Interviewer Josh Zepps makes a weak argument, that incest laws should be enforced against gay marriage because there is a moral approbation against incest.
So it is okay for the state to restrict marriage on simply moral grounds? That is exactly what proponents of same-sex marriage are arguing against.
Gays - for years - have “adopted” their lovers as their sons. This worked out horribly for the wonderful British/American actor, George Rose.
Now there’s an argument that might win with Libs — gay marriage = less tax money to spend.
When you abandon THE definition,
all other “definitions” are arbitrary and easily argued against with the same “logic”.
Yet another problem: proving your sincerity. Currently, if you want to marry a foreigner, you have to convince the authorities that you’re not doing it just to obtain citizenship for the foreigner. According to some I’ve discussed this with, it’s gotten a lot harder to do this.
If marriage is “loosened up” to where same sex, relatives, and groups may marry, there will be a lot more tax footwork going on, and the govt will have to crack down.
Eventually people will get used to the idea that the govt gets to approve — or disapprove — your petition to marry.
Opening up marriage to gays may just lead to restricting marriage for everyone.
I’m going to marry both my dogs and leave them my estate. And since the relationship(s?) will be sterile, there’s no inbreeding risk to be concerned about. /sarc
I think it was Thucydides who said:
“Self-control is the chief element of self-respect.”
They will lose on the moral argument.
When I heard what the triggered the Supreme Court to consider this case I understood the problem.
It’s not about sexual preference, it’s about transfer of wealth laws.
I bet SCOTUS remands this back to the states, telling them to come up with a fairer way to administer transfer of wealth.
As for the Feds, perhaps they can open the gift tax exemption to say $25,000 per year and allow life insurance inheritance benefits to be treated the same regardless of marital relationship status of the beneficiary.
In any event, this is an inheritance law case; not a sexual preference case.
The concepts of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are immoral.......Brave New World........
If gay marriage is marriage, then why not?
Jeremy Irons is right. The perversion of our culture will create all sorts of such relationships....
And it contributes to the spiritual sickness of our souls.
Imagine a billionaire wishing to leave their estate to a great grandchild.
Under the current tax code, that billionaire pays nothing in taxes if the money is left to a spouse.
With a 50% inheretance tax and generation skipping penalities, the following inheretance tax rates apply:
Child = 50%
Grandchild = 75%
Great grandchild = 87.5%
I’m not making a case for collecting inheritance taxes, I’m just pointing out that people will use the new “marry whatever you want” laws to circumvent them.
Outside of its ridiculous context, it’s a ridiculous argument. But now that we’re debating homosexual “marriage”, it’s a sensible argument. Not long ago a person would be laughed at for prophesying such nonsense. Now it’s not only possible, it’s probable.
Surprised to see Irons taking the conservative view on some of these issues.
I would have taken him for a radical lib.
Good for him. He risks his career in taking some of these stands.
Not only could Dad marry his son, Dad could marry his son, daughter, cousin, and neighbor.
Furthermore, the clever entrepreneur will, for a small fee, marry ten thousand strangers who pay the small fee. In return, the ten thousand customers will receive whatever tax benefits accrue by marriage, and the health insurance coverage of the clever entrepreneur.
Homosexuals should be charged an additional tax because of the added burden to the health care system. They will have to be taken care of when the contract aids/hiv.
A disease specific to them.
When they first started talking about same-sex marriage, this is one of the first things I thought of. What a great way to avoid some taxes!
Of course, once everyone is married to someone, they would pull the marriage tax advantage.
I’ll applaud Irons on this one. He’s right, and he was good in Scanners and Total Recall.
There are also lots of single elderly sisters living together to pool economic resources. Why not let them “marry” as well?
If same-sex marriage becomes legal, heterosexuals will be permitted to marry persons of same gender. And then what becomes of marriage as an institution? Just a tax shelter. And then, any children of the tax shelter become primarily children of the taxing authority, not the tax avoidance association. Because the state puts the children first, you selfish grasping peons!