This is not only a grossly immoral decision but it is silly, short sighted and stupid.
Think about it for just a moment. The effect of this ruling is that anybody can marry anybody.
There are plenty of reasons why I might want to “marry” someone. If I am married we share health insurance and pension benefits. We share inheritance benefits. We can file a joint return and share tax benefits. We can also share other legal benefits that come with marriage. I can lodge a business or property in my spouse’s name. As long as I trust my “partner” why not marry them?
So, for example, two guys–let’s call them Randy and Andy–who are room mates can get married. They don’t have to have a big splashy gay wedding because they’re not actually gay. But they can now file a joint tax return and one guy who is maybe a student without health cover can get his buddy’s health care cover which extends to a spouse.
Randy and Andy don’t even have to live together. They can get all the financial and legal benefits of marriage while they live with their girlfriends.
Let’s be more creative. Janet and June are spinster sisters. They want to make sure the family home and wealth stays in the family, but they’re just sisters and even though they leave the property jointly in their wills to each other, the inheritance tax is greater than if they were married. So why shouldn’t June and Janet get married? They don’t want to have sex together, but they want to be married. They could head off to the JP and get married, and why not?
Would there be benefits for two guys who were partners in a business to get married? Legal experts will clarify, but from what I know, I think there would be considerable benefits in the business being owned by “husband” and “wife”.
The situation of Janet and June already happened in England and the women were told they could not marry. But why? Continue Reading