As always, you have a great response, and I mean that sincerely. Upon reexamining my comment, I stand corrected. You presented the issue with a good recap of the basic issues and a summary of the arguments. I see that my problem is not with the issue you present, but the responses it generates. They appear to be more a product of emotion, rather that a technical treament of the issue.

Obviously the problem is me. You are hosting a blog, not a technical forum. My expectations are wrong. These days there just seems to be so much shouting of poorly constructed opinions and so little thoughtful discourse. I was quick to rush to judgement and guilty of what I complain about. I definitely need to go into internet detox. My virtual side needs to be controlled and and my human side given some fresh air. Good luck. I will be back in a month.

Frank

I respect that many folks don’t like to talk politics. But the Tax Code and politics are intrinsically related. And this issue is being fought on tax grounds…

I personally subscribe to over 20 tax blogs and I can assure you this case is being discussed on most of them. It’s blog worthy and it’s about tax, so I feel it’s appropriate to include it.

Please don’t change this blog. First it was a presidential endorsement for non-tax reasons. Now it is discussing Prop 8 on a freedom of/from religion. TaxGirl, an excellent tax blog, is now morphing into yet another political/social blog. I encourage you to stay with taxes. But that is your choice, of course.

Frank

Go Merrill. Maybe he has pockets deep enough to at least make a public point, if not win the case.

I believe this whole mess about marriage started because the state got involved in matters of religion, by licensing and defining “marriage”, a religious and/or cultural ceremony or rite of passag, in the first place, and then granting financial and legal rights and privileges to people based on whether they held this particular license. I imagine the original intention of the State in codifying marriage was noble – protect the wife and children of these unions when the main provider died or ran off, back in the day when women couldn’t vote, didn’t work, and had no viable means of support.

It’s really not until *really* recently that people married for purely romantic reasons. Marriage has been used to shore up political power, solidify wealth and power, etc. Historically, marriage was about politics and mistresses were about love. In many cultures even today, marriages are still arranged by the family, to ensure social and financial stability for the family. I have an Indian friend who is very sympathetic to me and my partner because he and his wife got married without being arranged by the family.

As near as I can tell anymore, in modern American society, The main purpose for denying me the right to marry the person I’ve been with for the last nine years (which is longer than most legal marriages last) is to take *my* money in taxes, and dole it out to the majority. When I worked for a company that offered partner benfits, I had to PAY extra money in taxes (plus the premium) because I support another human being, because insurance benefits I get for my partner are considered a taxable benefit. When I die, my partner will pay more in taxes on that inheritance than someone I was married to. And that assumes brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and other “blood” relatives don’t hire estate lawyers to steal *our* stuff from him, which is often successful in the cases of domestic partnerships. Especially where I live. I’m not particularly worried they’ll do that, but the point is, they could, and without a pile of expensive legal paperwork on our part, they would probably win. All an opposite sex couple has to do is pay $25 to a J.P. and fill out some forms to protect themselves against that possibility.

And as far as I can tell, the only reason to exclude me from visiting my partner in the hospital is simply to be mean to us because ya just hate homos.

And by the way, No-one today forces Christian churches to marry Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or anyone else they don’t feel like marrying for whatever capricious reason they can come up with. No-one I”m aware of is suggesting that change. That’s a totally specious argument on the part of religious leaders to rile up their congregations.

Lesson 1 – You are correct that California prop 22 was passed by the voters. Fortunately, we live in a country where majority rule is limited by the Constitution of the United States.

Remember – our society is premised on the idea that ALL people are created equal and furthermore the Bill of Rights 1st amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

In short, we don’t live in a majority rule society. We live in a society which provides minority groups (in numerical numbers) the opportunity to exrecise their beliefs without that majority infringing on basic equality rights or having to be subjected to laws which are fundamentally grounded in religious “virtue”.

The so called “activist judges” merely reinforce the notion that a majority can’t take away the rights of the minority. The irony in this case is that the majority heterosexual community seeks to deny the minority (gays, lesbians, bisexual,transsexuals, the “GLBT”) something that is legal to the majority. The majority simply wants to withhold the right to marry from the GLBT community. The majority diminishes the GLBT community to second class citizens because they are GLBT and for no other valid reason.

Lesson 2 – If California prop 8 passes then gay or lesbian marriages pre-dating prop 8’s effective date would not become illegal – they would become invalid unless of course they are grandfathered.

Lesson 3 – Even if Prop 8 passes it will not function as expected – the California constitution in part provides all rights provided to U.S. residents under the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the inconsistency will undermine prop 8’s effectiveness because of the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Lesson 4 – Full faith and credit clause – GO TO LAW SCHOOL

In point of fact I can write about this Gay Lesbian marriage issue for days and the fact is that the GLBT is entitled to a marriage union just like everyone else. This doesn’t change the fact that a church could still deny a couple the right to marry because of religious objections. It only establishes that as far as getting a marriage license – the GLBT community can do what heteros do all the time.

If, as most prop 8 voters claim, “marriage” is undermined as a result of allowing GLBT’s to marry – then they should worry more about the excessive divorce rate among heteros. More than 50% of all marriages end in divorce!

As Winston Churchill stated – “you can count on Americans to do the right thing once all other options have been exhausted”.