Posner has gone off the deep end. Doesn’t he realize that any man can marry any woman? How is different from the Jim Crow democrat days? Any man could not marry any woman.
Where is the mystery in that difference? Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any man and any woman (certain exceptions apply).
Therein lies the problem. If “any” man can marry “any” other man—using the logic that consent is all that’s required—then what is the legal reason that two siblings of the same sex cannot? How about Father/Son?
Sick, but not if your motivation is to subvert certain tax law. A spouse isn’t subject to inheritance taxes.
The same thing can happen if two men want to marry for similar spousal benefits.
“Posner has gone off the deep end. Doesn’t he realize that any man can marry any woman?”
Actually, the arguments started there. The problem, as Judge Hamilton pointed out, is that this argument leads to an ultimate claim of sex discrimination, and to a strict scrutiny standard. The attorneys dropped it pretty quickly.