I just read this in Forbes:
Two British sisters who have lived together all their lives have lost their battle to avoid paying inheritance tax when one of them dies. Joyce and Sybil Burden, ages 90 and 82, had asked the European Court to give them the same tax rights as married or gay couples. They own their home jointly, and when one dies the other will be unable to pay the inheritance tax and will have to move out. But the court turned down the final appeal.
"We are struggling to understand why two single sisters in their old age, whose only crime was to choose to stay single and look after their parents and aunts, should find themselves in such a position in the U.K. in the 21st century," the Burdens said in a statement.
If gay marriage and its associated rights become broadly legal it creates some sticky moral problems. Let's assume there are financial benefits to marriage--particularly tax benefits, but others as well--insurance, etc. Doesn't this open the floodgates to more marriages of convenience? And what of the two sisters above? Any reason why they couldn't find a connubial solution to their problem, assuming the government would sanction such a thing? And after all, how could we possible discriminate against these two individuals because they happen to be sisters? To each his own, right? Isn't that the gay marriage argument? Don't impose your values on me?
I think this is leading to a time when there is no government-sanctioned marriage at all. The economic issues disappear. (And gladly, so do divorce courts.) There can still be marriage, but it is all ecclesiastical, or whatever you prefer. Nothing is legally binding. There could still be legal parental responsibilities, but not to a husband or wife, unless specifically bound by contract.
Is there any other ultimate solution? How else do we rationalize keeping anyone that pleases from financially motivated marriages, even sisters?
I am so deeply disturbed by this, because if you look at it from a legal point of view, it's all plausible. I was lying in bed the other night thinking about the marriage issue, and wondering, if gay marriage is no longer defined as one man and one woman, how far away are we from someone marrying their dog or microwave? Remember the guys who legally changed their names to ESPN or 11684 (or some like number). And then there is the artist formerly known as Prince... It will be a sad day when the sacred institution of marriage can be used as a farce or to buy someone their 15 minutes.
ReplyDelete