Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

You mean we didn't have any sort of inheritance-by-default mechanism before then, among other things?

That's... interesting.

Would you kindly check your glasses and/or meds before claiming I'm Joph?

I'm going to disregard estate taxes specifically because those are recent, and answer the other half of the question with "since more than a tiny fraction of the population owned property", which is closer to a century and a half than just half a century.

Sorry. You both made similar statements.



Um... But they're the ones relevant in the context of federal taxes, aren't they? Also relevant because I'm talking about how the states role in marriage in the US has changed since the days of being subjects to the crown of England. Surely, a new tax levied on the people, which then excludes those who are married via statute represents a "change in the role of the state with regard to marriage".



The earliest inheritance taxes were implemented during times of emergency (very late 18th century and through the 19th). I did do some research on this before I posted, you know. Those taxes were short lived though. The idea that the state would tax people upon their death just as a general and normal tax is a construct of the 20th century. We think it's normal, but it really isn't (neither is income taxes btw).


And yes, I acknowledge that this rise corresponds with the rise of the middle class. Didn't say it wasn't. But that's irrelevant to my counter of Joph's claim that the state's role in marriage hasn't changed since we were a part of England, so there's apparently no reason at all to look at any of those changes when assessing the who, what's, and why's of marriage.


Can we all please agree that the state's involvement in marriage has changed dramatically since then?

How? Laws tend to only say what the law does. In this case, we're looking at the combination of an exception to a law and another law. While I suppose if we had access to the personal writings of those involved, we could find their reasons for passing the laws and amendments they passed, it's unlikely that any of that stuff is going to be available via a google search.

I know that some of you want answers in life to be as easy as checking some internet site responsible for "the truth", but the reality is that most of the time we're better served by using our own reason and intellect. Is it really so hard to understand why the state might just create all those benefits to married couples? Are we to accept that for centuries western civilization created incredibly harsh social rules and penalties on those who produced children out of wedlock, and strong social pressures for marriage (labels of "*******" and "old maid" for example), but then pretend that the creation of benefits for couples who marry, appearing right around the same time as the gradual elimination of the older social rules and penalties, had *nothing* to do with the same social objectives?

Really? That just seems like a stretch, doesn't it? It seems most reasonable to assume that the social importance of marriage had not changed, but the methods by which we attempt to get people to enter into it did.

Edited, Aug 20th 2010 7:20pm by gbaji

I'd suspect that inheritance affects a pretty significant portion of the population at one time or another.


Really, I interpreted it as Gbaji missing the point or something as the topic was how the US government originally became involved in marriage and Gbaji skipped about 170 years of legislative history (including a 50-odd year period vital to women's property laws) to talk about the things he thought would help his case. Maybe he did it intentionally to try to change the subject, I don't know. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

There would have been a discussion around said law. Find that and you can find the factors that were considered. Also, don't most bills have a preamble and stuff? might not always cover it, but I would think it often does.

The current rules for receiving Social Security benefits are a big disincentive for widows, any woman who was married for > 10 years and the Disable to not get married.

As the law is currently written, a woman who was married for 10 years, or widowed will lose all of her share of previous husband's retirement benefits if they remarry.

IF you receive Social Security's Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program and currently single, getting married will affect the amount of your Benefit check and eligibility for Medicaid if your joint income is too high or your partner has health insurance through work.

I'm sure anyone interested will find the information covering SS Benefits at the http://www.ssa.gov/ site. Sorry I'm not going to do direct quotes from the relevant sections of SSA regulations for you, when it's so easy to look it up yourself. It's were I gone for this information over the last 10 years, to determine how marriage would affect my benefits for both SSI and retirement. Plus it a great idea to know what you may qualify due to illness or lost of spouse.

At this time Jonwin and I can not afford to have me on his medical insurance and I need to compare what his expected SS Retirement benefits may be to what my ex may get. I could handle not getting the retirement benefits base on my ex's earnings, if I had a guarantee that Jonwin would live long enough for me to qualify, if I out live him.

edit since it seem url are now applied differently then I was use to.

Edited, Aug 20th 2010 10:48pm by ElneClare

Just helping this thread get to page 30. I'm also drinking a margarita.

Such an interracial couple would not have an equal opportunity to marry the person that they love, akin to a same-race couple that are in love. That is an inequality. It's also unfair.

Seeing as how "fairness" is an arbitrary judgment that can legitimately mean whatever a person wants it to, I think you lose any argument you bring it up in automatically.

So you're saying that the ban on SSM is equal and fair? Interesting...

Well if you just say "Hey that's not fair" and leave it like that, of course you will lose. If you actually prove or show how it is unfair, then you will win. Contrary to popular belief, fairness is not as "arbitrary" as you claim.



Those are fairly objective definitions that can be proven.