From what I understand he sates argument is the marriage is a child centric institution, not one based on emotions.

Which might be a valid argument if they prevented post menopausal women from marrying, and declared invalid marriages that failed to produce children.

There's a simple fix for this.

Separate marriage from civil status. Be allowed to register any civil union you want.

And marriage ? That's a religious ceremony. To the god or gods of your choice.

Hell, I'd be up for a marriage ceremony dedicated to the Divine Orgasm: a couple hundred condoms and snacks are a LOT cheaper than a catered reception and custom cake. . .

I'm afraid they are going to screw this up. I would expect the Court to at least give consideration to the fact that men and women are different; they may rule that said difference does not rise to the level of justifying a discrimination in law. However, from what I've read of the oral arguments and questioning, it appears that at lesst some of the Justices have discarded the idea that there can be any legitimate reason to restrict the right of anyone to engage in any kind of marriage that they want. If their ruling is based on that, then it will probably provide a rationale for a lawsuit to force polyamorous marriage to be accepted.

Let me be clear, I don't give a damn one way or the other about gay marriage. Gays want to get married? Let 'em. Fine. Whatever. As long as it's only two at a time. But some of the forces behind this case have been fairly explicit in regarding this as a foot-in-the-door activity for destroying the whole Western concept of family. Some of the gay activists seem to either not have figured that out, or they're on board with it.

what I understand he sates argument is the marriage is a child centric institution, not one based on emotions.

Which might be a valid argument if they prevented post menopausal women from marrying, and declared invalid marriages that failed to produce children.

Posted by: lujlp at April 29, 2015 7:09 AM

There are always going to be unintended beneficiaries of any type of marriage laws.

In this case, I would prefer those unintended beneficiaries to be older women and men, who married for companionship and financial reasons, than for the unintended beneficiaries to be Arab sheiks and fundamentalists Mormons, And also those father daughter mother son, brother brother, sister sister pairs who decide to get *married* for inheritance purposes and government benefits.

Because if the court decides that you have a fundamental right to marry any adult person of your choice, that is exactly the path we are headed down.

I am sure when the government decides to fix this unintended consequence by confiscating everyone's property upon their death, and handing your spouse a small government pension in return, everyone will be on board with the new order.

Looks like Joe has doubled his chances for a date on Saturday night.

Feh. The slippery slope argument is risible in this case.

Goats did not the vote after it was awarded to women.

Polygamy did not result from deciding black and white Americans were allowed to marry each other.

Loving v. Virginia was a fundamental redefinition of marriage in many American states — cataclysmic to some at the time (and, yes, some claimed it was outlawed in the Bible), but now few people think twice about it.

I agree that decoupling civil marriages and religious marriages would be a good thing. In some states, however, it's explicitly against the law for same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, so that recourse isn't even available.

Just as I have more respect for (although despise) a feminist who admits that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, but is still justifiable, I have more respect for those who favor gay marriage and have the integrity to admit that the rationale supporting gay marriage also inevitably supports polygamy and incest.

In for a penny ...

Why only one consenting adult? How is that in any way less discriminatory?

We give Social Security benefits to one person connected to you. Other benefits as well. As long as straight people get that, gay people should as well.

PS I am so, so fucking tired of this question."

We give SS benefits to those who pay into the system, and surviving spouses of marriages of a certain duration.

There are a lot of jobs including many state employees who never join the system, and can't collect from it.

This is another one of those things in *careful what you wish for category like the non existent income tax advantage married people are supposed to enjoy.

And if you are so sick of these questions, why do you continue posting these legal speculations on the subject ?

"the non existent income tax advantage married people are supposed to enjoy. "

"Marriage has many advantages. While God never condemns one who remains single and focused on serving Him, there are many blessings for those who decide to marry. While most of those blessings extend past the topic of personal finance, there are some financial advantages to married life. In this article, we want to explore just one angle of that: taxes."

http://christianpf.com/marriage-tax-advantages/

The trouble Amy is that is not a valid reason to discriminate against multiple partner marriages. You have made an argument based on cost. And that same argument applies to gay marriage. The only distinction may be in scale. Then again, there may be no difference at all.

The marriage advantage myth?

An unmarried couple living together, maybe gay maybe not, each with $45K taxable income ($90K combined):
- each pays $7,113 income tax
- total $14,226 for both of them

A married couple, each with $45K taxable income (90K combined):
- filing jointly they pay $14,219.
- filing separately they each pay $7,113 ($14,226 total, same as unmarried couple).

By filing jointly the married couple has the advantage of paying $7 less income tax. This is huge, isn't it?

An unmarried couple living together, gay or straight, each with taxable income of $75K ($150K combined):
- each pays $14,613
- $29,226 combined.

A married couple, each with 75K taxable income ($150K combined):
- filing jointly they pay $29,247 ($15 more than the unmarried couple)
- filing separately they each pay $14,631 ($29,262 total, $36 more than the unmarried couple)

As far as federal income taxes, there doesn't appear to be any advantage in being married.

Here are the tax tables for 2014, in case I missed something:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Ken,

The benefit is only when you have highly unequal earnings. By pooling your deductions you sometimes can reduce your tax burden.

The other real tax benefit is pooled assets. You can transfer ownership between partners without being taxed.

All and all, quite meager benefits.

Amy,

Just to be clear the government does discriminate on a wide variety of criteria and for a wide variety of reasons. But these are legislative tools. The judiciary does not get to use them. As Isab pointed out SS discriminates based on age and contributions. You do not have a judicial argument that SS only goes to the over 65 and as a 43 year old that is age based discrimination and there for should be overturned. You do have legislative options.

So, if you are for legislative solutions to homosexual marriage your position could be consistent. But that would entail each state choosing how to define marriage. But if you are for judicial solutions your argument is exactly what you objected to. You are just saying polygamists, eww, icky.

"I have more respect for those who favor gay marriage and have the integrity to admit that the rationale supporting gay marriage also inevitably supports polygamy and incest."

Well, I think those things are still seperable. We know that polygamous marriage and (for the most part) incestuous marriage are harmful, from observing the societies that have tried them in the past. We don't have any reasonably good evidence that gay marriage is harmful. (Admittedly, this is a big and fairly unprecedented social experiment we are about to run, and it's not guaranteed to come up all roses. However, given the small number of such marriages that are likely to actually take place after the initial rush subsides, I think the probability of harm to the larger socieity is minimal.) And legally, it should be fairly easy to separate the two things, if the courts don't screw it up.

My fear is that the courts, in their headlong rush to demonstrate their political correctness, will screw it up. They'll reject any rationale for restricting who can marry (excepting, maybe, that such people must be legal adults), and there's your slippery slope. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, some of the supporters of gay marriage actually want to create that exact situation, and they're using gay marriage as their foot in the door.

Consider which groups in America today would be in favor of polygamy:

* The ruling classes and their apparatichiks. Polygamy would provide women access to the power, status, and wealth of very-high-status men, and they can piggyback on that power and status to get a leg up in their own careers (see Clinton, Hilary). There are a whole lot of women in Washington who would sign up for that deal. For the men, it would provide these advantages: (1) well, harems, (2) increased social status (in a polygamous socieity, the men who have the most wives have the highest status), and (3) marginalizing lower-status men so as to eliminate any potential future competition.

* Muslims. Polygamy is deeply embedded in their culture.

* Feminists. A prime goal of post-modern feminism, whether they want to admit it or not, is that women not have to "settle", but gain external means of support without any committment on their part. Polygamous marriage gives lots of women access to the support and resources of very-high-status men, and the quid pro quo is minimal: some social functions, and occasional sex.

So you are for polygamist marriage but single beneficiary for social security?