Txdigest.com

And Useful Idiots think it is the second coming.

This is my question. Can an old widower marry his son to avoid estate taxes when the widower dies? If you answer no please explain.

Hey..great idea!

Unintended consequences. I expect we'll be seeing a lot of those.

It is way past time for some serious civil disobedience. The 5 justices want same sex marriage, let them issue the marriage license, the court orders some one to bake cake, give them the flour, want photos, tell them to buy the film. People are way too eager to bow to some unelected robed dictator.
And now you know how any of the first 10 amendments will just be gone one day without a whimper.

I am for disobedience.

Red Oak wrote:And Useful Idiots think it is the second coming.

This is my question. Can an old widower marry his son to avoid estate taxes when the widower dies? If you answer no please explain.

how did the supremes ruling allow marriage between close blood relatives ?


some states allowed cousins , never heard of one that allowed father / daughter or mother / son weddings.

John in Plano wrote:

Red Oak wrote:And Useful Idiots think it is the second coming.

This is my question. Can an old widower marry his son to avoid estate taxes when the widower dies? If you answer no please explain.

how did the supremes ruling allow marriage between close blood relatives ?


some states allowed cousins , never heard of one that allowed father / daughter or mother / son weddings.

I think that's his point.

Those things that the state's disallowed in marriage, are now all up in the air..and will now all be decided by Supreme court decisions.

Easy J-I-P, the definition of "Marriage" is now opened ended, based only upon what capricious Supreme Court Judges "feel".

Red Oak wrote:Easy J-I-P, the definition of "Marriage" is now opened ended, based only upon what capricious Supreme Court Judges "feel".

We're both aware the court didn't allow that type marriage and if a case does make it then all the radio heads can go nuts.

Are you upset the bible has changed its views on marriage over the centuries ?

Define the "Bible", if you mean the Canonical scripture used by Catholics and Protestants I am unaware of any new texts.

The twisting of the texts based upon what is in vogue; has a longer history with the Christian Bible; than the SCOTUS has with the USC.

My problem with this decision is that the definition of Marriage is outside the purview of the Legitimate Role of the Federal Government as defined in the USC; and the rules for Civil Marriage belong to the States and the People.

I badly phrased my question.
Bible has comments about people having multiple wives, IIRC concubines along with multiple wives are also mentioned. Different times and different mores


States did exercise their rights and the IRS gave them the same tax benefit.

That to me is why same sex marriages were going to happen in all 50 states, or 57 if your obama.

"Bible has comments about people having multiple wives, IIRC concubines along with multiple wives are also mentioned. Different times and different mores"

Yes it does, and so did other ancient civilizations; and modern ones, even.

But never same Sex Marriage, until recent years; the fence has been kicked down, anything goes now; and will.

When the Clinton Sponsored Defense of Marriage Act was over turned; the FEDGOD argued that the Law was an intrusion in to the rights of the States.

Now just a few years later; the FEDGOD wants things the other way around.

Tempest in a Tea Party Cup.

Does the Bible speak for the world (the nation, the country) or does it address Christians and Jews?

If the former, why do our marriage laws resemble the early Romans' legal clap trap far more than the Biblical understanding of marriages and weddings?

If the later, why would devotees of any religion deign to put themselves between otherwise mature adults who have all their senses and wish to wed?

I guess what I'm saying is, how does any Christian or Jew have a say in who can legitimately wed? (I'm assuming it's Christians and Jews who tremble in fear the outcome of this change.)

Of course there are all the centuries' worth of legal details to the contrary notwithstanding; but how does the state have the power to neutralize the liberty of two people who want to get hitched? Where does that power come from and why is it needed? (To protect us from bad or unwise marriages? If so, we need a helluva lot better bunch of laws than we have now?)

I am as traditionally minded as anyone (I think), but if two people wan to put their noses together, I'll keep my nose out of it. And, really, nothing has been forced on anyone.

Think about it: nobody is required to marry outside their gender and no one can make anyone else like it if they do.

I don't see anyone being forced to do anything ... with the possible exception of way too haughty people being unwilling to take pictures or decorate cakes for those who were and will be one thing for sure: their neighbors.

Let's get out of the business of deciding who can love whom and what they are allowed to do about it.

I don't see gender issues as either liberal or conservative. I can remember when black and white couples were prevented from forming loving unions or getting married. Some screamed bloody murder that to do so was against God's law. Where the hell did that come from?

That's just one man's opinion and it's not likely to change.

VERY well reasoned and stated, mayhem! Good for you. Do you mind if I share it?

"I don't see anyone being forced to do anything"

You're wrong about that.

That Democratic process..which has now been negated..let some states define marriage the way it was always defined.

The people of these states have been forced to allow something they wanted to disallow.

"I am as traditionally minded as anyone (I think), but if two people wan to put their noses together, I'll keep my nose out of it. "

Red Herring.

In all states, people are allowed to put their noses together..a separate issuing from destroying the institution of marriage.

GFB wrote:"I don't see anyone being forced to do anything"

You're wrong about that.

That Democratic process..which has now been negated..let some states define marriage the way it was always defined.

The people of these states have been forced to allow something they wanted to disallow.

Good thing for you, and some of the other guys, that you happened to be born heterosexual. Otherwise I think you'd be singing a whole 'nother tune.

"why would devotees of any religion deign to put themselves between otherwise mature adults who have all their senses and wish to wed."

Why would someone wish to redefine a word that everyone has known the meaning of for millenia.

Marriage..throughout the centuries..has meant one man and one woman..in pretty much every culture in the world..certainly the civilized ones.

What is civilization gaining by throwing all that out?

..and do you think what civilization believed to be profoundly important things, that hold society together had no purpose?

millergrovesue wrote:

GFB wrote:"I don't see anyone being forced to do anything"

You're wrong about that.

That Democratic process..which has now been negated..let some states define marriage the way it was always defined.

The people of these states have been forced to allow something they wanted to disallow.

Good thing for you, and some of the other guys, that you happened to be born heterosexual. Otherwise I think you'd be singing a whole 'nother tune.

See, that's the difference.

Some people vote based on what's in it for THEM.

The rest of us vote for what is right for the country.

No, I would not sing a different tune..there are sane gay people.