There are others who are already mining the same-sex marriage decision for all of its potential unintended consequences, in this case the potential for a dying grandmother to marry her granddaughter to avoid the estate tax. And, no, I have no idea who make up the folks at “American Thinker”:
American Thinker is a far-far-right publication. Lots of paranoid conspiracies. They’ve had to try and calm their readers down about Jade Helm, for example.
Besides, couldn’t dying grandmothers have married their grandSONS for the same purpose prior to last week’s ruling?
Re: #520
Without same-sex marriage, the dying grandmother could marry a grandson to attempt the same estate tax dodge. (But are those objecting to the possible expansion of this estate tax dodge not the same ones as those who want to completely abolish the estate tax?)
The question is whether close blood relatives are allowed to marry.
Thread is getting weird.
Runs right up against incest laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest_in_the_United_States
This talk about “tax loophole” is not new news:
“Besides, couldn’t dying grandmothers have married their grandSONS for the same purpose prior to last week’s ruling?”
Apparently, no - at least in MA, per the above linked article.
Even if this was a “loophole”, how many dying GPs would go for the trick?
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
getting???
The discussion of incest and polygamy is not even tangential to same-sex marriage; it’s just nowhere near the curve. If someone wants to open a discussion of these 2 less-than-burning issues, be my guest, but it just does not belong here.
Sorry, skieurope. It all comes out of the discussion of certain groups’ fear mongering that gay marriage will mean doom and gloom. So yes, not directly related, but still relevant - as long as we are not falling into a crevasse that is too deep. 
I suspect there is some pressure from the GOP bigwigs to cease and desist with all the same sex marriage stuff, resisting the court and so forth, the last thing they want going into the 2016 election cycle is to perpetuate the idea that the GOP is owned by Christian fundamentalists. There was an interesting article the other day, that did a statistical analysis of voter beliefs on certain issues, and it found a strong correlation between negative value of their opposition to same sex marriage in terms of likely voters. The GOP has a very hard time attracting younger and independent voters and their focus on social issues, especially same sex marriage, has cost them, big time.
And any talk related to sex, potential sex, or even no sex makes for craziness.
Right now, we have same sex marriage. And hetero marriage. And a bunch of laws related to marriage or using marriage as an accepted legal status. I can stop there. The reason I posted Takei, romani, was because he makes the interesting/valid point that our interpretation of the constitution can shift per the era- and upon careful (we hope) consideration.
I think I missed something… I haven’t been following this all that closely so I missed the Takei thing.
I’ve mostly just been popping in and reading the previous 2-3 posts lol.
I’ll stop with this- poly marriage is not my march in the streets issue but I do believe that the gov should only very, very loosely regulate adult bodies and relationships. I am pretty libertarian in that regard and I think it reflects in most of my views on things.
I do love Takei though so I will go back and see what you posted.
You mean articles like this?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-may-regret-its-lasting-battle-against-gay-marriage/
@skieeurope:
Tell that to John Roberts and Scalia, both of them said if we legalize same sex marriage, then polygamy would be the next thing and so forth. The real weirdness isn’t the thread, it is what supposedly intelligent judges wrote in their dissents that is weird, Harvard Law school should take away their law degrees for their dissents. People do argue things like same sex marriage allowing a grandmother to marry a granddaughter to avoid taxes (though why grandmothers dont’ marry grandsons doesnt’ dawn on them), some on the loony right are basically saying same sex marriage means anything goes, which is obviously both idiotic and weird, but they are saying these things, including sadly two supreme court judges.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/episcopalian-church-votes-to-approve-same-sex-marriage/
Overwhelmingly, BTW.
People should be more broadly informed, ok? I think most of us can agree on that. I can’t always make myself care what the loonies say about anything and everything. They are loonies. I can scrunch up and moan about how they’re only educated just enough to throw dirt around. But that’s another thread.
Btw, you know plenty of Episcopalians had a freaking meltdown when an openly out bishop was nominated. In the Northeast.
Musicprnt, that’s certainly true of my D and her friends. The stubborn opposition to gays seems so wrong-headed and hard-hearted to them that they’re not willing to listen to anything else those pols have to say on any subject. The GOP has totally lost those kids, and apparently doesn’t care.
The view of the constitution does change, and it was meant to, despite what the federalist society claims, the constitution is not the 10 commandments, and original intent fails as an argument with half an ounce of reasoning and historical research. The constitution is not a complete document, it deliberately tossed slavery to future generations, was deliberately obtuse about other things, and the founders didn’t quite expect the world to be living 200 years in the future as they did in 1787, unlike too many today, they knew that change and progress were inevitable, it is in the writings of people like Madison and Adams and Franklin, it is evident in what participants in the constitutional convention wrote about it after the fact.
The good news is generally when attitudes change, it rarely reverts (though obviously, it can, see citizens united with ruling corporations are people, something that flew in the face of 200 years of court rulings), it usually is a forward thing, so it is very unlikely, for example, that rulings like Brown V Board of Ed, Or the Lawrence decision or this one will be overturned, despite the fantasies of some. The general progression has been towards more rights, not less, so I doubt the same sex marriage issue will come up again, not to mention that once courts rule, which opponents know, people shrug and say “what was the big deal” afterword.
I should add that my post #520 demonstrates that extremist and alarmist fringe positions do make it into staid publications. The American Thinker opiner’s writing was quoted in a trust-planning website and emailed to me by a lawyer friend. Nowhere was anything said by anyone about advocating incest.
And, further, that it is ironic that before the advent of domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage, same-sex couples did sometimes resort to adoption of the younger partner to provide greater legal protection for the relationship.
@lasma:
they care, but as long as they can maintain congress pandering to the angry old white people who make up their base for the most part, they don’t care about the youth, plus they also figure that those young people in 10 or 15 years will ‘come to their senses’ and vote GOP, probably based on the old Churchill line that it is a hard hearted person who isn’t a liberal in their youth, and a dumb one who isn’t conservative when they are older. I think if the GOP keeps pandering to their socially conservative base, they will find out how foolish that thought is, few of those young people when they get older will turn around and decide being gay is a sin, that marriage is the only place to have sex and it is for making babies,etc, that is the social conservative stock and trade.
It is about time for the Episcopal Church to make up its mind on same sex marriage. They were debating it 10 years ago, and waffled because they were afraid of the reaction of conservative churches and they were especially afraid of upsetting the African churches in the Anglican communion (why, I don’t know, but they were), on the one hand the church was telling LGBT people they were welcome, on the other hand they were telling the same people that they didn’t matter,that all that mattered was the feelings of the churches in Africa, who didn’t like women priests, women Bishops, gay bishops, gay priests, etc…the most lame excuse I got (from the rector of a very, very liberal church I belonged to) was that they wanted to keep the communion going, so the EC could work with local churches in Africa on mission work and so forth…not to mention giving me the song and dance that it wasn’t the fault of the church or its bishops in africa, they were converted by evangelical missionaries (his words, not mine) back in colonial days, etc, etc…blah. Anyway, good for them, it is about time.
“in this case the potential for a dying grandmother to marry her granddaughter to avoid the estate tax.”
Oh for goodness sake. There is no can of worms. All this stuff is just silly now and this is one of the silliest.
“Today, 99.8 percent of estates owe no estate tax at all, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.[3]”
The exemption is now $5.43M.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax
The Texas AG now has more important things to worry about than if society will crumble if gays are allowed to marry.