October 18, 2012

2d Circuit Court of Appeals holds the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

This comes in addition to a similar decision from the First Circuit last May.

The case was bought by a woman whose wife — wife, under New York law — had died. The surviving spouse wants to qualify for a deduction in federal estate tax law. Having the marriage unrecognized under DOMA cost this poor woman — who'd been with her partner for 44 years — $363,053 extra dollars in taxes.
Judge Dennis Jacobs, who wrote the majority opinion, said the federal law was “not related to an important government interest,” concluding that “homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.”
ADDED: Here's the opinion (PDF). The language quoted above signaled that the court decided to heighten the level of scrutiny to what's called the "intermediate" level (below "strict" scrutiny and above "minimal" scrutiny), and in fact that is what I'm seeing in the text. The court recognizes that The Supreme Court has never explicitly raised the level of scrutiny. It was cryptic in Lawrence v. Texas, and it's nice to see the 2d Circuit openly take on the subject of whether to heighten scrutiny, instead of the usual bumbling along at the minimal scrutiny level:

1. Has this group "been historically 'subjected to discrimination'"? A "yes" here supports heightened scrutiny.
Perhaps the most telling proof of animus and discrimination against homosexuals in this country is that, for many years and in many states, homosexual conduct was criminal. These laws had the imprimatur of the Supreme Court...
2. Does this group have have "a defining characteristic" that "frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society"? This is a reason not to heighten scrutiny (and it explains why there is no heightened scrutiny for the mentally disabled and for the old).
The aversion homosexuals experience has nothing to do with aptitude or performance.
3. "Is there obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group?" "Yes" here favors heightened scrutiny.
We conclude that homosexuality is a sufficiently discernible characteristic to define a discrete minority class.... [Defendants] argue that sexual orientation is not necessarily fixed, suggesting that it may change over time, range along a continuum, and overlap (for bisexuals). But the test is broader: whether there are “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define . . . a discrete group.”... What seems to matter is whether the characteristic of the class calls down discrimination when it is manifest....  "[T]he Supreme Court is willing to treat a trait as effectively immutable if changing it would involve great difficulty, such as requiring a major physical change or a traumatic change of identity.”
4. Is the group “a minority or politically powerless"?
The question is not whether homosexuals have achieved political successes over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether they have the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful discrimination. When the Supreme Court ruled that sex-based classifications were subject to heightened scrutiny in 1973, the Court acknowledged that women had already achieved major political victories... The Court was persuaded nevertheless that women still lacked adequate political power, in part because they were “vastly underrepresented in this Nation’s decisionmaking councils,”  including the presidency, the Supreme Court, and the legislature.... [I]t is safe to say that the seemingly small number of acknowledged homosexuals so situated is attributable either to a hostility that excludes them or to a hostility that keeps their sexual preference private--which, for our purposes, amounts to much the same thing. Moreover, the same considerations can be expected to suppress some degree of political activity by inhibiting the kind of open association that advances political agendas....

Analysis of these four factors supports our conclusion that homosexuals compose a class that is subject to heightened scrutiny. We further conclude that the class is quasi-suspect (rather than suspect) based on the weight of the factors and on analogy to the classifications recognized as suspect and quasi-suspect. While homosexuals have been the target of significant and long-standing discrimination in public and private spheres, this mistreatment “is not sufficient to require ‘our most exacting scrutiny.’”

182 comments:

AJ Lynch said...

Collect more in taxes so he can re-distribute the money as he sees fit or pander to the gay voters? That will be a tough call for Obama.

Quayle said...

In the mind's eye, Horatio.

Constitutional rights in the mind's eye.

Andy R. said...

How much money have Boehner and the Republicans wasted defending this discriminatory law?

chickelit said...

Andy S. wrote:
How much money have Boehner and the Republicans wasted defending this discriminatory law?

If you're right then perhaps SCOTUS should refuse to hear any of it as well for the same reason--waste of resources. You can sit around and stare at decisis.

Bob Ellison said...

I'm curious about the numbers and tax treatment. Is this estate tax? If so, the estate would have to be way north of five million dollars. I haven't found the information online. It's odd and unseemly that the reporters don't talk about how this all occurred. Maybe I missed something obvious.

Andy R. said...

It's 1.5 million so far, but good guess.

Just think how money has been spent fighting against gay equality in the United States. Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

And at the end of the day, the gays are going to win and people are going to think that Christians are a bunch of bigots that care more about spending money to oppress gay people than to help those in need.

gregq said...

concluding that “homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.”

Translation: The voters don't agree with me. Screw the voters.

dbp said...

"Having the marriage unrecognized under DOMA cost this poor woman — who'd been with her partner for 44 years — $363,053 extra dollars in taxes."

DOMA is a lot newer than 44 years. How can a law that passed 16 years ago have made it illegal for these ladies to marry 44 years ago?

Q said...

Judge Dennis Jacobs, who wrote the majority opinion, said the federal law was “not related to an important government interest,” concluding that “homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.”


Aren't "important government interests" supposed to be defined by, you know, the government?

How is any of this any business of the courts, other than that they want it to be?

chickelit said...

Andy S. opines: And at the end of the day, the gays are going to win and people are going to think that Christians are a bunch of bigots that care more about spending money to oppress gay people than to help those in need.

To be fair you have to count the money given by gays to political candidates which could have been spent on those in (material) need. It's a two-sided, symmetrical money pit which sucks from both sides. Althouse used to have a commenter who said he'd keep giving money to "the cause" but would only draw the line at establishing quotas for gays.

Q said...

How much money have Boehner and the Republicans wasted defending this discriminatory law?


Hello, you fascist fuck. Every law is discriminatory.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Better idea. Eliminate the Estate Tax.

All of the legalizing of same sex marriage at the State level means nothing until the Federal statutes are changed. IRS taxation as Married, Estate Taxes for married versus unmarried heirs, Social Security continuation for the spouse. Those things are completely unaffected by State law.

I believe that once this gets to the Supreme Court they will find FOR the same sex marriage partner's rights to be treated the same under Federal taxation laws. It is only fair.

“homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.”

As a former financial advisor, I can say yes and no to the above statement. They CAN protect themselves, through legal remedies, trusts etc. However, it is not as easy and is more expensive.

Shouting Thomas said...

Seems to me that the inheritance issue can be fixed without referring to gay partnerships as "marriage."

Andy R. said...

Have the bigots ever won in court? I understand how it's possible to use scare tactics at the ballot box, but when the bigots try to go before a judge they always get called out for having nothing but ignorance and hate behind their claims.

Shouting Thomas said...

And, yes, eliminating the Estate Tax is one way to do that.

Shouting Thomas said...

Have the bigots ever won in court?

You never do anything except call names, Andy.

Which is why I call you names in return.

You are an absolutely intolerant, sanctimonious fuck.

Paddy O said...

"people are going to think that Christians are a bunch of bigots"

A Roman Emperor could not be reached for comment.

chickelit said...

@Andy: To be honest, your vaunted cause has a lots of PR damage control to undo as well: things like trying to normalize door knob licking as political expediancy; over-the-top bashing and trashing of chicken restaurants; and generic bashing of religion without specific cause, etc., etc. But until you face those realities, I welcome your continual bigoted rants because they help Mitt Romney.

Andy R. said...

over-the-top bashing and trashing of chicken restaurants

How many Chick-fil-A franchises do you think will be shut down in the next six months because of their support for bigotry?

Shouting Thomas said...

How many Chick-fil-A franchises do you think will be shut down in the next six months because of their support for bigotry?

I hope you get your ass sued off for these kinds of extortion tactics, asshole.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

How many Chick-fil-A franchises do you think will be shut down in the next six months because of their support for bigotry?

None. Or maybe one.

cubanbob said...

In the Massachusetts appellate decision from earlier this year, Judge Michael Boudin wrote about the court’s concerns over Congress’s “effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.”



Interesting observation in light of the courts putting it's thumb on the scales as well. Considering the majority of the states do not permit same sex marriage until that issue is resolved by the supreme court these appellate decisions are premature.

Andy R. said...

None. Or maybe one.

Only if they cave into activist pressure first and stop supporting bigotry.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, there you have it.

Something about this issue brings out the extortionist, fascist tendencies of the left with a vengeance.

As far as I know, the only complaint ever levied against Chick-fil-A was that people disagree with the owner's opinions.

This lowlife shit, Andy, thinks he has the right to damage somebody's business because the owner doesn't agree with his opinions.

What a lowlife fuck is this kid.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Andy supports punishing innocent people and ruining their lives, (the franchise owner, the employees) because the owners of the company hold private religious views which do not affect the day to day running of their business and in no way affect or discriminate against their customers.

Because some one somewhere has a personal opinion that offends but doesn't affect Andy...other people must be destroyed.

Now who is the bigot? Who is the intolerant asshole? I think we can guess.

Shouting Thomas said...

Only if they cave into activist pressure first and stop supporting bigotry.

In other words, the owner isn't entitled to his opinion, and this little Nazi fuck wants to damage his business because he doesn't agree with the Godlike Andy.

What a piece of shit you are, Andy.

chickelit said...

How many Chick-fil-A* franchises do you think will be shut down in the next six months because of their support for bigotry?

If you had had it your way? All of them. You also got Rahm Emmanual to go along with it too. That's why opposition is needed, Andy--to oppose the over-the-top aspects.
________________________
*Full disclosure: I have yet to eat at a Chick-fil-A.

Andy R. said...

Because some one somewhere has a personal opinion that offends but doesn't affect Andy

You should educate yourself about Chick-fil-A before you talk about it because saying incorrect things like this makes you seem like an ignorant bigot.

Shouting Thomas said...

You should educate yourself about Chick-fil-A before you talk about it because saying incorrect things like this makes you seem like an ignorant bigot.

Jesus, what a fucking Nazi you are, Andy.

Seig Heil!

Oso Negro said...

Polygamists are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public. The days of you twoist bastards are numbered!

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm going to make it a point to start patronizing Chick-Fil-A. I'm going to advise my friends to do so, also.

Eat shit, you little Nazi!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

OK Andy. 'splain to me how the personal opinions of the owners of Chic fil A are oppressing you personally and why the lives and jobs of innocent bystanders should be destroyed.

If you enter a restaurant, act like a normal well behaved person (not as a disruptive asshole who should be thrown out no matter what your sexual orientation is), you order a sandwich and you are served. What is your problem?

jimbino said...

Great decision! Now when are we going to grant singles the same rights?

Granting marriage rights to homosexuals merely crowds the gummint tit, from which singles are still excluded.

Now, how about a prohibition on any and all mention of sex or marital status of a person in any law of the land?

Bob Ellison said...

Oso Negro, you threeists are so fourteenth century. I recently turned around three times and married the entire world. No estate tax going on here.

Shouting Thomas said...

Now, let's get back to the subject matter at hand.

Of course, the inheritance laws should not punish people who are in gay partnerships.

Seems to me that that law change be changed, or that the Inheritance Tax can be eliminated.

I don't see why the legal and traditional definitions of marriage need to be amended to accomplish this.

Shouting Thomas said...

OK Andy. 'splain to me how the personal opinions of the owners of Chic fil A are oppressing you personally and why the lives and jobs of innocent bystanders should be destroyed.

Andy's position is that he's a Nazi fuck. Seig heil, Andy!

MayBee said...

So is this woman using her sexual identity to avoid paying her fair share of taxes?


Bob Ellison said...

jimbino, if you're a oneist (sp?), at least say so. One is the loneliest number that you ever do.

Rumpletweezer said...

Andy--

When everybody around you says you're drunk, you better sit down.

Andy R. said...

Chick-fil-A donates its money to groups trying to oppress gay people. Chick-fil-A funds hate. That seems pretty objectionable to me.

Shouting Thomas said...

So is this woman using her sexual identity to avoid paying her fair share of taxes?

This is, in itself, an interesting question.

Since declaring yourself gay actually promotes you to the top of the quota system in many businesses, what proof of gayness is required?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Let's say the deceased was an unmarried single mom with perhaps just one dependent adult child, who she had supported for 44 years.

That child still has to pay the $365,053. What makes the claim of the gay spouse for equitable relief stronger?

And who's to say that the idea of marriage only encompassing romantic relations ships isn't equally narrow-minded.

Shouting Thomas said...

Chick-fil-A donates its money to groups trying to oppress gay people. Chick-fil-A funds hate. That seems pretty objectionable to me.

Translation of the Little Nazi Fuck's statement:

The owner of Chick-fil-A belongs to and supports political organizations that the Little Nazi Fuck disagrees with.

So the Little Nazi Fuck feels justified in trying to damage the owner's business.

MayBee said...

Andy R- do you ever go to Persian restaurants or get doner kebabas?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Of course, the inheritance laws should not punish people who are in gay partnerships.

Seems to me that that law change be changed, or that the Inheritance Tax can be eliminated.

I don't see why the legal and traditional definitions of marriage need to be amended to accomplish this.


Exactly. The issue is that the Estate Tax doesn't allow the single person or the same sex partner, who is counted for Federal Tax purposes as a single person [not married].

Each person gets a unified credit amount. Married people can, IF they structure their estate properly, use both credits. Many married people screw this up too and lose the second credit and are in the same boat as a singleton.

Same sex couples can also structure their estates to their advantage. It just isn't quite as easy.

However, to whine about your lack of foresight and inability to plan ahead, doesn't get much sympathy from me.

And. I agree. If the tax laws are the problem....change THOSE and not every other law regarding marriage which has nothing to do with the tax, inheritance or other issues that are the bone of contention.

Andy R. said...

Anyway, I suspect this is a bit of a moot point and that Chick-fil-A is going to stop funding Christian hate groups rather than lose business.

Shouting Thomas said...

Anyway, I suspect this is a bit of a moot point and that Chick-fil-A is going to stop funding Christian hate groups rather than lose business.

All groups that disagree with Andy are "hate groups."

You're a Nazi, Andy.

Synova said...

Or we could, you know, stop stealing people's stuff when they die.

Our government shouldn't have the right to go through the pockets of every corpse or taking the dead person's boots on the theory they don't need them no more.

Andy R. said...

Being called names by bigots lets me know I'm doing something right.

Shouting Thomas said...

My guess is that Nazi Andy is talking about two separate entities here, although the stupid fuck doesn't know it.

Entity #1 is Chick-fil-A, which I assume is an incorporated business.

Entity #2 is the owner of Chick-fil-A, who is an individual who is entitled to his political opinions.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Left Bank is absolutely correct.

A single person who dies with the same estate size as the woman in our topic, would pay the same amount in Estate Taxes....because she has only ONE exemption.

Perhaps she should have married her own child and then she could set up an A/B Trust arrangement and save on the taxes?

If we are going to allow men to marry men and women to marry women. Why not brothers and sisters? Aunts and nephews? Fathers and daughters?

??? Hmmmm.???

Shouting Thomas said...

Being called names by a Nazi fuck like you lets me know that I'm doing right.

Methadras said...

Wait, I don't understand something in that quote. Is the majority opinion that homosexual or heterosexual marriage is "not related to an important government interest". Is it either or or? So if DOMA is not related to an important government interest, then wouldn't the endgame in this opinion be that marriage regardless is not a beneficial government interest at all and therefore should have government protection of any kind? Will tax law follow in that regard as well?

MayBee said...

Andy R reminds me of a guy I saw in CA recently.

We were outside at an In-And-Out, which, as usual, had a huge line of cars in the take out lane.

The order girl walked up to an SUV, and the guy driving the car placed his order and then said in an angry tone, "And I don't want any of your John 3:16 stuff".
The girl looked confused and bemused, but smiled pleasantly and went on to the next car.

What kind of jerk does that? If he didn't want to go to In-And-Out, he didn't have to. But they never ever ever say anything about religion when you go. This guy just couldn't stand the religion of the owners.

Nomennovum said...

If gays want marriage, they're welcome to it. They'll find that 50% of the time it's an emotional and financial nightmare.

The Western Curse: May you have an interesting marriage.

Methadras said...

“homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.”

This statement makes zero sense. Homosexuals as individuals have the same rights that individual heterosexuals do. To say that heterosexuals can't adequately protect themselves from the wishes of the majority view is absurd. What is the point of voting then? What is the point of state initiatives/referendums then if people and/or their ideas can't be voted on because they might be discriminatory. There is discrimination in laws everywhere. This is madness and nonsense all at once.

wyo sis said...

When the socialist/fascist state that Andy welcomes with open arms comes to pass I wonder how hateful it will be toward teh gays. Check with history's previous socialist/fascist states for the answer to that.

Shouting Thomas said...

What kind of jerk does that?

A jerk like Andy.

Andy R. said...

What kind of jerk does that? If he didn't want to go to In-And-Out, he didn't have to.

I love In-n-Out, and since they don't donate money to hate groups, I don't have a problem with them.

MayBee said...


“homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public.”


Are people with high-value estates in a position to adquately protect themselves from the majoritarian public?

Are millionairesandbillionaires making $200,000+/ year?

Shouting Thomas said...

I love In-n-Out, and since they don't donate money to hate groups, I don't have a problem with them.

Translations of the Little Nazi Fuck's statement:

The owner of In-n-Out doesn't have the right to use his income from his business to fund groups that advocate for his political position, if it differes from the Little Nazi Fuck's opinions.

Seig Heil, Andy!

Synova said...

We've got a Chick Fil A on campus. The line at lunch is just as long as all the others. The kids just don't care.

Andy R. said...

Synova: what school?

Ambrose said...

$363,053 extra dollars in estate taxes? That must be some estate! She and her partner didn't build that estate. I say they should pay it forward!

Ambrose said...

$363,053 extra dollars in estate taxes? That must be some estate! She and her partner didn't build that estate. I say they should pay it forward!

AJ Lynch said...

Synova said something brilliant:

"Or we could, you know, stop stealing people's stuff when they die. Our government shouldn't have the right to go through the pockets of every corpse or taking the dead person's boots on the theory they don't need them no more."

Well done Synove. This is the comment of the week IMHO!

Shouting Thomas said...

Synova: what school?

Don't tell the Little Nazi Fuck.

He'll try to extort the owner.

Andy R. said...

Synova: I also hope you appreciate the irony of your comment about how the majority of students don't care about an issue that is harming a minority of students, which occurred in a thread about a judicial decision that discussed how the minority might need to be protected from the majority.

Shouting Thomas said...

Andy, you Little Nazi Fuck,

The owner of Chick-Fil-A disagree with your political opinions doesn't harm anybody.

You are the one who is seeking to deliberately harm another person.

That would be the owner of Chick-Fil-A.

Synova said...

Yeah, like I'm going to invite ass holes to my school.

Nomennovum said...

"All of the legalizing of same sex marriage at the State level means nothing until the Federal statutes are changed. IRS taxation as Married, Estate Taxes for married versus unmarried heirs, Social Security continuation for the spouse."

Look, married men and women get the tax benefits from the government because -- as originally envisioned -- society wants to encourage men and women to marry, fuck, and produce more nice little taxpayers and good citizens. Gays cant't do this.

So fuck it. Give 'em marriage and then get government out of the marriage business. In seeking ever to increase its hold on us, Government deserves a lot of the blame for destroying the institution anyway.

Maybe after we give the sheep fuckers and the bigamists marriage, we can finally rebuild out of the wreckage.

Andy R. said...

I was just curious if it was a Sodexo campus or not.

Synova said...

The Students don't Care. It's all about taking other people's choices away from them. Force and enforcement. Punish the people You don't like.

wyo sis said...

Andy
Starbucks donates its money to groups trying to advocate against people. Starbucks funds hate. That seems pretty objectionable to me.

Shouting Thomas said...

Here's what's really going on with Andy. This has been obvious to me for some time.

People really do hate the little bastard. He's attributing this to his gaydom, when in fact, the problem is just that he's a nasty little piece of work.

The indoctrination he got in the school system set him off on this path of blaming his rancid personality and loathsome behavior on his gaydom.

The kid has a "Kick Me!" sign taped to his ass. He thinks somebody else did it. He's unaware that he taped the sign on his own ass.

Shouting Thomas said...

I was just curious if it was a Sodexo campus or not.

She just told you, Andy, that she doesn't want an asshole like you on her campus.

Synova said...

The irony, Andy, is that if I had my way everyone would be equally protected. No matter who they were.

It's not discrimination against gays that hurt this lady. It's the compulsive need people have to steal from the rich. Can't let any one inherit anything without paying uncle Sam. The bigger government is the more oppressive it is.

Michael said...

I am in favor of gay marriage for a number of reasons, but I submit that it will not be marriage marriage which is, of course, between a man and a woman. The gays can call it marriage, the state can call it marriage, but it won't be marriage. Gays can have the right to the ceremony and to adopting kids and driving car pool and coaching kids and getting divorces and paying alimony and child support and all the other things modern marriage requires. But they won't be married. And they know they won't be married.

dbp said...

If the one campus Chick-Fil-A I ate at is any indication (at NC-State in case Andy is curious). The campus outlets are hurting the brand. The quality of food there was significantly lower than the food-court one I haunt in Nashua. Or to be more accurate, the Pheasant Lane one is excellent and the campus one is merely very good.

edutcher said...

Hmmm,

By the time this hits SCOTUS, the Romster may have appointed a couple of new Justices.

How many wise Latinas or Short Shortstops are going to be on his list?

Andy R. said...

It's 1.5 million so far, but good guess.

Just think how money has been spent fighting against gay equality in the United States. Tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?

And at the end of the day, the gays are going to win and people are going to think that Christians are a bunch of bigots that care more about spending money to oppress gay people than to help those in need.


Somebody tell Hatman, the Christians (and the Jews and the Moslems) are the people.

Which is why the homosexuals always lose, unless they can get their case in front of a Lefty appellate court judge.

Michael said...

"Chick-fil-A donates its money to groups trying to oppress gay people. Chick-fil-A funds hate. That seems pretty objectionable to me. "

This is not true, of course.

Synova said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...


It's not discrimination against gays that hurt this lady. It's the compulsive need people have to steal from the rich. Can't let any one inherit anything without paying uncle Sam. The bigger government is the more oppressive it is.


That is so good, Synova.

I do not understand people basing the gay marriage argument on the tax punishment argument turning around and voting for the party who insists on some amorphous idea of "fair share" of taxes.

You're gay and you don't want to pay more taxes? That gives you common ground with all the other people who don't want to pay more taxes.
Let's work starting from that reality.

chickelit said...

Andy R. scolds Synova: I also hope you appreciate the irony of your comment about how the majority of students don't care about an issue that is harming a minority of students, which occurred in a thread about a judicial decision that discussed how the minority might need to be protected from the majority.

You derailed the thread by going all sanctimoniously parsimonious so blame yourself!

Fr Martin Fox said...

Andy:

I want to be sure I understand you, so please humor a question whose answer may seem obvious:

Do you refrain from doing business with Chick-Fil-A, and is it (at least in part) because what the company, or the owner, is doing, deeply offends you? You don't want to be a party to it?

I respect that--but again, I don't want to assume. Is that your position?

Nomennovum said...

Believe me, giving marriage to homosexuals is giving them the sharp end of a single-edged sword. It will cost the rest of us nothing, because its value is negligible. There are few gays to being with, and fewer who will get married. Most of the gay marriages that do occur will be over by the time the groom and groom reach the bottom of the court house steps.

Soon every freak-show clown group will agitate for this "right," and its nelgible value will decline to zero.

"When everyone is married then no one will be." -- Syndrome


Besides, if we give marriage to gays, this will be the last thing they'll ask for. Right? I mean, what could be next? This is it. There is nothing more they could possibly ask for.

edutcher said...

PS Last I hear, Chick-Fil-A floated that offer of non-support only as a bargaining chip to get a location in Chi-town.

And I haven't seen any protests at the one near us.

garage mahal said...

Who gives a shit where other people buy a chicken sandwich?

Nomennovum said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nomennovum said...

"Who gives a shit where other people buy a chicken sandwich?"

Dumb question. The answer, of course, is "liberals."

Aridog said...

In my opinion, *estate taxes* are a load of manure. Why does your government have a vested interest in your death? What government services are consumed by your death? What failure to act on your part entitles government to any of the previously taxedproceeds of your life?

Gift taxes are similar government capricious vestment in your capital, that demands you create myriad corporate formations in order to share your good fortune if you choose to without being excessively taxed (the giver pays, BTW) for the largess.

If you can read IRS Publication 950, vis a vis "gift taxes" without your eyes glazing over...Nurse Ratchet has a spot for you.

I've read right here on these thread pages about a guy who wishes to pass his good fortune along to others, employees among them in fact, at the time of his demise. As of this week, per comments here, he still hasn't found a tax favorable means to do so. THAT f'ing situation makes sense? Makes you want to run outside and slap somebody's momma.

Any inheritance, or gift, will be invested or spent, creating potentially more tax income and/or transaction tax revenue at all levels. There fore is it just plain illogically stupid to tax the inheritance per se under the assumption the government can do better with half or more of it.

And spare me the bit about hiding wages as gifts if untaxed...that's crap if the NLRB is run honestly.

Beyond that, "this poor woman" had to have inherited around $4.31 Million to owe $366K at 2009 federal estate tax rates of 45% less $3.5 Million initial exclusion.

An unfair tax, a stupid tax, but the "poor" adjective is comical when talking about $4+ Million estates, eh?

rhhardin said...

She's free to marry a man like every every woman.

Nomennovum said...

"I respect that--but again, I don't want to assume. Is that your position?"

I sense a trap ...

dbp said...

""Who gives a shit where other people buy a chicken sandwich?"

Dumb question. The answer, of course, is "liberals.""

In fairness to Garage, he is one liberal who would seem to be an exception in this case.

GulfofMexico said...

Novennovum,

Amen. Perhaps the best case is total annihilation of the institution by allowing everyone in. Then we can start over.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you can read IRS Publication 950, vis a vis "gift taxes" without your eyes glazing over...Nurse Ratchet has a spot for you.

Uh oh. I'm in trouble.

bagoh20 said...

44 years? The state was with her for her whole life, They deserve it more.
She didn't build that.

Renee said...



"Family structure determines how societies handle relatedness and reproduction issues, Fortunato says. Understanding these practices and their evolutionary implications is a prerequisite for a theory of human behavior."

Marriage in different forms addresses this issue, but when marriage is simply a civil union between two people of differing or same gender it NO LONGER addresses this issue. Not only no longer discussing about it in public policy, but if marriage is undone culturally, we will have no language to even express that idea.

As a society we can discuss differing forms of family structure, but family structure ascends and descends, and that requires at least one of each sex (male and female).


So if the government has NO fundamental interest in marriage defined as a man and a woman, then why would have an interest in a same-sex relationship?

Renee said...

Can we just get rid of all marriage/cohabitation laws between adults, and instead rely on paternity affidavits?

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

over-the-top bashing and trashing of chicken restaurants

How many Chick-fil-A franchises do you think will be shut down in the next six months because of their support for bigotry?


Do you have these thoughts inbetween bouts of fellatio or during?

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

I love In-n-Out


Stunning news. Water has been reportedly to now be wet.

Chip Ahoy said...

I've read right here on these thread pages about a guy who wishes to pass his good fortune along to others, employees among them in fact, at the time of his demise.

These things are handled while living by any number of means.

I just made that up because I've seen it done a number of ways.

4 examples come to mind while reading that. King Arthur flour; Fred Bruce and Randy; What Toni Decker's parents did; twins Ed ad Doug Merrill and their two sisters, one toxic the other sweetly anodyne. But those are long stories, wanna hear them, okay one-by-one goes like this: It all started way back

Hey! Who did that?

Nomennovum said...

"Not only no longer discussing about it in public policy, but if marriage is undone culturally, we will have no language to even express that idea." -- Renee

I think our religious instituions, out of the state-caused wreckage of marriage, should exercise their 1st Amendment rights to exclude government from doing anything -- pro or con -- with the churches' sacraments and create (or have born again) a new sacrament representing the union of man and woman.

I like the Firefly series. In one episode, a lovely young character (Saffron) duplicitously married Mal. She used the word "cleave" to describe the sexual union of man and wife. I think the word is even used in the Bible, so it's perfect for what I'm thinking.

Thus, I suggest the "new marriage" be called "holy cleavage."

And to you preeverts who are thinking of are thinking of Christina Hendricks and her awesome assets, well ... me too

Andy R. said...

Do you refrain from doing business with Chick-Fil-A, and is it (at least in part) because what the company, or the owner, is doing, deeply offends you? You don't want to be a party to it?

I respect that--but again, I don't want to assume. Is that your position?


Chick-fil-A takes some of their profits and gives it to anti-gay organizations. Any sandwich that I buy there is going to give some tiny tiny amount of money to groups trying to oppress me. That is why I initially stopped eating there.

n.n said...

So, the issue is the tax (i.e. involuntary exploitation) law. However, the government has to protect its interests and preserve its democratic leverage (i.e. boys and girls just want to have fun).

The government affirms that normalization of behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction is of material interest to its operation.

The government affirms that progressive involuntary exploitation is of material interest to its operation.

The government is a progressive institution characterized by its insanity and extraordinary greed.

Well, democracy must be bribed. In that respect it is little different from other governing formats. Of course, no format will ever be sufficient to compensate for individuals incapable of self-moderating behavior.

Nomennovum said...

"Initially stopped"?

Hmm.

Andy R. said...

By the way, if they did away with the estate tax, there are still hundreds of other state and federal tax and other issues under which gay and lesbian couples face discrimination.

I know you think you're being clever when you say "eliminate the estate tax!!!!!" but it doesn't make the problem of DOMA or queer discrimination go away.

Andy R. said...

"Initially stopped"?

Hmm.


If Chick-fil-A were to announce they aren't going to donate to anti-gay hate groups, I probably wouldn't start eating there, but it would be a more complicated decision.

furious_a said...

Address DOMA complaints to the President who signed it into law:
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

Nomennovum said...

"[There are] hundreds of other state and federal tax and other issues under which gay and lesbian couples face discrimination. " -- Andy R

Wait!!! I just said above that marriage would be the last thing you gays asked for!!!!!! WTF Andy!!!!! Not five minutes after the 2nd Circuit give you a new Constitutional right you flighty gays are asking for more!!!!


You made a liar of ME!

Andy R. said...

"[There are] hundreds of other state and federal tax and other issues under which gay and lesbian couples face discrimination. " -- Andy R

Wait!!! I just said above that marriage would be the last thing you gays asked for!!!!!!


I was referring to rights and benefits that flow out of marriage. The estate tax isn't the only financial concern that differentiates a married and unmarried couple.

Removing the estate tax wouldn't eliminate the problem with DOMA because there are other financial benefits from getting married, other than the estate tax. Is that clear?

n.n said...

With this ruling, the government's opposition to other "undesirable" relationships is further weakened. There is no morally defensible position to prevent polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.

The normalization of a dysfunctional behavior can only be considered legitimate when other dysfunctional behaviors are also normalized. It cannot be considered legitimate to enforce any arbitrary standards of behavior; and certainly not for reasons of evolutionary (or biological) fitness.

So, progress has shown that denigration of individual dignity is normal. That involuntary exploitation is normal. That evolutionary dysfunction is normal. The contemporary conception of progress is, apparently, transgressive.

bagoh20 said...

So if you own a company worth millions, and you want to leave it 100% to the employees of that company upon your death, how can you do it without the employees being forced to come up with more than half of the value and pay it to the government in cash for nothing in return?

Thanks to law passed in Dec. 2010, just before the Repubs came in, next year, by law it is scheduled for the exemption to drop to $1 million and the tax to increase to 55%. This is another great reason to vote for Republicans BTW.

I don't believe in leaving large inheritances to offspring, but if it's your money, it's none of my business, and I'm positive that 95% of the time whoever you give it to will spend it better than the government will.

In the example above I'm asking about, a prosperous tax paying business with employees would be forced to liquidate in order to pay the tax. There has got to be a way around that stupid evil shit.

Nomennovum said...

?Removing the estate tax wouldn't eliminate the problem with DOMA because there are other financial benefits from getting married, other than the estate tax. Is that clear?

No. Explain it to me again.

Also tell me this: Will a Constitutional right to marry be the last thing gays will demand of the poor put-upon American voter/taxpayer?

Sam L. said...

Andy R, Maybe not.

bagoh20 said...

Aridog, I just noticed your comment. Yes, it is F'd up!

Andy R. said...

No. Explain it to me again.

Tell me what you don't understand.

Will a Constitutional right to marry be the last thing gays will demand of the poor put-upon American voter/taxpayer?

I'm going to demand that employers not be allowed to fire someone just for being gay. So, no.

Nomennovum said...

"I'm going to demand that employers not be allowed to fire someone just for being gay. So, no." Andy R

So: (1) You have made me a liar. Gee, thanks. (2) You are saying that, in addition to having great fashion sense, gays are mind readers.

Good to know. Tell me, Andy ... what am I thinking now?

n.n said...

Is their concern for the individual or behavior? How do they reconcile persistent discrimination of individuals engaged in similarly dysfunctional behaviors? Also, is their intent to enforce tolerance or normalization?

Michael said...

"I'm going to demand that employers not be allowed to fire someone just for being gay. So, no."

It will be very difficult to fire someone for cause who claims membership in a protected class. More review time, more documentation, more expense. Why would you hire someone who was gay if you were going to face this possibility should they prove to be poor performers.?

Michael said...

"I'm going to demand that employers not be allowed to fire someone just for being gay. So, no."

It will be very difficult to fire someone for cause who claims membership in a protected class. More review time, more documentation, more expense. Why would you hire someone who was gay if you were going to face this possibility should they prove to be poor performers.?

Renee said...

Courts can tell us what isn't a governmental interest or not, but I think for many we have an interest that both a mother and father are involved in a child's life. We use to value this co-parenting arrangement as marriage/martimony (latin for act of becoming a mother).

Teens' Sexual Behavior Affected By Relationship With Dad, Researchers Find

"The findings "suggest that fathers may distinctly influence the sexual behavior of their adolescent children," said study researcher Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, a professor of social work at New York University. "Fathers may parent in ways that differ from mothers, and therefore represent an additional opportunity to support adolescent health and well-being," he said.

A better understanding of the role dads play in their teens' sexual behaviors and reproductive health could help researchers identify which parenting practices have the biggest impact on teens, and lead to better invention strategies that include both moms and dads, the researchers said."

Aridog said...

bagoh20 said...

Aridog, I just noticed your comment.

I've followed your remarks about your business and your employees for some time. I believe them because I once had similar ideas. My partners didn't agree. Then I said F'it and went back to the Army.

I sincerely wish you the best of fortune in finding a way to accomplish what you've said without destroying your firm, on the sword of government, in the process. Both you and your people deserve that victory.

Aridog said...

Andy R. said...

I'm going to demand that employers not be allowed to fire someone just for being gay.

Care to give us a list of cases where people have been fired for being gay? Solely for being gay?

I have worked in the military, in the private sector, and in government and then military again and I have never, ever, seen anyone fired for being gay. Never. Ever. Not-even-in-the-military. Those case there were made public issues by the gay community not the military ...But you needed more attention, so you got it.

See...we just didn't give a shit. Share a ditch in the mud with a guy, under fire, and see if you give a shit what his orientation is...you fucking-A try to keep him alive so he can keep you alive...that's it.

So tell me, where does this habitually occur?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Andy:

Thank you for answering my question.

Titus said...

The dyke isn't bad looking for an old carpet muncher.

I was expecting she would look like Large Marge from Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

tits.

Unknown said...

"Does this group have have "a defining characteristic" that "frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society"? This is a reason not to heighten scrutiny (and it explains why there is no heightened scrutiny for the mentally disabled and for the old)."

Yes. They can't have children. (And no, having children with paid-for sperm, or a hired womb, doesn't count.)

@Michael, you are a fool. Once gays have the right to marriage, they will be considered married. End of story. And the children of two women will have two mothers, damn the sperm donor. The children of two married males will have two fathers, damn the hired womb who housed the baby for 9 months and shat it out.

And damn the children who ask their parents, "who is my mother? Who is my father?" when they are old enough to start wondering.

Unknown said...

"Does this group have have "a defining characteristic" that "frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society"? This is a reason not to heighten scrutiny (and it explains why there is no heightened scrutiny for the mentally disabled and for the old)."

Yes. They can't have children. (And no, having children with paid-for sperm, or a hired womb, doesn't count.)

@Michael, you are a fool. Once gays have the right to marriage, they will be considered married. End of story. And the children of two women will have two mothers, damn the sperm donor. The children of two married males will have two fathers, damn the hired womb who housed the baby for 9 months and shat it out.

And damn the children who ask their parents, "who is my mother? Who is my father?" when they are old enough to start wondering.

Michael said...

Unknown: they will be married but not married married. Real marriage is between a man and a woman. As i clearly wrote.

Titus said...

I wonder if that old dyke has a strap on that she sticks up her twat while thinking of her dead dyke "wife".

Titus said...

The fags are actually "married, married" in Mass, unfortunately. It some of the areas around Boston they have like 80% of the kids that are "children" of dykes and fags, could you imagine?

And nothing is going to turn back that sad fact.

And they are everywhere. You can't swing a cat without hitting some fag or dyke with a baby carriage and the other one with a Whole Foods bag-you know the same one they use over and over because they are "green".

The only upside is some of the hot dyke "mothers" have no problem whipping out a tit and have the "baby" suck it in public. I was at a cafe and heard this slurping sound, turned around and low and behold a huge tit nursing a baby.

tits.

PeterK said...

"Having the marriage unrecognized under DOMA cost this poor woman — who'd been with her partner for 44 years — $363,053 extra dollars in taxes."
seems to me that they needed to consult with a good estate attorney who could have helped them avoid this tax bill.

on another note I've noticed that lesbians use the term "wife" when referring to their partner while male homosexuals use the term "husband" for their partner.
now it seems to me that those terms belong to heterosexual marriages. maybe we need to come up with another set of terms for the members of SSM

Peter Hoh said...

Aridog: Care to give us a list of cases where people have been fired for being gay? Solely for being gay?


There is a list of people who have been fired for being gay, or for getting married to a same-sex partner, or for expressing support for same-sex marriage in this post.

Sofa King said...

Hmm. Perhaps counter-productively, this makes the case for a Constitutional Amendment much, much stronger.

MadisonMan said...

seems to me that they needed to consult with a good estate attorney who could have helped them avoid this tax bill.

If hetero couples don't need to do this, why should homo couples? That's the crux of their argument, I believe, and I can't think of a reason, other than for the law in question.

Sofa King said...

The fags are actually "married, married" in Mass, unfortunately.

In the state's eyes, sure. But everyone has their own eyes. But please, feel free to swallow everything the government tells you unquestioningly.

Peter Hoh said...

I'm not sure that Kennedy and Roberts really want to overturn 30 (or is it 31) state constitutional amendments that deal with same-sex marriage, but this is probably a decision that they would like to uphold.

Sofa King said...

If hetero couples don't need to do this, why should homo couples? That's the crux of their argument, I believe, and I can't think of a reason, other than for the law in question.

That's begging the actual question. Laws can be and are making completely arbitrary distinctions all the time.

Renee said...

Peter, what about two friends or siblings living together for 44 years? Why discriminate against the class of 'friends' or 'two unmarried siblings'?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Bagoh20

I am NOT a tax attorney or all that familiar with the ins and outs of corporate/business taxation. Most of my work was in family and estate planning and the businesses were small or closely held family businesses. Family Limited Partnerships, LLCs and small S Corps.

You should consult with a good tax attorney and CPA since I'm really not sure of all the ramifications of this.

Have you looked into incorporating your firm and selling shares at a nominal amount to your employees, while still retaining managerial and majority control. If you have less than 100 share holders an S corporation is not expensive to create and not that difficult to manage tax wise.

We have a very small S corp and pay ourselves a salary as employees of the corporation (regular wages, FICA and all). All other profits at the end of the year flow through to the share holders proportionally (in our case 50/50) and we pay taxes on those at our marginal income tax rate without being subject to payroll taxation. So if you want to retain the lion's share of shares, you will bear the biggest tax burden.

As time goes on you could gradually sell your shares to the employees, lessening your 'share' of the company. Until they own the whole thing.

There will still be taxes when the shares are sold, you can't avoid those, but they would be ordinary business taxes based on cost basis of the business and number of shares. Spread over time, it would not be as big of a hit as an estate taxation.

Just a suggestion.

You might also look into having your corporation buy a Key Man policy on you as owner/operator. It is a business expense.

Peter Hoh said...

Safa King, in the eyes of the state, Woody Allen and the daughter of his former wife are legally married. In the eyes of the state, Newt Gingrich and his former mistress are legally married.

You and I don't have to accept either marriage as morally sound, do we?

Sofa King said...

Exactly my point. The state is frequently wrong.

Peter Hoh said...

Renee, what about them? I don't get your point.

The constitution left marriage to the states.

Some states allow first cousins to marry. Some don't. Some states allow 14 year olds to marry. Some don't.

Some states have decided to expand marriage to include same-sex couples. On what grounds should the federal government step in and insist that they may not do this?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

seems to me that they needed to consult with a good estate attorney who could have helped them avoid this tax bill.

If hetero couples don't need to do this, why should homo couples? That's the crux of their argument, I believe, and I can't think of a reason, other than for the law in question.

Hetero couples DO need to do this in the case of large estates. If they don't and the first spouse dies without any estate planning, they have lost their unified credit exemption for that person and the estate will be taxed the same as a single person upon the second death.

The main difference is that the surviving spouse can inherit or assume the estate without taxation. It is deferred until the second death [assuming no remarriage]. A single person or a same sex partner, who is treated by the IRS as a single, cannot pass their estate directly to another person without estate taxes. You can set up various trusts to minimize taxes or gift your estate over time [up to a certain amount without have to pay gift taxes]. Your estate pays the taxes not the heirs. There are ways.

The whole thing is a giant can of worms.

Peter Hoh said...

Sofa King: Exactly my point. The state is frequently wrong.


Which is why the constitution left certain powers to the states, and others to the people.

bagoh20 said...

DBQ,

Thanks for that. We are an S corp., and I am considering exactly what you suggest, and also looking for other options. You would think the government would make an exception for a going concern that would need to stop going just to pay the tax. It's counter productive. At least take the payment in long term installments. It's almost like they're the enemy.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's almost like they're the enemy.

Almost?

:-D

Synova said...

"Peter, what about two friends or siblings living together for 44 years? Why discriminate against the class of 'friends' or 'two unmarried siblings'?"

That's sort of what I figure. Why make it about sex?

Maybe it's because I was in the military where you could have family members other than your spouse and children as "dependents".

I met a Captain once who had adopted a boy. She wasn't *allowed* to adopt unless she also had someone in addition to herself as an official legal guardian of the boy. So she brought her mother into her household.

It seemed like a good thing to me. Why do we assume a sexual relationship at all?



Aridog said...

Peter Hoh said...

There is a list of people who have been fired for being gay, or for getting married to a same-sex partner, or for expressing support for same-sex marriage in this post.

You are kidding, right? I stipulated "solely" in my statement.

Renee said...

Marriage can be anything, but what should it be and why? Compared to being just roommates?

bagoh20 said...

"Marriage can be anything, but what should it be and why?"

Private, and therefore whatever you want. All the government should care about is contracts.
Why?
Because long term gay marriage will succeed, and that will destroy marriage as a government institution anyway. There will be no way to prevent marriage from becoming wider and wider until it means nothing but a way to get stuff from the government at the expense of the unmarried, who will then need to be allowed to marry themselves to make it fair.

Renee said...

Bagoh20, but that is not how language works. Children are not private, the government cares that a mother and father coparent.

AndyN said...

Andy R. said...

I was referring to rights and benefits that flow out of marriage. The estate tax isn't the only financial concern that differentiates a married and unmarried couple.

Removing the estate tax wouldn't eliminate the problem with DOMA because there are other financial benefits from getting married, other than the estate tax. Is that clear?


I was actually having this discussion with a friend the other day. I tried explaining to her that men can marry other men and women can marry other women already, what they can't do is claim handouts from the government that have been set aside for people who the government recognizes as married. She swore up and down that the gay marriage movement isn't about material gain. I'll be sure to refer her to your comment.

I'm going to demand that employers not be allowed to fire someone just for being gay. So, no.

To the extent this is true, it's also true that employers can fire employees for being straight. What you're demanding isn't equality, it's special privileges.

Oso Negro said...

How about line marriages of the sort Heinlein described in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? There would seem to be real potential there.

AndyN said...

They were married in Canada. Is the United States government now to begin recognizing all forms of marriage recognized in other countries even when they don't conform to US law?

A married person who has never worked a day in his or her life is entitled to Social Security retirement benefits calculated at 50% of the benefit that his or her spouse is entitled to based on his or her lifetime income. I'll let the people who are applauding this decision explain to grandpa and grandma that they won't be receiving their retirement checks because the money they were promised has been handed to the wives of a Middle Eastern immigrant.

Andy R. said...

To the extent this is true, it's also true that employers can fire employees for being straight. What you're demanding isn't equality, it's special privileges.

Yes, I would support a law that says you can't fire someone based on their sexuality/sexual orientation. I believe that is the language in ENDA. This would also offer protection for straight people who would not need to be worried about being fired for their sexual orientation.

bagoh20 said...

"the government cares that a mother and father coparent."

Clearly they don't, since no other force has contributed as much to creating parentless children as the government. The government should not be tasked with creating or maintaining families anymore than a street gang should tasked with security at a bank.

If it's important and personal, get the state out of it, or be prepared for it to lose all meaning beyond pursuit of money. There was a time when it worked, but like many of our wonderful American cultural institutions, it has been laid waste by progressivism, and it ain't turning around.

bagoh20 said...

"Yes, I would support a law that says you can't fire someone based on their sexuality/sexual orientation."

I know it will make you go ballistic, but that definition would clearly protect pedophiles in schools, bestiality lovers at the zoo, or a shoe salesmen with an uncontrollable foot fetish.

You will always need a line, and someone will always be on the other side. You only care that it's not you, period.

Andy R. said...

I know it will make you go ballistic, but that definition would clearly protect pedophiles in schools, bestiality lovers at the zoo, or a shoe salesmen with an uncontrollable foot fetish.

What makes you think this will make me go ballistic?

echo said...

I don't go to chick-fil-a because the lines are too long.

bagoh20 said...

"What makes you think this will make me go ballistic?"

Because that's what happens when anyone points out the slippery slope to protecting these other "sexualities." Usually the word "pedophile" doesn't even get completely pronounced before the yelling starts. Just my experience.

Andy R. said...

Are you saying that people could be fired for their actions or the thoughts that they have?

Did Ann ever post the Slate article talking about how to deal with pedophiles who come forward with their desires before they commit any crimes?

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

Soon some genius like Andy R will figure out that children represent a minority faction - and those little farts have no rights under English Common law. All the underemployed lawyers will become children's rights advocates and the court dockets will be full with litigation. Television and streaming video lawyer ads will explode - proclaiming "Mad at Dad, call 123-555-1212."

And so to hell with stare decisis!

Darleen said...

Wait, what if this were two maiden sisters that lived together for 44 years? The survivor would be in the same state as this "wife".

Is that somehow discrimination?

Marriage is an institution with several qualifications. If you can't or won't meet them, OH WELL. Figure something else out.

But to engage in the fiction of same-sex "marriage" based on the premise of genderless society is insane, dangerous and has nothing to do with discrimination against gay people.

Lynn Meadows said...

Shouting Thomas said...
"Since declaring yourself gay actually promotes you to the top of the quota system in many businesses, what proof of gayness is required?"

Oh by all means lets trot out, or simply make up, a litmus test to determine it. We can get a few homophobic folks in congress to define it (they will know it when they see it). That certainly seems more logical than the declaration by the parties involved that they are in a same-sex relationship....and in this case, 44 years might just be a dodge.

Oh brother.

Lynn Meadows said...

Darleen said...
"But to engage in the fiction of same-sex "marriage" based on the premise of genderless society is insane"

No one is taking away boobs or testicals here so the genderless issue is not in play.

Just how is your marriage threatened by same-sex marriage? Do you know anything about the origins of "marriage"? Perhaps you should read up on it.

Palladian said...

The government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriages of any kind. That is the business of churches and people.

Most of the intractable "social" issues that cause people on all sides to say the stupidest things could be resolved by removing the civil, secular government from the equation altogether.

Michael said...

Titus. Homosexuals cannot be married married. That would mean they were men and women in actuality and were capable of procreation. Real marriage, marriage marriage as I call it, between homosexuals is, forgive me, a fairy tale.

Nomennovum said...

What does it take to dissuade porn starlets from saying things no one ever thinks worthy of responding substantively to?

Feeling especially eleemosynary this morning, I will stoop to advise the fallen and the dense:

Less adolescent sarcasm goes a long way. There is a reason adults rarely try to reason with hormone-addled teens. They are annoying and incapable of listening to reason, and they think they know everything. This reluctance is greatly magnified when dealing with 30-something women who have never matured past 16. You don't sound witty.

And stop rolling your eyes.

Renee said...

Lynne, Yes I studied the origins. Ever made a family tree or dealth with the socio-economic fall out when too many children do not reside with both mother and father.

We are not homophobic. And it would be wrong to label those who defend marriage, as such.

The origins of marriage is not class/orientation, but behavior. Individuals have a right to be raise by their own parents, to facilitate this needs, societies created relationships/language to bring mother and father together.

Yes, I know it may sound preachy and too conservative. But we flipped the issue 180, just in ten years. I will. Defend the family, despite the false labels I will be stigmitized with.

Lynn Meadows said...

Renee said...
"The origins of marriage is not class/orientation, but behavior."

I disagree. I am in a "mixed" marriage which was simply illegal not too long ago. For a significant period of time someone of low IQ could not only not marry but would be sterilized before they could accidentally have kids.

The phrase "if anyone knows of any reason why this couple...speak now or forever hold your peace" got into the service so folks could rise up and accuse someone of being of mixed heritage or too dumb; whatever.

The idea that the state hasn't meddled in marriage on reasons of class or orientation, even IQ, is just not founded.

The state extends the honor of marrying people to the church as a matter of 1. convenience and 2. practicality. The church, however, does not regulate the state in this matter and it appears that denying gay couples rights springs from the church-based insistence that it has the power.

MadisonMan said...

Is that (siblings married) somehow discrimination?

No. Siblings can't marry. Doesn't matter if they are sister/brother or brother/brother or sister/sister.

If you want to remove the restriction and allow siblings to marry, you're free to argue that. Brush up on your genetics.

Aridog said...

Darleen said...

Marriage is an institution with several qualifications. If you can't or won't meet them, OH WELL. Figure something else out.

Thread Winner!

For a long time I thought that "common law" relationships, when joined with cohabitation and empirical elements of dependency, regardless of sex of the partners, should be recognized by tax authorities as the same as married persons.

I was an idiot....clinging to the faux idealism of my 1960's college days. Never mind that I've never heard a gay advocate speak on the behalf of affectionate cohabitants I described above...certainly none of those LBGT fans advocating here.

Just reading the drivel on this thread from the DOMA opponents and gay rights advocates would have been enough to change my mind. Civil Rights were and are important, where it relates to functions and activities anyone, of any gender, individually, can perform as defined. Gay love is not the same as color discrimination in a restaurant or latrine or at a voting booth. It is insulting to presume it is...it is rent seeking, period.

Now when the government steps in and makes "marriage" per se unattractive to a economic class is lunacy...where I live 70% of the local births are to unwed mothers...Uncle Sugar Teats has made repeated coitus like Sylvilagus critters a meal ticket so long as the various & several male isn't cohabiting. Only 25% of the spawn of this mess graduate high school, over 50% are still unemployed and unemployable in to their 30's.

BTW: My female better-half and my male self have been happily together for 33 years now, unmarried. The "why" is nobody's business, but I will acknowledge that it related to tax issues. I was previously married for 10 years and we raised a lovely, very successful, daughter, jointly, at least 6 days a week, (my ex worked nights most of the time) but without cohabitation or marriage contract after the 10th year. Did I mention it was a bi-racial marriage? So anyone thinking about it...skip the racial/gay equivalence crap, okay?

As you said: Oh, well...we figured something out.

gregq said...

"Does this group have have "a defining characteristic" that "frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society"?"

Hmm, their relationships don't produce children. Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt because they are pay as you go systems, and we're not getting enough new people to pay into them.

So they aren't contributing to society (by having kids) to the same degree that heterosexual couples do.

gregq said...

"Is there obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group?"

No. Unless you want to claim that all those anti-gay stereotypes are true, and only a bigot would do that.

As for "immutable", straight people decide they're gay, and people who claim to be gay sometimes end up in heterosexual relationships. This isn't skin color.

Methadras said...

bagoh20 said...

In the example above I'm asking about, a prosperous tax paying business with employees would be forced to liquidate in order to pay the tax. There has got to be a way around that stupid evil shit.


Nothing short of the elimination of the death tax will alleviate this issue. It is one of the most egregious and offensive taxes on the books and should be removed now.

Methadras said...

Renee said...

Marriage can be anything, but what should it be and why? Compared to being just roommates?


The fact that this discussion is even being made is offensive in the fact that we all know what marriage is, what it does, and how we get there. We as a society have said that marriage is a function between men and women. A very tiny vocal minority is saying now, we want ours too even though we don't like what society has deemed to be acceptable. Homosexuals should be laughed out of this country for how they've begun the process of destroying marriage as we know it.

Renee said...

Methadras, But they are not a small vocal minority, they are a majority. In Massachusetts, we have had the new definition of marriage for almost ten years. Only about 25% disagree with 'gay marriage' in my state.

As for marriage defenders, we just try to find new language and avenues to address the issue of children's rights and needs. Both children and parents have rights, marriage facilitated it. There is no requirement to be married, but we make marriage look attractive by given benefits to promote marriage between a man and a woman to stabilize the family.

Lynne, Brings ups points of individuals denied marriage due to race/heritage and low IQ. The goal was not to deny them a lifelong partner to share tax benefits, but fear that low IQ children and mixed races, the wrongful denial of marriage was to prevent procreation between a man and a woman.

I'm a strong defender of parental rights, as in the other thread in which I advocated that teen moms should be able to always keep the baby. The basis of marriage is a natural and organic one, ultimately sex is designed to create babies, and study after study shows children do best with their own mother and father.

True, we can not force anyone to marry, in the way we force child support. Marriage indeed has to be done by free will, and it is a obligation that is a choice.

We have freedom not to marry or not to have children, so to get people to actually marry we do need to elevate it to it's own status. Does that mean I hate gay couples, does it mean I want them unjustly discriminate against? No.

I respect their adult relationship, and for practical reasons the law should recognize it should. It needs it own name, and its own set of public policy and understanding. You just can't slap 'civil unions' on marriage, and call it a day.

alwaysfiredup said...

Okay Althouse. Tell me why fat people do not meet each of the above tests that you applaud the court for finding that homosexuality meets.

Ann Althouse said...

"Okay Althouse. Tell me why fat people do not meet each of the above tests that you applaud the court for finding that homosexuality meets."

Read more carefully. I didn't "applaud" anything other than the court being straightforward about analyzing whether there should be heightened scrutiny (after the mishmash in the Lawrence opinion). I didn't say I agreed with the analysis. I'm not even a promoter of the idea of levels of analysis. I'm just a lawprof who has to teach these cases and appreciates some clarity and honesty in the handling of the doctrine.

mcolins said...

I see numerous users continually using the word "bigotry" as though it is evidence in and of itself. Bigotry is a value judgement which suggests its object is a victim of unfair negative scrutiny.

Lets stipulate that homosexuals in fact receive negative scrutiny by a still significant percentage of society. The question that remains is whether it is unfair negative scrutiny.

Things which society abhors typically receive negative scrutiny.

I would argue that for one to consider disapproval of same sex marriage and/or homosexuality in general as bigotry, takes as self evident that homosexuality is normal and that same sex marriage is in no way destructive to the fabric of society, something I believe no one is in a position to state with any foundation. Absent any evidence of what new truth was discovered which moved homosexuality from the "wrong" column to the "right" column over these past 30 years or so, it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty whether the negative scrutiny homosexuals receive is bigotry or enforcement of ages old social mores.

Ultimately every issue dealing with gay rights has the exact same end game, which is to achieve through fiat what society in general is not now ready, nor may ever be ready to grant.

Achieving these types of victories through the courts brings us closer to this point where acceptance of homosexuality will be moot. Non acceptance will be criminalized.