Posted on 06/28/2015 2:11:42 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Brilliant!
We must be wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.
The only way to kill the beast is to starve it.
My brother thought of this years ago. As marriage becomes a joke, you make use of it to your advantage. Other things would be covered like medical insurance (your 95 year old grandparent/spouse would not get death paneled, but full care on your insurance).
or cut off its head.
Won’t the estate pass to the surviving spouse intact?
...
Social Security benefits, too.
Wouldn’t the court have to invalidate incest laws first? Now logically the exact same arguments used to legitimize same sex marriage would do just that, but if the court’s two recent decisions show anything they show that logic has nothing to do with it. It’s about the justices feelings.
Over the past several years, we’ve learned that families are different, that marriage isn’t about procreation and that it’s bigoted to deny people marriage based on their chromosomal makeup. By those standards, it’d be discriminatory to deny people a union simply because they share DNA.
Logically, yes. But if the justices feel that there’s a difference, logic doesn’t matter.
I’ve heard this argument before and I think it is a very valid on. What will be interesting to see is how the IRS and then the Congress reacts when such a case actually exists.
I predict that it will be very ‘enlightening’.
And if this ruling is extended to polygamy then Gradma could just marry the whole family as they came of age and the whole idea of death taxes would have to be reworked. Why not just set up a family trust or do like the uber rich a do a foundation?
I think they just did that.
Brown vs. Topeka wasn't just about letting a little girl go to the school her parents wanted. It was about invalidating all Jim Crow laws.
What makes homosexuals so special that they get to have their perverted marriages, but I don't get to marry my grandmother?
Because justice Kennedy feels incest is icky and homosexuals aren’t?
No estate lawyer in his right mind would advise a client to marry her granddaughter in order to pass property without being subject to the estate tax. Even if the logic from Friday’s Supreme Court decision could be used to invalidate incestuous marriages, there would be a HUGE risk that a court would not do so, and an estate lawyer’s number one job is to eliminate risk.
Besides, there are far better ways to structure an estate to get around estate taxes, using trusts and the like.
Also a way to keep your adult child on your health insurance.
“Brilliant!”
Only by half my friend.
Polygamy is coming! Since the supreme court (yes lower caps b/c they don’t deserve any respect) used the 14th Amendment to justify this, ALL marriage must be legalized.
To get the full tax breaks we’d all want to marry our parents, our siblings, and our children! Yes people, incest marriage is coming too! Incest is legal in some states and that marriage cannot be discriminated against just as gay marriage can’t. Remember, the court said marriage is a constitutional right!And let’s face it, if gays can marry, so can a 75 year old woman and her 55 year old daughter (or any same sex family member). No estate tax and no death tax.
Come on people. Start thinking out of the box!. That also means the need for Obamacare (SCOTUScare) and Medicare is defunct as we know it. Why not marry simply to help others have access to your health plans at work? As stated above, once my mother and I are married, she can now enjoy the benefits of my health care plan at work as my spouse and forego Medicare. With marriage being redefined, marriage is a simple legal contract, nothing more, nothing less. Take advantage of it.
Now that my friend is “brilliant!” :)
Yes, the incest laws would have to be invalidated first.
The way to do that is to challenge them on bring discriminatory. Incest laws were set up, primarily, to avoid the creation of children with the kinds of defects that come from inbreeding.
Which isnt an issue with same sex marriages.
Kennedy’s majority opinion, in fact, explicitly rejected the notion that marriage is for procreative purposes anyways. So we’re already most of the way there.
While it is a felony, currently, the definition varies by state.
That'll add to the drama. SCOTUS took marriage out of the state's hands. This will now be coming their way, among other like issues.
The argument has already been made. Massachusetts General Law prohibits a son from marrying his mother, a father his daughter, a grandmother from marrying her grandson and other forms and levels of consanguinity. There is no prohibition against a grandfather marrying his grandson or his son.
A couple of years ago, a caller to Howie Carr, who identified himself as an estate planning attorney said he felt obliged to point this out to clients, since it would allow them to pass on estates and bypass Massachusetts’ estate taxes. The Federal DOM act was in force in those days, and the Federal government did not recognize same sex marriage.
I just thought of another unintended consequence of the Court's ruling:
What the court is saying is that the government can't withhold rights or benefits from one group without giving it to all groups. I don't see how they can continue to use age as a factor to "discriminate". That means anyone, regardless of age, should be allowed to: get a driver's license, smoke, drink, join the military and, of course, get married.
Presumably, this could also be used to give full benefits (including the "right" to vote?) to illegal aliens.
The fallout from this rulling will be vast. They can't justify it on legal, Constitutional or ethical grounds, so they will have to hand down arbitrary decisions on each and every permutation, picking and choosing which "rights" they feel like granting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.