The High Cost Of Discrimination
Via iFeminists, an ailing 83-year-old lesbian, Edith Schlain Windsor, wants the Supreme Court to review the ban on gay marriage (DOMA -- the "Defense Of Marriage Act," which should be called the Defense of Unequal Rights Act). Terry Baynes writes at Reuters:
The American Civil Liberties Union originally filed the suit in New York on behalf of Windsor, a former computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two were engaged in 1967.Spyer died in 2009 after a long battle with multiple sclerosis, leaving her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to the suit.
Six states have legalized same-sex marriage since DOMA went into effect, including New York in 2011. But federal law and programs do not recognize those marriages because of DOMA.
Windsor's attorneys argue that the federal law violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states from denying people equal protection under the laws.
If your church has something against marrying gays and lesbians, they can exclude them (creepy and awful, but that is their right). But, as long as we give government recognition to straight people who marry, our country has no business excluding gays and lesbians from marrying the consenting adult of their choice -- and certainly not because some people's religious beliefs demand that.
Without getting into my concerns on same sex marriage, i'll say that one should be able to name their beneficiaries and the government should not be stripping people of what their loved ones leave them.
This tax is a cruel tax. No decent person should support what happened here, not to straights, not go gays, not to people who want to leave it to their 4 spouses married in their secret cult, no one.
Trust at July 18, 2012 10:51 PM
I'll second that. Why the hell does the gov have anything to say about taxing what we leave as an inheritance? After all, it's already been taxed as income, or capital gains, or some such when we first made the money, now we have to pay for the privilege of making sure the people we want to have it when we die, get it?
Total and complete rip-off, is what it is. It's just another way that Big Gov steals from hard working citizens of every kind.
There is a very warm, nasty place waiting for the asshats that dreamt this one up, I'm sure.
Kat at July 18, 2012 11:41 PM
Get the government out of marriage business and the estate/inheritance tax business. Good luck on either, it gives them too much power and too much money. Most libs will claim this women should pay taxes on the inheritance, its "unearned income".
Sio at July 19, 2012 12:18 AM
Ordinarily, I would say that under the full faith and credit clause, Congress reserves the right to decide which licenses and permits issued by one state must be honored by all states. So, if a state wants to have same-sex marriage, there's nothing unconstitutional about another state not recognizing it.
That's one argument in support of DOMA. Congress does reserve the right to decide which licenses and contracts must be honored by all states.
On the other hand, allowing some people to marry but not others seems like hair-splitting. It's discrimination to allow certain types of marriage, but not others, as long as it's between mutually consenting adults.
Patrick at July 19, 2012 2:02 AM
For the life of me I can't understand why supposedly freedom loving Americans ever thought it would be a good idea to have the government license their relationships.
We don't need the bureaucrats to determine who's married and who isn't. Two willing adults (or three or four or ten) should decide what the nature of their relationship will be, call it marriage or whatever else they want to, conduct whatever ceremony is meaningful to them or no ceremony, and secure it with whatever contract their hearts desire, or none at all.
If other people don't think someone else's relationship qualifies as a legitimate marriage, fine. They should be free to think whatever they want. As long as the government isn't involved there's not a damn thing anyone else can do about it. Tax rates and all other legal and civil matters should apply equally to individuals whether they're "married" or not.
Ken R at July 19, 2012 3:45 AM
If you can't "discriminate" against who you rent out a room to, then how long do you think it's going to be before church's are told they have to marry gay couples? I'm saying 5 years, but it could be shorter.
Honestly, I'm sick of the whole thing. Get married, suck up even more of our tax dollars letting the whole world into your bedroom when you decide to divorce. Whatever.
I'd rather call them all domestic unions, or whatever, and let churches officially marry who they will. But mostly, I'm just tired of it. Can we concentrate on the economy and jobs now, please?
momof4 at July 19, 2012 5:23 AM
Why do men and women have separate restrooms?
Goo at July 19, 2012 5:41 AM
For the record, I would never support churches being forced to marry gay couples. If your church wants to do it, that's fine. If you're not okay with that, suck it up or find another church.
People will find the churches that share their beliefs. Some will perform gay marriages and attract followers who believe in gay marriage (or at least don't consider it a burning issue). Some churches will not perform gay marriages and according attract followers who don't believe in gay marriage.
If gay marriage becomes something that gets overwhelming support (and I'm not saying it will; I envision an eventual 60-40 split), those churches that don't support it will likely die out.
But why would anyone who believes in gay marriage even want to belong to a church that was actually forced into performing gay marriages against their beliefs? That I don't understand.
Patrick at July 19, 2012 6:13 AM
I will be laughing when the first lawsuit challenging laws against plural marriage filed by some muslim on 14th amendment grounds heads to the supreme court. I will make popcorn(with coconut oil) and enjoy the show.
BarSinister at July 19, 2012 7:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/19/the_high_cost_o_4.html#comment-3268093">comment from BarSinisterRight now, laws confer social security and other tax benefits on a partner. A single partner of a person's choice, as long as they are the opposite sex. That should be extended to all. The bullshit fearmongering that we will have goats and 26 women getting married to one man and getting these benefits is utter bullshit.
A pity you couldn't make a better argument and had to trot out this embarrassment.
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2012 7:23 AM
I am 100% against DOMA. Let the states decide. This IS Unconstitutional.
But lets get real here. Social Security is broke. I am not terribly excited about recognizing millions of more people in a system i already hate, already saturated with people collecting who were in no way eligible when this social system was originally implemented (rich people with pensions, although I also believe they ARE entitled to what they put in).
Social Security is a complete shit storm.
Wouldn't it be GRAND if gays could talk about what a fucked up system we have and help to get social security (which was only meant to be a temporary fix) off the fucking books instead of throwing temper tantrums about being "recognized" in peoples hearts as precious?
I mean, would that be too much to ask? Instead of adding more people to a fucked up sysetm - maybe we could try outlining the inequitabilities of "privileges" given to people just by virtue of being a certain sex, race, economic status, whatever!?
Unless you are raising a family (two people period, none of that California BS about three parents) or you are poor or disabled (beyond anything you have control over) you shouldn't get any additional privileges from the government, period and should not pay in large amounts to social security and NOT be eligible for collection.
I still get pissed off about this subject because instead of talking about the inequities inherent in Statist systems, we get into the gimme this, gimme that ancedotal arguments.
Annoyed.
Feebie at July 19, 2012 8:01 AM
Charles Prael I'm going to point something out here. The first $3m in the estate is tax exempt. Beyond that, the federal side is a 35% tax rate.
So that means we're talking about a ~$4 million estate she just received.
You will note, please, that in the zeal to drum up offense at DOMA (which I'm not saying is GOOD law) that this minor-but-important detail was entirely overlooked. AND that it would have been entirely avoided were estate taxes not the issue that they are.
As was the FAILURE of Ms. Spyer to conduct proper estate planning efforts, which deal with this kind of thing on a routine basis.
BTW, y'all want fun? If Ms. Spyer had died in 2013, Ms. Windsor would not have paid $363,000 in estate taxes. She would have paid $1,670,000 in estate taxes. That's one of the little gems buried in the tax mess slated to hit at the end of the year.
Charles Prael at July 19, 2012 8:05 AM
Thank you, Charles.
Our system is fucked.
Feebie at July 19, 2012 8:18 AM
"If you can't "discriminate" against who you rent out a room to, then how long do you think it's going to be before church's are told they have to marry gay couples? I'm saying 5 years, but it could be shorter."
I understand you concern, momof4, but it won't happen and the reason is that there is an important difference. Churches are not commercial enterprises (however crass and corrupt they may actually be.) That's why they don't get taxed, and that's why this kind anti-discrimination of law doesn't apply. (And that's why I don't thin they should have the protection of anti-discrmination law either.)
Renting a room, unless it's where you actually reside, is a commercial transaction, like selling food in a restaurant or lending money or whatever. Government has always regulated commercial transactions as part of protecting citizens (from each other), going all the way back earlier than Hammurabi.
Jim at July 19, 2012 8:41 AM
Why do men and women have separate restrooms?
For the hilarity that ensues when someone has to pee really badly, dodges into the men's bathroom by accident because she's not paying attention, and has to camp out in a stall until the parade of men using the urinal ends.
Not that I would know anything about this.
For the life of me I can't understand why supposedly freedom loving Americans ever thought it would be a good idea to have the government license their relationships.
Blame it on agriculture. Once you have land ownership, you have a government with a vested interest in how people organize their private lives.
MonicaP at July 19, 2012 9:21 AM
I have no problem with gay marriage. What I do have a problem with is negating the vote of the people. Prop 8 may be despicable, but the majority of Califonians voted for it. Same thing in Ohio and North Carolina.
UW Girl at July 19, 2012 10:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/19/the_high_cost_o_4.html#comment-3268302">comment from UW GirlYou don't get to vote to negate the Constitution's equal protections for all people. You can vote in idiocies like the "high speed" train in California and the rest of us will just have to suck it up.
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2012 10:28 AM
Amy - "You don't get to vote to negate the Constitution's equal protections for all people." Actually, we do it all the time. Affirmative action programs, for example.
-----------------------
"If you can't "discriminate" against who you rent out a room to, then how long do you think it's going to be before church's are told they have to marry gay couples? I'm saying 5 years, but it could be shorter."
I understand you concern, momof4, but it won't happen and the reason is that there is an important difference.
Just by way of comment, on election day for Prop 8, a friend in SF watched one of his co-workers lining up (a) his intended, and (b) a suite of lawyers, with (c) the plan to march down to the local Catholic church the next day to _force_ them to marry the two of them. It's a lot closer than you think. Witness the recent "I don't care if you're a Catholic hospital, and everyone employed there signs off on that. You still have to violate your religious precepts." action from the current administration.
Charles Prael at July 19, 2012 11:07 AM
Buy that is you interpretation of the law. This is similar to abortion. One judge's interpretation of right to privacy may not be the same as another judge's. Is what Mississippi doing right now unconstitutional?
Legislation from the bench makes me nervous.
UW Girl at July 19, 2012 11:12 AM
If you really want to know what the people think about something, don't toss it out during a midterm election.
MonicaP at July 19, 2012 11:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/19/the_high_cost_o_4.html#comment-3268355">comment from Charles PraelI'm also firmly against affirmative action programs for the exact same reason.
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2012 11:32 AM
I lost most of my sympathy for this issue after the disgusting incident with the gay activists being invited to come to the White House and give the finger to the portraits of Bush and Reagan. Sorry, guys. You blew it. There are issues that are far more important.
Cousin Dave at July 19, 2012 11:59 AM
For the hilarity that ensues when someone has to pee really badly, dodges into the men's bathroom by accident because she's not paying attention, and has to camp out in a stall until the parade of men using the urinal ends.
I do that whenever I am out at a bar on weekends and the women's restroom either has a line a mile long, or has been rendered disabled. I stroll in, wave to the boys, walk to a stall and on my way out, while washing my hands, I remind all the men to be sure to wash up. The looks on their faces is always priceless!
sara at July 19, 2012 12:05 PM
"But why would anyone who believes in gay marriage even want to belong to a church that was actually forced into performing gay marriages against their beliefs? That I don't understand."
Then you aren't paying attention. MAKING people accept you and cater to your every whim is the point, for a seeming majority of every minority.
momof4 at July 19, 2012 12:07 PM
"Just by way of comment, on election day for Prop 8, a friend in SF watched one of his co-workers lining up (a) his intended, and (b) a suite of lawyers, with (c) the plan to march down to the local Catholic church the next day to _force_ them to marry the two of them. It's a lot closer than you think."
How close would that be, Charles? Did that co-worker have any chance of forcing that church or any other to do anything?
That specific church happens to be so well insulated that all the high-ranking people who should be in jail for facilitating child rape are not even under investigation. Look at the grief coming out of just trying to force them to abide by standard employment law over health care/birth control funding.
" _force_ them to marry the two of them." my ass. The only way those queens could force anyone to do anything at that church would be to threaten to out the priests.
Jim at July 19, 2012 3:40 PM
"How close would that be, Charles? Did that co-worker have any chance of forcing that church or any other to do anything?"
Seeing as the Catholic Church is now being forced to pay for birth control that goes against one of it's core beliefs, yeah. Maybe not just that guy and not that immediate day, but it will happen.
momof4 at July 20, 2012 5:20 AM
"How close would that be, Charles? Did that co-worker have any chance of forcing that church or any other to do anything?"
Maybe not in this instance, but I see Charles' point. All the co-worker or anyone else who tries this has to do is get one judge, one time, to agree with them. Then it becomes an nearly irreversible precedent.
I tell you this: The leaders who are pushing this issue are acting not out of a committment to civil rights or equality, but out of a desire for vengence. Come to me with a pursuasive and rational argument, and we can talk. But if you point a gun at my head and tell me to like it or else, well, you'd better be a good shot.
Cousin Dave at July 20, 2012 6:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/19/the_high_cost_o_4.html#comment-3269578">comment from Cousin DaveThe leaders who are pushing this issue are acting not out of a committment to civil rights or equality, but out of a desire for vengence.
Ridiculous blanket statement.
Of course, it wouldn't matter if they were acting out of a love of dolphins. Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else.
Furthermore, you cannot force churches to marry people they don't wish to due to religion because of the separation of church and state.
Amy Alkon at July 20, 2012 6:35 AM
"Furthermore, you cannot force churches to marry people they don't wish to due to religion because of the separation of church and state."
Riiiiiggggghhhhtttt.
http://www.moremonmouthmusings.net/2012/02/21/why-do-you-need-a-license-to-get-married/
You just watch and see what happens. Do you know my fiance and I are trying to find a priest or pastor to conduct a ceremony for us without proof of a marriage license with the State? No one will do it. Some separation, eh?
"Of course, it wouldn't matter if they were acting out of a love of dolphins. Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else"
Marriage was never a "right" (name me one person who died or couldnt get a house or medical treatment or anything because they weren't "married").
It originated as a "private" contract between two parties. Not the Church, nor the State's involvement was part of it until they discovered how to restrict access to those private party arrangements(by way of punitive laws, cultural shaming, etc) and "force" their way to be the only way a union could be recognized - they did this because it was both profitable and was another avenue to control people. They offered some benefits as trade for certain "privileges". The first participants in got the most privilege....and just like any ponzi scheme (government), the end result is anything but beneficial to the recently inducted happy couple.
DOMA is Unconstitutional because it is a Federal Law determining who has access to privileges which are individually outlined in each states. The states shoud decide whether and to whom these privileges will apply to. They should also be able to determine who has the power to bestow such rights (the couple via private contract? The State or the Church or any of the three). Same sex couples are stepping up to reinforce this effed up system and proponents of these causes are hailed as intellectuals instead of the latest pawns to the process.
Both the Church and the State have equally contributed to the clusterfuck of marriage.
Same sex marriage has become now more political because of the potential revenues it could bring to the state (short term only, of course).
This isn't because of civil "rights" or human "rights" or revenge or even constitutionality. It's all about the money and power. It's because heterosexual couples are choosing NOT to sign those documents requiring them to involve the state in their affairs - they've seen the damage state involvement does during child custody, divorce, etc. They've seen the destruction in their own families and are not going to make that same mistake. Besides, the government is loosing its revenue base.
Gays can fill that gap for a while because they are the new girl in town and are getting wined and dined and brainwashed into believing they are somehow "special" and unique in all of this. But once they get their "rights" they will be required to give up their freedoms too!!!!
Its all about money and power. As is anything the gumbments wants them some of...and they get this accomplished by useful idiots combined with the USE OF FORCE.
Oh yes, I forgot....the answer to a problem created by the government is...MORE GOVERNMENT.
Feebie at July 20, 2012 9:21 AM
"Of course, it wouldn't matter if they were acting out of a love of dolphins. Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as everyone else."
But it does matter. Why do they keep losing pro-gay-marriage initiative votes? Because they're pissing off the moderates. Trogolodytes like me they aren't goint to waste their time with, but when they go up to Ma and Pa Suburban Middle Class and say "You'll support gay marriage and you'll like it!", the middle class tells them piss up a rope. I really think that they don't want to win. If they won, it would take away their rallying cry and their generous support from Hollywood and Washington leftists, and then what would happen to the activists' phony-balony jobs? Motivation matters, because people can read that. And when gay leaders go to the White House to flip off Reagan, who once upon a time did them the huge favor of marginalizing the more radical soc-con elements in the GOP, they reveal the fact that they have a hidden agenda.
Riding a tiger is generally not a good idea, even if it happens to be headed where you want to go at the moment.
Cousin Dave at July 20, 2012 11:19 AM
Seeing as the Catholic Church is now being forced to pay for birth control that goes against one of it's core beliefs, yeah. Maybe not just that guy and not that immediate day, but it will happen. -momof4
Umm, not they arent. The SECUALR CORPERATIONS owned in part, majority, or wholy by churchs are being "forced" to abide by the same laws and regulations as busineses not owned by religions. It is a very, very large and nowhere near subtle disticntion.
And keep in mind most of the business wned by religions tend to be schools and hospitals which recive tax money.
S why exactly should these businesses be exempt from the same laws as any businees I might own?
lujlp at July 20, 2012 5:08 PM
Leave a comment