A NYT op-ed from Jonathan Turley, who is the lawyer for Kody Brown, the "Sister Wives" guy who has 4 wives and is suing for the right to be left alone. Note that he's not asking for the state to recognize plural marriage as marriage. He just wants to be rid of the threat of criminal prosecution.
One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas].In his last paragraph Turley says don't be like Justice Scalia. I suspect Turley is reaching out to liberal readers, who presumably would be horrified by sounding like Justice Scalia. That's a good rhetorical move if what's really going on is that liberals resist showing favor to polygamy because it's done by people they don't like: Christianity-motivated traditionalists.
The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”
Turley isn't trying to talk to conservatives, who generally don't mind sounding like Justice Scalia. Indeed, they get ideas about how to think from Justice Scalia. Conservatives aren't supporting the constitutional right of privacy in other contexts, so there's no hypocrisy to point out.
Turley also isn't talking to libertarians, who should find this issue so easy that no argument is needed. He does say "Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia," but that usage of the word "libertarian" is different. It means something like liberals who take pride in thinking of themselves as supporting the kind of legal rights that good people are supposed to believe in. That's why — in a NYT op-ed — ugh, you sound like Scalia! is a good argument
Posts
270 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 270 of 270The question of whether polygamy should be legally supported involves complicated questions. If a male is expected basically to care for one woman (his wife), that clearly allows for greater unselfishness in a female. Her choice will be more of a black-and-white one between marriage and being a mistress. In a polygamous society, females will more tend to all be something in between, namely a sort of fractional wife. I say, at least with respect to marriage, it is good that mating have opportunities for unselfishness, since such unselfishness allows moral traits to evolve. Another disadvantage of polygamy is that it gives too much power to monied males and elitists. At least in a monogamous society elitist males might be tempted at times to not think badly of females who don't base their reproductive decisions on how much money they will get. In a monogamous society, believing that sex in which females don't require money and time of the male is evil has the consequence to even elitist males that it effectively prevents them from having children by several females, if just a wife gets the time and money. In a polygamous society, an elitist wealthy husband can just buy another wife, and convincingly assert she is respectable even if he claims to believe that females having sex from sexual pleasure or love rather than money is abomination.
I find the whole issue muddled and confused logically. Our society (stupidly, imo) enforces male responsibility toward offspring by mistresses, but even otherwise, What exactly makes a man having children by merely spiritual wives different from a man who has children by concubines hidden from a wife? If a husband is secretly giving or offering time or money to a concubine his wife doesn't know about, isn't that in every way worse than a male giving a concubine his time and money after his having told his wife? The former sort of men doesn't seem to go to jail for this behavior (unless the money is stolen or illegally misappropriated). And since our society believes men should be forced to care for their offspring by mistresses, Why exactly does society considers a man who commits adultery without spending money on the mistress worse than a man who spends money and time on an extra "spiritual"-wife? Personally, I do think mostly that free mistresses are innocuous (provided they are clean I fail to see how they hurt the wife), whereas extra wives are problematic, but that the government enforces child support on a husband for mistresses seems quite contrary in spirit to allowing adultery with free mistresses but disallowing (expensive) polygamy. Is it that wives being OK with other females having sex with their husbands allows for several females to have sex with a male at once that bothers people? Why wouldn't such a view be considered as a phobia against bisexuality. Isn't such sexual behavior the sort of thing that the B in the "LGBT rights" of the PC people is suposed to represent?
Even though I essentially am against polygamy, if only one female is legally married to the male, I don't see how this should be considered polygamy. A complication is that if a male is a total stud who can get mistresses even though he won't love them emotionally well unless they are deferential to him, such cleanly encouraged deference is appropriate in mistresses, but morally it is important that the deference should be to the male and not to the wife, and the wife having a full wife's power over the husband sort of messes that up. So the obligations of the husband to a wife in such a situation, especially, I'm inclined to think, if the mistresses are friends or relatives of the wife, may well should be different and reduced. So the government forcing people to a one-sized fits all approach there should be considered especially problematic since extreme subtlety would be required to do things well. But anyway, the current laws seem quite arbitrary and incoherently random.
And libertarians may have more or less intellectual integrity, I'll bet you agree.
Granted, but acknowledging that we are all self serving and - to the best of one's abilities - using that self awareness to develop and live one's principles.
If you added "as free as possible from government involvement" it would closely describe exactly what I believe many of my self-described conservative libertarian friends stand for.
Royce D. --
Actually, no. Acknowledging that we're all self-serving makes it a moot point. One needn't even be aware of their self-serving nature to have principles and live by them.
Tap dancing JC! I've lost society's moral core. Where the hell is it? I saw it just this morning in my sock drawer! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Again, very similar to the libs... only the victims have been changed to protect their worldview.
As for the age of majority... yeah, that's a tough one.
We need to pick an age and stick to it. I, personally would pick 19. For everything. No exceptions.
There's another line. So sue me.
The work for everyone. Not just libertarians.
Woops, I meant to write
"Why exactly does society consider a man who commits adultery without spending money on the mistress less reprehensible than a man who spends money and time on an extra "spiritual"-wife?"
instead of the opposite.
In any case, I just can't get worked up to oppose any of this. I just don't think that we would see all that much polygamy if it were legal. With women tending towards being better educated than men in our country, I just don't see all that many of them putting up with it.
'Educated women' aren't the ones who would fall for this, so in that sense you're right.
But you're forgetting who *would* fall for it, and I'm guessing that would be the poor and criminal classes. They already brag about their ho's and the way they (mis)treat them. Polygamy would undoubtedly be a huge status item to a group already unhinged over status symbolism.
Then again, if we can then hold them legally (and more easily) accountable for supporting their wives children, relieving society of the burden, then maybe this is something to look into...
As for me, arbitrarily or otherwise, I draw the line at monogamous marriage. Hetero / homo I don't really care, as sometimes close is close enough.
Why? Two people making a life together just strikes me as a good thing and worth supporting in every way. Arbitrary? You betcha!
Poly-this-or-that marriages are too easily prone to slavery and subservient relationships, and throw the playing field out of balance for other players in society. There are plenty of guru types out there who would have a field day with this, to the betterment of their own egos but none whatsoever to society. Let them have their relationships as they please, but don't call it a legal union or marriage to be supported or encouraged in any way with our tax dollars.
Scott M. - so amended.
One needn't even be aware of their self-serving nature to have principles and live by them.
To understand any principles, wouldn't one have to identify the prime motivation for all decision-making? Thus, assuming we're all self-server bastards, wouldn't one have to admit as much to himself?
True, but not having self awareness about the self serving nature of man usually makes for pretty crappy principles.
The Founders had that down 230+ years ago.
Scott M --
"To understand any principles, wouldn't one have to identify the prime motivation for all decision-making? Thus, assuming we're all self-server bastards, wouldn't one have to admit as much to himself?"
Nope. Reflect on the Madison protesters. They have their principles (which I disagree with) and adamantly insist it's not their self-interest they were striking for.
Self-serving
ahem..
Royce D. --
"True, but not having self awareness about the self serving nature of man usually makes for pretty crappy principles."
I didn't say they'd be good ones, just that they'd be principles.
I didn't say they'd be good ones, just that they'd be principles.
chuckle...
@Oligonicella
I can't riff on the straight lines on this blog if you're being funny.
You want a liberated society where adults are free to pursue their own values and their own ends.
But that will never exist within a polygamous society.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
And the Madison protesters are - by my lights - woefully un-self aware.
Bottom line:
Sometimes you simply have to say "No." They'll cry and raise all sorts of understandable objections, but the answer is still "No."
A society that can't do that from time to time is not a worthy society, and yes, a 'moral center' is needed.
If we're going to throw out the Judeo Christian perspective, then fine, but let's be damn careful about what we replace it with and not fall into the trap of thinking that we can solve moral issues with logic and math. That way lies eugenics and the Great Leap Forward.
We are in many ways a faith-based and spiritual animal, as well as a logical and problem solving one.
Morality, to me, is about enabling the pursuit of happiness for as many as possible, while also in some ways trying to mitigate the worst forms of unhappiness.
The problem of societal peace and happiness will never be solved logically. We have to arrive at value judgments in which most are in agreement.
My feeling is, don't throw out what we have until we know exactly what we're replacing it with.
Ok so polygamy won't be legally sanctioned, it will just be permitted.
I get it.
Royce D. --
"And the Madison protesters are - by my lights - woefully un-self aware."
Yep. Yet they have principles, just crappy ones.
Scott M -- Nothing says a show can't have two standups.
How would you handle divorce?
Guy has ten wives. One wants a divorce. Does she get half of the assets? A tenth? If it is half, what will then happen to the other nine wives? If it is a tenth, will she really have the option of leaving? If a person wants to protect his assets and fears his spouse may divorce, would this encourage him to take on additional spouses to cut his loss? What about visitation for the children? Do all of the wives have rights to see the children as they've all been part of the marriage and involved in raising them?
Will people be able to take on multiple spouses and then dump them onto the social services system when they can't support them or the spouses leave?
If the polygamy isn't legal but is tolerated, then what? No legal protections at all for the "spiritual spouses?"
You're calling it victimless only because you've chosen not to see the victims.
To add, same sex marriage, to me, *bends* the Judeo-Christian outlook that is our traditional moral center but does not come close to breaking it. Plural marriages break it.
There were plural marriages in biblical times, but scripture exists which cautions against it.
And I'm not even a Christian, but I'm grateful to have grown up in a Christian framework and not a Muslim, animist or Communist one.
No one is saying homosexuals can be homosexuals. What is being said is that society has a rule set that we've abided by for a long time and now that rule set is either going to expand or remain the same. Societal evolution is at work here and clearly homosexuals outside of their urban shelters are losing.
I'd like to see government get out of the marriage and coitus monitoring businesses altogether and allow consenting adults to make whatever contract they wish with each other
Until we divorce the State and Federal Government tax codes from marriage and until we stop subsidizing through the welfare state by tax dollars from those who are working......the general public WILL retain a vested interest in controlling marriage.
If I have to pay for you through you getting lower taxes or you getting more freebie money because you are pumping out kids like a vending machine....I DO have the right to have a say in your marriage arrangements.
Who gets the tax breaks and who gets to suckle on the government teat based on marriage status or unmarried status is a financial problem that involves ME.
I could give a rats ass if two gay guys get married or one man and 4 women get married. I just don't want to subsidize their decisions through MY tax dollars or know that they are getting extra special treatment.
Personally, I think everyone should be treated the same on the tax code whether you are married, single or humping your third wife in a polygamist marriage.
Abolish the child credit and allow your Social Security benefits upon death to be designated to whom ever you want. Equal tax treatment for health insurance benefits and no marriage deduction.
Ok so polygamy won't be legally sanctioned, it will just be permitted.
How many people are in jail today for fathering children from multiple women? Not many.
That such behavior exists and is encouraged by popular culture is bad enough. Let's not give it the Congressional Seal of Approval and award it with our tax dollars.
Will people be able to take on multiple spouses and then dump them onto the social services system when they can't support them or the spouses leave?
Bingo. On the nose. This is the problem with polygamy. The State or to be more correct....you and I as taxpayers are paying for their lifestyle.
DBQ -
"you are pumping out kids like a vending machine..."
Love your vernacular.
So Freeman, you are assuming that decriminalizing polygamy (and I assume other forms of group marriage) will make us a polygamous society.
Given what we know about human sexual behavior - we're pretty much imperfectly monogamous - unless women utterly lose their social, political and economic status - this seems a bit of a stretch.
Kind of like the Leftist "Handmaiden's Tale" world view.
Hmmmm...
Freeman Hunt said...
You want a liberated society where adults are free to pursue their own values and their own ends.
But that will never exist within a polygamous society.
Female adults particularly.
How many polygamists are women with more than one husband? Rare as the tooth of the hen, for sure.
Is polygamy always exploitation of a group of women? (You can be exploited with your consent, strangely enough.) I very rarely have criticized or tried to alter my daughters' personal choices. Polygamy would be an intense, flaming exception to this rule.
Dude, we already have default, state sponsored polyandry.
Just sayin'.
Royce D. --
"So Freeman, you are assuming that decriminalizing polygamy (and I assume other forms of group marriage) will make us a polygamous society."
Seems to me the assumption in that statement is yours, not hers. I don't recall reading her stating that.
As is your prerogative and responsibility David. As would most fathers and mothers.
If I had a girl, I would too.
I'd also strongly advise my sons to stick to one wife. One on most days is more than enough.
"This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
My assumption from the strength and tenor of Freeman's argument. If I'm not, please set me straight Freeman.
I pretty much agree with DB Queen 100% I'm against all tax code social engineering.
I'm tolerant of others' behavior... provided they do not ask me to pay for it.
Then I get grumpy.
For those who want gummit out of the marriage business, can you please esplain how divorces, child custody and property settlements get worked out?
"You're calling it victimless only because you've chosen not to see the victims."
You are not a "victim" unless I touch you without your consent or I take your stuff without your consent.
You are not a "victim" if your feelings are hurt, your ego is bruised, or your psyche is damaged.
People rail against the liberal agenda, but treating everyone like a "victim" is the epitome of modern liberalism gone awry.
But yes, if you define victim as "anyone who makes bad choices that you don't agree with" then yes, we are all victims. Please protect us from us.
Abolish the child credit and allow your Social Security benefits upon death to be designated to whom ever you want. Equal tax treatment for health insurance benefits and no marriage deduction.
I disagree. Marriage deductions AND child credits should remain but apply only when both are 'true'. If you choose to raise a child 'single', then no tax deduction. If you have a child, divorce and then re-marry, then you're fine and get the deductions.
I am all for having my tax contribution encourage stable family relationships.
Instead, we give unstable family relationships the greatest rewards.
You can say you have no vested interest in other people's children, but I say you do, as you will be suffering (or benefiting from) their decisions before too long.
Do you want tomorrows leaders and decision-makers to come from an ever-expanding class of poor and uneducated people? They will ALWAYS reproduce, rewards, penalties or not.
I posit that it is in every thinking person's greatest interest to encourage stable and educated family relationships, even if they themselves will remain forever single and/or childless.
This was my greatest fear in accepting SSM, but I know personally too many same sex couples who are good and stable people, and know that they (and society in turn) are better for being in a stable relationship. I am now happy to support them to some degree with the law and my tax dollars. I do so out of my own self interest.
A marriage of two is still a family. A plural marriage is unstable by description, and a study of history shows that, while prevalent, was almost always a perk to one and a trial to many.
No time to read the comments, so pardon me if I repeat what someone else already said. But lefties might be less critical of polygamy if its practice included more women with multiple husbands.
For those who want gummit out of the marriage business, can you please esplain how divorces, child custody and property settlements get worked out?
Thunderdome or Fight Club. Take your pick.
Thunderdome or Fight Club. Take your pick.
At 6'1" to her 5'3", I'm sure I could have taken my ex-wife without resorting to the chainsaw.
A couple weeks ago my wife had a friend over for dinner. The friend helped up with chopping the veggies while my wife ran a quick errand. (I was at work.)
When I got home my wife remarked that having a second pair of hands around the house was convenient and joked that we should have another wife.
To which I replied: there is no way I could handle a second wife, but maybe we could compromise and I'll take on a mistress.
We all laughed. I love my wife. We are monogamous. If other people decide not to be monogamous, that is absolutely no threat to my marriage. Moreover, the government has jackshit to do with the "sanctity" of my marriage.
The coming revolution to restore this country to sanity is not going to be pretty. No hyperbole. It's inevitable. The only question is how soon and how fast. Judicial robes and official titles will provide no cover. We face a scary but bracing future.
At 6'1" to her 5'3", I'm sure I could have taken my ex-wife without resorting to the chainsaw.
Which brings up the sexual dimorphism between males and females in our species. It turns out that the greater the dimorphism, including size, the more polygamous the species. Thus, you have significantly larger male lions than female, and who have manes. Male gorillas are significantly larger than females. All because they have harems.
It turns out that the sexual dimorphism in humans is notably greater than for our nearest genetic relatives: chimps and pygmy chimps. Why? Polygamy.
But note that it is not nearly as great as in species that almost exclusively have harems. Rather, it is just great enough that it is likely that we have had enough polygamy in our history to provide pressure in our evolution in this direction.
I should also note that we are also inclined towards a moderate amount of cuckholdery and bastardry, as evidenced by the relative size of our male testes - relatively smaller than chimps and much larger than gorillas.
I should also note that we are also inclined towards a moderate amount of cuckholdery and bastardry, as evidenced by the relative size of our male testes - relatively smaller than chimps and much larger than gorillas.
Plus, just in case, we can resort to chainsaws.
"X said...
in the end, we'll all marry our parents to avoid the estate tax."
You, sir or madam, are a genius.
"...Thunderdome or Fight Club. Take your pick..."
Hell works for me.
Polygamy -- another nail in the coffin for beta males.
Not sure what women get out of it either, but it's coming. Marriage is dead.
I wonder who would legally have to agree to a polygamous marriage. All of the spouses? Or just the two currently getting married?
How do we ensure all the spouses know about the existence of the marriage to the other spouses? Are they all equally responsible for each other? Are they all equally married to each other?
The state should stay out the bedroom?
Fine. But there is also the matter of child rearing to consider. And ownership of property. And of inheritance. And of qualifying for welfare.
Oh, well, I'm sure it will all turn out just fine, as it is in Britain.
I can just see the next Democratic President "proudly" appointing the first openly polygamous Supreme Court Justice.
"The US has taken the anti-tradition path."
The US has been on the anti-tradition path since about 1733. It's kind of what we do.
"Fine. But there is also the matter of child rearing to consider. And ownership of property. And of inheritance. And of qualifying for welfare."
Fine. Then consider them. They're only a problem if you insist the government must always be in charge of settling these things. That's what contracts are for.
As for Britain, their welfare state has advanced so far into the personal sphere that absolutely everything is a government issue now. Sharia law is an abomination, but it does not follow that because Sharia permits polygamy people who dislike Sharia must forbid it.
Could the polygamist marry someone who is in another marriage?
Fine. Then consider them. They're only a problem if you insist the government must always be in charge of settling these things. That's what contracts are for.
Governments get involved to settle contract disputes. What's your point? What are these other alternatives? Family reprisals?
I get the distinct olfactory impression that all the so-called libertarians opining here on family law and bigamy, "plural marriages," etc., are themselves either urban, childless hipsters or are playing Devil's advocate.
It absolutely reeks in here.
Fess up!
"I get the distinct olfactory impression that all the so-called libertarians opining here on family law and bigamy, "plural marriages," etc., are themselves either urban, childless hipsters or are playing Devil's advocate."
Sorry to disappoint. Married. Father of 2. Genuinely want the government of my business, your business, and the polygamists' business.
Bryan -
Without government enforcement, the idea of a contract is meaningless. One of the main jobs of the court system is to figure out the rights of individuals vis-a-vis other individuals based either upon status (husband-wife) or contract.
Plus, people talk of a "marriage contract" but that is misleading, because courts do not enforce "marriage contracts." There is divorce law, but that does not enforce the promises that people make to each other prior to marriage (I'm not talking pre-nups.) The concept of a contract is not really applicable to marriage and family. In contract law, you presume arms-length transactions, lack of coercion, and the people are looking out for their own interest. In marriage, very few people act like that. People are emotional, they act out of love (rightly), and do not view their spouse as simply a business partner.
With regard to legal issues, the divorce laws could not withstand polygamy. If a wife knowingly allows her husband to have multiple unofficial wives (and children), for whom is financially responsible, no judge is going to give her half of the "marital assets" if she later sues for divorce (or is sued for divorce by him). There will be exceptions read into the laws to account for polygamy, that will then have a life of their own.
D.D. Driver wrote: Sorry to disappoint.
You do disappoint, sorry.
I'm not asking you answer the question I posed to "Bryan C.", but as a libertarian, you might take a stab.
D.D. Driver, you may reject the childless-SWPL label but your thinking betrays you as more hipster than father, when you come out with inanities like:
'You are not a "victim" unless I touch you without your consent or I take your stuff without your consent.'
The problem with the libertarian is that he pretends that no duties exist unless there is some contract willingly entered into. The conservative recognizes that biology imposes its own duties, and that the primary relationships which constitute society itself are familial relationships (parent-child, sibling, cousin), and not voluntary ones. Involuntary obligation is the norm, not the exception.
Two persons may construct their own island of domestic bliss on this earth, so long as the two never leave the island through defection or death. Once one of them is no longer able or willing to uphold the social contract between them, it falls apart. And it falls on other people in the wider world to clean up their messes (often literally), or else consciously push them out onto the ice floes to get rid of the mess. And that in itself makes 'victims' of the poor schlubs on whom that duty falls.
No matter how many years the Boomers have waxed poetic about Woodstock, free love, guilt-free sex, and no responsibilities, they'll still be calling their children ingrates when the kids who always came last in their priorities somehow don't want to spend years wiping their elderly asses. And them what spent their lives railing against "breeders" will be saying the same thing about other people's children, oblivious to the irony.
I don't see how the "privacy right" extends to very public norms and demands on the public coffers due to lifestyles.
There is nothing "private" about a Somali Muslim so-called refugee in Minnesota and his demands for his harem of 12 wives on public welfare.
As for consent..prostitution & adult incest meets that criteria - and it should be easy to breed sheep or dogs that without a doubt..are hardwired to really, really like sex with humans.
What Liberals hate to admit was Scalia was prescient with Lawrence v. Texas.
Royce D,
I am a former pinko hippie (thanks, Abbie Hoffman)turned conventional "intellectual" liberal (thanks NY Times) turned conservative (thanks Jimmy Carter) turned libertarian (thanks to the Bushes). Big "L" Libertarians sort of weird me out, but I cannot find anything to disagree with you on point.
Scott M.,
Dude, your 10:14am comment was pretty funny! But I guess, despite what you've said elsewhere, that you're actually a single guy--the "any time you want" misconception is a dead giveaway. ;-)
wv: lunchar -- the time for mid-day meal, and/or quickies.
Royce D. said...As a libertarian, I support Gay Marriage.
I also support polygamy, polyandry, group marriage and adult incest.
Any structure that helps adults to be happy and supports the rearing of healthy and productive children... sign me up.
Does it give you any pause that study after study (often done by people who would have it otherwise) shows the optimum environment for raising children is the traditional family with a mother (female) and a father (male)? If your primary concern is the children, your support of anything goes is ill-advised and contraindicated.
"They're only a problem if you insist the government must always be in charge of settling these things."
But one of the reasons that the state steps in as arbiter in these disputes is because these areas are filled with difficult disputes, right?
If men were angels....
Government should abandon regulating marriage altogether. There's no longer any good reason for it. Nor is government doing any good for the institution. They ought to just leave it up to the churches who still care. If a wedding doesn't mean anything more than recognizing a homosexual attraction, why should society bother with it? It already does that.
@Kirk
Well, I WAS single at one time. I'm not sure I've ever said otherwise, online or elsewhere, since tying the knot, though.
Eliminating marriage would put each individual's assets in jeopardy exactly as Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy put each of the Church's abbeys and parishes in jeopardy. Henry's usurpations vastly increased the power of the crown within Britain, and his subsequent seizures vastly enriched the crown as well.
If the protections afforded by the common-law recognition of a prior entity (the family) to which the individual owes higher allegiance are evaporated, each individual will stand naked and powerless to resist the whims of the state.
What would this look like?
1. No more spousal beneficiaries, including SS and survivors' benefits.
2. No more automatic inheritance for spouses. Assets may not be passed down to avoid estate tax. Want your (unofficial) spouse to inherit? Set up a trust.
3. No more presumptive parenthood; DNA matches would have to be registered the way marriages now are. No registered DNA match, no obligation to support.
4. No more automatic inheritance for kids unless they are in the DNA registry, or legally adopted and under 18.
5. All adoptive relationships legally terminate when the adoptee reaches 18, to prevent straw adoptions.
5. The assets of anyone who dies with unregistered children revert 100% to the state.
6. Anyone can be compelled to testify against another in a court of law.
7. No more liability for spousal debts. All assets transferred between two parties are subject to gift tax.
Notice how in every case, it's the state that grows more powerful -- and those are just the examples I can come up with off the top of my head.
Post a Comment