@emilybee, You might be taking my post too seriously. No doubt there are people out there who exceed the $5.43 million (adjusted for inflation yearly) exemption who might prefer to violate their beliefs and principles against same-sex marriage than to fork over funds to the IRS.
But that’s fodder for another thread. 
@Nrdsb4 - It’s curious how rigid the moral code is some subjects, and how flexible on others.
@AttorneyMom, I wasn’t calling you out - I was calling out American Thinker.
I don’t understand the AT hypothetical. The same sex ruling only “opened the door” to grandma marrying granddaughter to evade estate tax if already grandma could marry grandson.
PG, there’s nothing to understand, unless you’re studying the effects of hysteria on cognition.
@pizzagirl:
The point is the ruling did no such thing, the law already bans a grandparent marrying a grandchild, whatever sex they are, so the point about grandma marrying granddaughter to evade the estate tax is not even a strawman argument, it is just logorrhea from conservatives crying doom and gloom about same sex marriage, the same way they yelled it will lead to being able to marry a dog, marry a father and daughter, all the crap their obviously delusional minds think, it kind of reminds me of the old Reds under the Bed mentality in the 1950’s, same kind of idiocy. It is hysteria, these morons have been so conditioned to believe that the universe is gonna explode if gays are allowed to marry, if we don’t bring back theocracy and so forth, that their minds slip into neutral and their mouths just start chucking out whatever it decides to blurt out.
Put it this way, since same sex marriage has been legal in the states, since DOMA fell, I haven’t heard of one case of something like this, of a grandma or grandpa trying to marry grandkids to get around estate taxes.
PG, they are probably feeding off something like this Harvard Law hypo (which I linked earlier):
Here is what the writer says in a nutshell. There is a statute that prohibits marriage between grandparents and grandchildren of the opposite sex, but the statute is silent about same sex. Since same sex marriages are OK in MA, it would be ok for grandpa to marry his grandson to avoid the tax, right? Most likely, not so fast. I’m not a lawyer, but statutes are something I have to deal periodically. Statutes do not exist in a vacuum. If such “marriage” is denied, an appeal will most likely result in a ruling that the statute now needs to be interpreted to include same sex relatives, because it fits the legislative intent (prevention of tax avoidance, the ick factor, etc. ) and the logic underlying its adoption. The replies to the hypo are spot on, IM(non-lawyer)O.
But. (Consanguinity) “is the property of being from the same kinship as another person. In that aspect, consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person.”
So, the examples stated may be different genders, but the kinship prohibition remains. Yeah, they will update it.
Oh my, time to hate on the Koch’s . Those poster children for evil. To ensure one doesn’t accidentally support their endeavors in any way …be sure to avoid attending any of the following…
Also… make sure you are never taken to one of these medical establishments…
And progressive New Yorkers be forewarned.
http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/Koch-Brothers-Philanthropy-Reid/2014/03/21/id/560986/
But what’s that sayings…haters gotta hate.
Nevermind.
Aren’t there are already laws prohibiting close relations from marrying? I think it unlikely that a case of brother & sister petitioning to marry each other will ever make it to the SCOTUS.
Brothers and sisters marrying would come under strong scrutiny, because there is justification for banning such unions. Besides the genetic one with children, there also is evidence that even adult children cannot fully consent, that having grown up bonded as brother and sister, for example, there would be elements of coercion (I am not an expert, just something I recall reading). It would need to be evaluated for the risks, get expert testimony on it, before even thinking about it.
@ dietz199:
The fact that for example David Koch does a lot of philanthropy doesn’t mean he or his brother are necessarily good people overall or above criticism. What you leave out, for example, if the Koch Brothers basically buying elections, thanks to the Citizens United decision in a sense they paid for, by supporting the politicians who put those judges on the court. It leaves out using their money and influence to basically buy out the tea party movement, many of whose ideas are basically to cut their personal income taxes. The Koch brothers also want to deny the 6 or 7 million people who now have health insurance having the piece of mind of having that insurance, they also have pushed to overturn the changes that would not allow a health insurance company to drop people if they get sick with cancer and so forth, or find other ways to deny care. They also have been pushing to gut agencies like the CFTC (commodities futures regulation), because the Koch industries have major trading operations in derivatives and they want to be able to trade any way they want. More importantly, they are trying to create a political system where a small group of well off oligarchs basically control the country, which is basically what Russia is these days. I just read they are also pushing to abolish the national parks, arguing they should be used for their natural resources and turned over for development and such.
Few people are purely evil, the 19th century robber barons and such made their workers lives miserable, but also left behind endowments and philanthropies and such, those same robber barons also caused major financial crashes (panics) that made a lot of people suffer. The fact that the Koch brothers supported same sex marriage doesn’t mean they don’t have other things that make them less than stellar, it means that no person is totally anything.
BB, your analysis in post #546 is spot on, and has been given a big boost by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in King v. Burwell (the recent Affordable Care Act decision, which held that words in a statute must be read to give effect to the Act’s overriding purpose). Just about the only person in the country who would disagree with your conclusion would be Justice Scalia, who used the technical legal term “jiggery-pokery” to describe that reasoning.
Wasn’t it “gobbledygook”? Or was that a technical legal term used by Scalia in a different recent case?
There is extreme taboo against incest in our culture and most others. While I’m not supporting legalization of incestuous marriages, I don’t think that if it was legalized it would become a big phenomenon. In places where first cousin marriage is legal in the US, they comprise less than 1% of all marriages.
“Just about the only person in the country who would disagree with your conclusion would be Justice Scalia…”
Lol. Thanks, nottelling.
Scalia has an interesting mind – perhaps the kind you need to rise to such a position. “Jiggery-pokery” is a real thing. I’m an English scholar, but if I ever ran across “jiggery-pokery,” I sure don’t remember it. I had to look it up. Wanna bet bet how many times Scalia read it before using it? Even in arguments, without the benefit of a computer, Scalia once quipped that “gruntled” is not the opposite of “disgruntled.” He may well have been wrong – but I think it’s the sign of a quick mind that stuff like that occurs to him on the spot.
I’m not saying I agree with his position, or even that I think his verbal funkiness is appropriate to a SC opinion (or dissenting opinion). Just: there’s an interesting spark there. At the very least, I think he’d be a formidable Scrabble opponent.
Did this thread say- or did I hear elsewhere- that Scalia and RBG are good buds. “Scalia, 79, and Ginsburg, 82, frequently dine and vacation together. Every Dec. 31, they ring in the new year together. Their relationship has even inspired an opera, set to debut this summer.”
Lookingforward, you heard that right. 
RBG and Nino agree to disagree: