According to historical accounts, Socrates was purportedly gay.
AOW, I'll go way off topic with you just long enough to explain that the flat tax is tailor made to reward the rich for being rich and punish everyone else for not being rich. Republicans like Steve Forbes, the Koch bros. and Mitt Romney reach a near orgasmic state just thinking about it.
Republicans have been peddling this crackpot idea for a long time, and they've suckered some of the rubes into yet another means of going against their own (the rubes') interests. Please don't assist in this process.
SW, how is it that the fair tax punishes the poor. It does appear that you have neglected to read how the fair tax is constructed.
Nothing favors the rich more than the current tax code. The rich can position themselves to pay no taxes, the Kennedy's are a good example. The rich take care of themselves, the poor are taken care of and the middle class supports them both.
The fair tax is truly the only "Fair" tax because you are taxed on what you spend not income you can hide. It would also tax the underground economy and actually increase government revenue. The one aspect of the fair tax that is it's doom is it takes away the ability of our elected crooks to punish anyone by confiscating their income to buy votes.
S.W. Anderson,
I'll go way off topic with you just long enough to explain that the flat tax is tailor made to reward the rich for being rich and punish everyone else for not being rich.
If you are so inclined, please clarify.
In my own observation and my own experience with various tax matters, the structure of the present exemptions and deductions also severely impacts those of us in the middle class -- particularly the lower middle class.
"...the Kennedy's are a good example."
better example is the car elevator and Cayman Island, Swiss bank account- tax sheltering Romneys...but the skudrunner ignores that blatant example of the extremely rich not paying their taxes....
About the double-edged sword that I mentioned above (from Reuters: Gay marriage rights may carry bigger U.S. tax burden for some
Looks to be a balanced analysis.
"LOL Anonymous said..that blatant example of the extremely rich not paying their taxes"
I am glad you agree with me and clarified something. I always thought the Kennedy's were rich.
AOW is spot on, the current tax codes punish the middle class far more then the "rich", Rich or poor. No politician has the stones to change it because they would lose power.
AOW, I read the article you linked to, and it seems that the benefits outweigh any downside to repealing DOMA.
If hetero marriages do not find it burdensome in filing tax returns as marrieds, then I expect same-sex couples' experience will be the same.
AOW,
Why is the worth of any public debate always measured and weighed in terms of money? This is not about money; it is about equality and human rights - and you cannot put a price tag on that. The link isn't even worth a click in time.
(O)ct(o)pus,
The link isn't even worth a click in time.
Suit yourself.
I was trying to engage in a reasoned discussion.
I tell you this....I've come very close to medical bankruptcy. I have seen the dragon!
Money may not seem important, but it turns out to be if medical catastrophe strikes. See THIS PERSONAL STORY, and you then might have an understanding of why I'm concerned about money matters.
AOW... Octo is, above all else consistent in his views. Which, IMO are more often than not based in a idealistic view of how things ought to be.
No offense meant Octo, just an observation. AOW, has always been a reasonable commenter and brings a lot to the table.
Rational Nation,
Thank you for your kind words.
I DO attempt to understand views hat may not be in agreement with my own. It's "the learner" in this old teacher.
AOW,
My sympathies for your situation; it is not the first time I have encountered thus cluster suck. A family I know faced a similar situation years ago: A father with Parkinson's, and a bureaucracy hell bent on bankrupting them in exchange for medical services. Worse than a Hobson's choice.
Short of divorce to protect family assets, perhaps there needs to be a legal concept that severs the assets of one spouse from total marital assets to protect the financial viability of the other.
Nonetheless, there are separate issues operating here. A couple may elect to co-habitation instead of marriage to avoid this trap. On the other hand, why should a gay married couple be denied rights and benefits that a straight married couple receives - contrary to the equal protection clause.
One issue involves traps and loopholes that need to be fixed; the other is a matter of human rights and equal rights for which no price tag can be attached.
(O)CT(O),
Short of divorce to protect family assets, perhaps there needs to be a legal concept that severs the assets of one spouse from total marital assets to protect the financial viability of the other.
Indeed!
Laws do vary from state to state, but not by much.
Catastrophic illness is not limited to the elderly. Not by a long shot.
Today, I read Time Magazine's article on the progression of gay rights in America. Apparently, one of the issues is health-insurance benefits for gay partners -- particularly as related to AIDS. But many (not limited to those who are gay), even now may not be aware of the limitations of these policies. The restrictions on long-term care, in a facility or at home, are many! At the same time, if the partners are married as opposed to co-habiting, the assets of the partner who is not ill are on the table.
Nonetheless, there are separate issues operating here.
Not completely separate.
I venture to say that were more people aware of the financial horrors that too often ensue as a result of marrying, we will see more people of whatever sexual orientation opting not to marry -- particularly if civil unions will confer certain benefits without the drawbacks I have mentioned.
As I mentioned to Shaw at another site, the solution may be to have marriage as a religious ceremony only -- that is, a ceremony that has no standing in the eyes of the state but rather only for the body of believers of that particular religion.
What to do about the legal recognition of Islamic and fundamental LDS polygamy -- well, that's another matter. Most Western nations recognize only one legal partner at a time.
PS: I'm not sure how the $500,000 tax exemption for the sale of a home belonging to a married couple would work if the civil union I mentioned about were to become the norm. There are many additional benefits restricted to married couples only, of course.
PPS: The matter of the equal protection clause is a significant matter. On the other hand, those without children do not have equal tax benefits as compared to those without children. I mention this because Mr. AOW and I never had children.
My guess is that the SCOTUS will, in the course of deliberations, be considering a lot of matters besides what seems to be a simple matter in theory -- the matter of equal protection, I mean. I'm one of those people who is ever wary of the law of unintended consequences.
Post a Comment