Reckless Ruling - What's Next?

If the Constitution protects the rights of two people, of the same sex to be married, and does not permit any federal or state government to legislate against that, how then can you legislate against:

• An adult mother marrying her adult son


• An adult father marrying his adult daughter


• An adult brother marrying his adult sister


• An adult first cousin marrying an adult first cousin

Some have argued that the government can set reasonable limits. But how is limiting men from marrying men not a reasonable limit? The response, "But they love each other". Great, what about a mother marrying a son? Are you going to deny that she loves him or that he loves her?

Remember, a federal judge has declared, in a long winded decision, that marriage is addressed in the Constitution despite the fact it isn't. He says that you cannot pass a law, at either the federal or state level, that interferes with the right for a man to marry a man, despite the fact that we have had such laws for centuries. He is saying that you are violating an individual's civil rights by doing so.

If the judge says the Constitution gives the right of a man to marry a man, then how does it not give the same right to the mother and her son? Where does the Constitution say a homosexual marriage between consenting adults is OK, but an incestuous marriage between consenting adults is wrong?

So the judge's decision, if upheld, gives the precedent to the mother and son to do the same.

And do not read too much sex into it.

Suppose the mother is 66 and a widow. She is drawing full Social Security benefits and has a great employer provided group insurance package providing terrific retirement benefits. In addition, she has $500,000 in her IRA. She has also learned she has a medical condition that will kill her in 2 years. She has an only son who is 35 years old and is divorced. On the advice of her accountant, she decides to help her son financially. She marries him providing to him all the spousal benefits conferred upon a husband. Mom dies 2 years later, and the 37 year old son is treated as a widower by our system for the rest of his life. How do you feel about paying for it?

And you will pay for it. He will received full Social Security widower benefits. He will roll the IRA funds over without paying tax until his retirement. Those are tax revenue losses and social benefits that you will pay for.

Consider this story: Last Civil War Widows Death

So, an 81 year old civil war veteran marries an 18 year old girl and she gets his civil war pension until her death in 2003. The marriage was for the purpose of getting the pension benefit - that's it.

Now consider this, the same thing could have been done for the man's great grandson under this judge's ruling.

And here is a recent example, of a lesbian "spouse" suing the federal government for not allowing her lesbian spouse's estate to transfer to her on the same tax basis as between a husband and wife.

ACLU Brings Suit To Seek Equal Tax Treatment For "Married" Homosexuals

One state decides to permit gay marriage, and it is determine from that, that citizens of all states must pay for it through Federal tax benefits.

But then there are some who think that two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex, regardless of their relationship:

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws