Originally posted by KunsooI don't think that I should be forced to pay benefits for anyone. The government shouldn't have the right to take my money so that another person can have benefits. Let each person buy his or her own benefits, that way insurance isn't an issue.
I do too, although I don't think the rest of us should have to pay benefits to support it. The law should leave you alone, but in terms of public benefits, you get one spouse.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYes, that is my point, you are in the exception for those who make the idiotic and disingenuous slippery-slope argument.
No, I am for polygamy.
As an aside, a point just made in another thread, is that efforts to strike anti-polygamy laws would never survive rational basis review.
Originally posted by EladarAre you disappointed that you will now be subsidizing the income tax break married gay can get by now being able to file jointly?
I don't think that I should be forced to pay benefits for anyone. The government shouldn't have the right to take my money so that another person can have benefits. Let each person buy his or her own benefits, that way insurance isn't an issue.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, Windsor is a States right case. The US Supreme Court ruled that New York's decision to recognize same-sex marriage was "a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended." The Court used New York's same-sex marriage law to identify the liberty interest at stake. Then, the Court applied strict scrutiny to DOMA in a blended Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process analysis. Ultimately, the Court could not identify a compelling Federal interest to justify DOMA's far-reaching intrusions into same-sex relationships given protected status by certain States. Thus, the Court struck down DOMA.
The Court expressly declined to rely on principles of federalism...
It then found that DOMA was a violation of the "liberty" protected by the 5th Amendment...
Asserting that this is simply a "States right" case is misleading at best.
Previously, the Court had expressly reserved the question of whether same-sex marriages are entitled to formal recognition in the law. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (2003). Today, the Court ruled that same-sex marriages validated by State law are at least entitled to Federal recognition. In other words, Windsor is a States rights case. The States are free to experiment with marriage without undue interference by the Federal government.
------------------------------------
See also http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/26/federalism-marries-liberty-in-the-doma-decision/
------------------------------------
I know Windsor didn't use the magic words: Substantive Due Process, Strict Scrutiny, Fundamental Right, Compelling Government Interest. However, it seems obvious to me that the Court did apply strict scrutiny in this case. Here is how the Court framed the issue:
"The Federal Government uses this state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and dis- abilities. That result requires this Court now to address whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment."
An "Essential Liberty" is a Fundamental Right.
Originally posted by moon1969I am aware of your position on anti-polygamy laws. I still disagree with you. 🙂
Yes, that is my point, you are in the exception for those who make the idiotic and disingenuous slippery-slope argument.
As an aside, a point just made in another thread, is that efforts to strike anti-polygamy laws would never survive rational basis review.
The post that was quoted here has been removedActually, polygamy is a gender-neutral term, merely referring to a form of marriage with more than two partners. You are correct to define polyandry as the marriage of one woman to more than one man. If you wish specifically to identify the form of polygamy which consists of the marriage of one man to more than one woman, that is called polygyny.
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeI guess it doesn't matter to your "analysis" that they expressly refused to rely on federalism principles. So be it.
No, Windsor is a States right case. The US Supreme Court ruled that New York's decision to recognize same-sex marriage was "a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended." The Court used New York's same-sex marriage law to identify the liberty interest at sta y protected by the Fifth Amendment."
An "Essential Liberty" is a Fundamental Right.
The SCOTUS didn't apply "strict scrutiny" or "heightened scrutiny". It said that DOMA was meant as an invidious discrimination that served "no legitimate purpose". What that has to do with "State rights" is a puzzle especially when they specifically declined to use a federalism argument.
Originally posted by KunsooWhy should anyone get a 'tax break' for being married? Why treat someone differently because the person is married? It doesn't make any sense to me in the modern world. It is something that is a result of beliefs that have been rejected by society for quite some time.
Nope. One spouse. You pay for the rest.