Posted on 03/28/2013 9:30:22 AM PDT by Olog-hai
When Edith Windsor got engaged in the 1960s to the woman who eventually became her wife, she asked for a pin instead of a ring. A ring would have meant awkward questions, she said: Who is he? Where is he? And when do we meet him? …
Windsor said the spirit of her partner of 44 years was watching and listening Wednesday, and she called marriage a “magic word.”
“For anybody who doesn’t understand why we want it and why we need it, OK, it is magic,” she told reporters.
Windsor is asking the court to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman. She said the argument before the court went well. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
If it were only about economic benefits, then the activists would settle for legal unions. The fact that they feel a need to destroy the definition of marriage means that they want enforced acceptance.
Or when you are 88 years old and on your deathbed, you can marry a 17 year old Guatemalan girl and she would receive inheritance and pension and Social Security for the rest of her life.
These items left when someone dies were ALL paid for with after tax monies.
Taxing them again is just plain theft.
...that’s true up to the point where the asset is valued at the purchase price...but what about the accruals of interest on fixed or variable annuities, or other such deferred instruments accumulating value through investment? That’s where they’ve got you...and they certainly won’t go through the trouble to define the accuulation in excess of the purchase price...
...of course they know they are thieves...taxing on the total value of the inherited asset, rather than merely the subsequent accrual, but, there it is...and woe to he who does not abide by their thievery...
and woe to he who does not abide by their thievery...
...uh, Mr. Brigade, that would be woe to him...objective case and all that...
No, it's because not recognizing her valid-under-state-law marriage is costing her $363,000 in federal estate taxes.
Her “marriage” obviously doesn’t convey spousal benefits, so it can hardly be a marriage in the legal sense. Whatever arrangement she has with her fellow she-hag, it is not a legal peer to marriage. QED.
LMAO!!! -it is quite hard to argue against with all that magic THEN again one could a libertarian and just let the magic be imposed and call it something else altogether like states rights....
Why doesn't it convey spousal benefits? That's the very issue before the Court-- whether she has to pay $363,000 in estate taxes that a "married" person wouldn't have to pay. You're just arguing in a circle.
If faggage comes to Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania will have to treat faggages the same as marriages for tax purposes. I’m not in favor of any state allowing faggages, but some are doing it anyway, and the Supreme Court may actually impose it on us. My suggestion is not to allow it, but to call it something other than marriage, because it is most definitely not marriage.
Dangerous game to call gay coupling “faggage”? Or dangerous to call it marriage? I believe the latter. Give what they want its own name. Don’t grant it, IMO, but at least call it something that distinguishes it from marriage. Then have the debate about it.
“If the laws were changed to say that partners of “civil unions” get treated like being married for the purpose of benefits, inheritance, taxes, etc, then most of the pressure would go away.”
I doubt that. They have set their sights on marriage, and nothing short of that will satisfy them at this point.
The fact is, her marriage is nothing more than a feel-good sham without any moral, religious, or even legal weight. It is the adult equivalent of two children playing house, and commands no more gravitas.
No, the difference is that her marriage does have all the legal benefits and burdens of marriage under the law of the state where she lives. But she nonetheless doesn't get the federal tax benefits of marriage.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Supreme Court should invalidate DOMA. I was just responding to the argument that gays can get all of the benefits of marriage by contract. They can get many of those things by contract, but not all, and in the case before SCOTUS the difference is worth $360,000.
And I'll bet not a dime to charity.
Two selfish b......!
I thought about that. There are all sorts of trusts and other ways to give her the money.
Hell...a lot of government work places already give benefits to “domestic partners”....whatever that means.
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.