27 June 2013

See you in a couple years, SCOTUS.

If there is one thing that the people are entitled to expect from their lawmakers, it is rules of law that will enable individuals to tell whether they are married and, if so, to whom. Today, many people who have simply lived in more than one state do not know, and the most learned lawyer cannot advise them with any confidence. The uncertainties that result are not merely technical, nor are they trivial; they affect fundamental rights and relations such as the lawfulness of their cohabitation, their children's legitimacy, their title to property, and even whether they are law-abiding persons or criminals. In a society as mobile and nomadic as ours, such uncertainties affect large numbers of people and create a social problem of some magnitude. It is therefore important that, whatever we do, we shall not add to the confusion. I think that this decision does just that.

- Justice Robert H. Jackson, (dissenting) Estin v Estin, 334 US 541 (1948)

2 chimed in:

Aubrey Gann-Redmon said...

You know, I think the SCOTUS decision could have been written in a couple brief pages that would have put an end to this entire debate once and for all. All SCOTUS has to do is to (1) agree that we have a constitutional right to freedom of contract; (2) religious and spiritual considerations aside due to separation of church and state, marriage is nothing more than a contract; and (3) consenting adults should be allowed to freely enter into marriage contracts with one or more people of their choosing without government intervention. Survivorship and other benefits, taxation, custody, support, and property issues can all be dispensed with under the common law of contracts. I say get the government out of everyone's marriages, period. There. Problem solved.

Aubrey said...

Tax issues abound...don't you just love how the SCOTUS creates more problems than it actually solves? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/22/us-usa-tax-gaymarriage-idUSBRE96L0VZ20130722