The ACLU reported
on its website today that the Supreme Court will probably decide the constitutionality of DOMA in the coming term:
"Edie is an 83-year-old lesbian widow who spent 44 years with her partner and then spouse, Thea Spyer. Over the course of decades, Edie and Thea dealt together with Thea’s multiple sclerosis and the progressive paralysis that it caused, deepening their love and commitment as Thea gradually became a paraplegic. When Thea died, two short years after they finally married in 2007, Edie learned that she owed the IRS $363,000 in estate taxes on her inheritance from Thea. When Edie found out that a straight widow wouldn’t have owed a dime, she decided to challenge DOMA in court. Her case was one of two that prompted the Department of Justice to stop defending the constitutionality of DOMA and instead to acknowledge that it violates the federal constitution.
There are now over 130,000 married same-sex couples in the United States. DOMA harms each of those couples in a wide variety of ways, since it treats them as unmarried in each of the 1,138 different contexts in which federal statutes determine protections or obligations based on marriage."
At the risk of being so way off base that I'm planting my flag on the dark side of the moon (since I'm no lawyer), I think the issue might come down to how the Court interprets Article IV, Section 1, which reads:
ReplyDelete"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof".
My naive interpretation of that section inclines me to believe DOMA might be unconstitutional in so far as it could prohibit states from giving full faith and credit to marriages that were legally arranged under the laws of another state.
For instance, as I understand it, if a same sex couple is legally married in Iowa, Georgia is prohibited from recognizing that marriage under DOMA. But, if that is the case, then isn't that a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause?
So a person dies in 2009. The first $3.5 million in assets is excluded from Federal inheritance taxes (damn that Bush). It would take an additional $807,000 (roughly) to generate a tax bill of $363,000. Well, I for one think it’s outrages that Edie didn’t owe more. (Actually she won her suit and didn’t owe anything, but I am on a roll here.)
ReplyDeleteWhat did Edie do to earn this money anyway? Doesn’t she realize that it was the government that enabled/inspired her (her partner) to become so obscenely wealthy in the first place? I would like to get excited about DOMA which I think is silly and harmful, but frankly I am too upset about people like Edie who don’t want to pay their fair share - and even go to court and sue over it.
I say screw the economy and screw the law. What about fairness? I don’t care if the money was already taxed when it was earned and then again when interest or dividends or other income was generated from investments.
I say if your are rich, pay up. Don't be greedy like Edie. Grrrr.
I'm not surprised that Fred has put forth a faulty argument, but it is refreshing to see that at least this time, it was intentional.
ReplyDeleteEdie's case is about estate taxes treating same-sex married couples differently from straight married couples. That is entirely separate from the issue of how high estate taxes ought to be on married couples.
Valiant effort, though. :)
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea why anyone would think my argument (actually arguments) faulty. Quite the contrary, I believe I have stated the President’s position and his lack of understanding about things economic rather accurately.
The main point I am making (and I would have used the word ‘clever’ rather than ‘faulty’) is that fairness is an ever-so-subjective term. The other and less obvious point is that social issues (which are moving inexorably toward the liberal comfort zone) really won’t be of much consequence if the country fails economically due to one man’s dogma on fairness rather than a focus on what actually makes sense.
Perhaps “Don’t Be Greedy Like Edie” should replace “Hope and Change” in the bumper sticker mentality of 2012.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI know you support gay marriage. My guess is that you believe DOMA is unfair, and that Edie's marriage ought to be treated the same under the law as any other marriage. Am I right?
If so, conservative paranoia must be high indeed when every ... single ... issue ... even when there is agreement on the issue ... devolves into some rant/denunciation/incantation against Obama. To wit, a book on The Old Man's coffee table fearfully proclaims him "The Great Destroyer". (How do I type the sound of my palm smacking my forehead?)
Part of me is almost hoping for a Romney win in 2012. Under Obama, trying to talk about more than one subject with conservative friends and mentors has been as baffling as attempting the same exercise with a parrot. "I understand that you want a cracker, Paulie, but if we could just get back to the issue at hand ... I know you think Obama is eating your crackers, Paulie, but that's really not relevant to the topic of ..."
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteI must say that you have set an interesting dynamic - to defend bringing Obama into the equation without the appearing to reinforce your point and exacerbate my perceived conservative paranoia. Well here goes.
First of all I am more libertarian than conservative, although not of the Ron Paul mold. And yes I am against the DOMA and for three reasons:
1. I support the right of gay people to lead normal lives.
2. I believe in peoples’ right to make their own choices.
3. Related to the above I believe that if there is no compelling need for a regulation then there should be none. Just because the power exists doesn’t mean it should be used. As Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Madison, the power to tax is the power to destroy. So too the power to regulate. But perhaps I digress.
In terms of conservative paranoia, maybe, but remember, even paranoid people have real enemies. But is it really paranoia or are you mixing parrots with cracker crumbs?
In my personal life I strive for (but alas, often fail to achieve) internal consistency; to have my actions and beliefs be individually compatible with my overall philosophy of life. And I hold those who choose to rule over us to no less a standard. So whether it is fair to treat one person differently than another for whatever reason opens the issue (for me) of what constitutes fairness. So a president who selectively enforces and challenges laws on the basis of his idea of fairness and threatens to damage the US economy in the name of fairness is (for me) fair game on issues regarding fairness and politics.
In terms of my coffee table, mine (actually my wife’s) is apolitical. It has a book on the presidents, a book on the first ladies and a few family albums. I understand how pedestrian that makes me appear, but I’m at that point in life where I really don’t care… if I ever did.
Finally, with regard to your comment about almost hoping Romney wins, for a moment I thought you had cast aside your tribal loyalties in favor of a more realistic understanding of the world. Well, one can dream.