We need look no further than Windsor for a good example: the spousal exemption from the estate tax. Is there any good policy reason to tax an estate when it passes from a deceased spouse to the surviving spouse? I had a law school friend who had to deal with gift taxes when she tried to buy a house with her partner, because her union wasn't recognized by the federal government. I mean, we really can think of plenty of transactions between spouses that would trigger tax liability absent some kind of marriage recognition. Does that count as more than two?
If not, we can think about all the instances in which the law has to ask: who is next of kin? Who's most closely related to a person? Who gets to make medical decisions for an incapacitated person? Who gets to inherit from an intestate decedent? Who gets to sue for loss of consortium? If the law recognizes a special relationship between parents and children, why shouldn't it recognize a special relationship between spouses?
Ultimately, state recognition of marriage isn't so much about exalting an outdated and intrinsically patriarchal institution (which it is) as it is about shaping policy and governance to match the way people actually go about living their lives. That's why refusing to recognize "same sex marriage" makes no sense. Every day, men and women are making the decision to intertwine their lives more closely with members of their own sex and/or gender, in economic, social, and familial relationships. By treating such individuals as living independently, the law and government simply fails to function.
I mean - I've been living with my partner for the past five or six years. For all intents and purposes, we might as well be common-law married (for all I know, under Illinois law, we might well be). There's no good reason for him to get taxed the way he does, and me to get taxed the way I do, when I am the sole income-earner in the household. There's no good reason for the [raft of other legal consequences that could result if the state were fully and directly aware of our living situation and sought to capitalize upon it] to fail to apply to us. And yet, here we are, six years and counting, and we're no more, legally speaking, than roommates. Does that make sense, from a policy perspective?
no subject
If not, we can think about all the instances in which the law has to ask: who is next of kin? Who's most closely related to a person? Who gets to make medical decisions for an incapacitated person? Who gets to inherit from an intestate decedent? Who gets to sue for loss of consortium? If the law recognizes a special relationship between parents and children, why shouldn't it recognize a special relationship between spouses?
Ultimately, state recognition of marriage isn't so much about exalting an outdated and intrinsically patriarchal institution (which it is) as it is about shaping policy and governance to match the way people actually go about living their lives. That's why refusing to recognize "same sex marriage" makes no sense. Every day, men and women are making the decision to intertwine their lives more closely with members of their own sex and/or gender, in economic, social, and familial relationships. By treating such individuals as living independently, the law and government simply fails to function.
I mean - I've been living with my partner for the past five or six years. For all intents and purposes, we might as well be common-law married (for all I know, under Illinois law, we might well be). There's no good reason for him to get taxed the way he does, and me to get taxed the way I do, when I am the sole income-earner in the household. There's no good reason for the [raft of other legal consequences that could result if the state were fully and directly aware of our living situation and sought to capitalize upon it] to fail to apply to us. And yet, here we are, six years and counting, and we're no more, legally speaking, than roommates. Does that make sense, from a policy perspective?