scholarly journals Big (Gay) Love: Has the IRS Legalized Polygamy?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony C. Infanti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Plural Marriage ◽  
The U.S

"93 North Carolina Law Review Addendum 1 (2014)Within days in December, a federal judge in Utah made news by loosening that state's criminal prohibition against polygamy and the Attorney General of North Dakota made news by opining that a party to a same-sex marriage could enter into a different-sex marriage in that state without first obtaining a divorce or annulment. Both of these opinions raised the specter of legalized plural marriage. What discussions of these opinions missed, however, is the possibility that the IRS might already have legalized plural marriage in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last June in United States v. Windsor, which struck down section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In exploring that possibility, this essay continues my work analyzing the shortcomings of the IRS's implementation of the Windsor decision. The Secretary of the Treasury promised that IRS guidance would provide same-sex couples with "certainty and clear, coherent tax-filing guidance." To the contrary, I have explained that the IRS's guidance provides no more than the same veneer of clarity that DOMA did, because it leaves important questions unanswered, lays traps for the unwary, creates inequities, and entails unfortunate (and, hopefully, unintended) consequences. In this essay, I extend that analysis by explaining how ambiguity in the IRS's guidance may also have unintentionally opened the door to recognizing plural marriage for federal tax purposes."

scholarly journals Same-Sex Marriage: Exploring the Implications of Obergefell v Hodges on the Philippines’ Muslim Law of Marriage and the 1987 Constitution

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-227
Author(s):  
Norhabib Bin Suod Sumndad Barodi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Academic Effort ◽  
Traditional Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The U.S

In view of the recent development brought about by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, jurisdictions that retain the traditional definition of marriage have sufficient reasons to revisit the concept of marriage under their own laws. This article is an academic effort to explore whether the traditional or historic definition of marriage adopted in the Philippines, as articulated in its Constitution and other pertinent laws like the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines can withstand the new norm that Obergefell established in the legal system or constitutionalism of the United States. It attempts to project how the issue of same-sex marriage would be treated and decided in the Philippine context had it been an issue for which the Philippine legal system or constitutionalism is made to respond. This article emphasizes the incompatibility of the Obergefell decision with the Islamic definition of marriage and finds that the same decision is not entirely square with how the issue of same-sex marriage will be dealt with in Philippine constitutionalism.

scholarly journals The Moonscape of Tax Equality: Windsor and Beyond

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony C. Infanti
Keyword(s):  
Same Sex ◽  
Human Relationships ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Defense Of Marriage Act ◽  
Northwestern University ◽  
Privileged Status ◽  
Tax Laws ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Formal Equality ◽  
The U.S

108 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy 110 (2013)This essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The essay is important because, while other federal laws will apply to some same-sex couples some of the time, the federal tax laws are a concern for all same-sex couples all of the time. The essay is timely because it addresses the recently issued IRS guidance regarding the tax treatment of same-sex couples. In this essay, I first describe the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, I turn to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply -- even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than fostering the recognition of a broader array of human relationships.

Sincere Believers, Bigots, or Superstitious Fools?

2020 ◽  
pp. 154-180
Author(s):  
Linda C. McClain
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Laws ◽  
Harmful Effects

This chapter traces the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to the constitutional rights of LGBTQ persons and whether moral disapproval justifies discriminatory criminal or civil laws. It evaluates the bigotry versus morality dynamic in these cases. Justice Kennedy never referred to bigotry in his landmark opinions in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas (overruling Bowers v. Hardwick), United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges, yet the dissenters claimed he branded traditional believers as bigots and their beliefs about sexuality and marriage as bigotry. The chapter considers the argument that animus, a term Kennedy used, is the same as bigotry. Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion nowhere mentions animus or bigotry, focusing on the harmful effects of laws barring same-sex couples from marriage. Although Kennedy referred to religious opponents of same-sex marriage as sincere, dissenters countered that his opinion invited treatment of believers as bigots, setting the stage for future threats to their religious liberty.

scholarly journals Making Migration Sexy: Immigrants in Same-Sex Couples in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Isaac Hoffmann ◽  
Kristopher Velasco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Social Acceptance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The U.S

As same-sex couples gain greater social acceptance and new rights, their numbers in the United States are rapidly increasing. Yet few researchers have studied immigrants in same-sex couples on a large scale. Using the American Community Survey from 2008 to 2019, this study compares immigrants in same-sex couples to corresponding different-sex couples in order to characterize and assess the scale of “sexual migration” to the U.S. Moreover, we evaluate how the policy environment regarding same-sex couples shapes migratory patterns. We find that, compared to different-sex immigrant couples, immigrants in same-sex couples come from richer, more democratic countries that are less represented in immigrant networks. Fixed effects models show that as origin countries become more LGBT-friendly, we see more LGB immigrants from those countries in the U.S. On the individual level, immigrants in same-sex couples are more likely to live in progressive U.S. states, an effect that increases in strength as migrants come from for more LGBT-friendly countries of origin. Our findings put into question dominant models of migration that emphasize economic and network effects, suggesting the importance of considering sexuality as well as political and lifestyle motivations more broadly.

Getting (Un-)Hitched

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-284
Author(s):  
Brook J. Sadler ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Children And Families ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Majority Opinion ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Civil Marriage ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Although I concur that same-sex couples should have the right to marry if anyone does, I argue that civil marriage is an unjust institution. By examining the claims employed in the majority opinion, I expose the Court’s romanticized, patriarchal view of marriage. I critique four central claims: (1) that marriage is central to individual autonomy and liberty; (2) that civil marriage is uniquely valuable; (3) that marriage “safeguards” children and families; and (4) that marriage is fundamental to civil society.

Same-Sex Marriage: Why It Matters—At Least for Now

Hypatia ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-80
Author(s):  
Joan Callahan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Feminist Critique ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples

This paper addresses the progressive, feminist critique of same-sex marriage as articulated by Claudia Card. Although agreeing with Card that the institution of marriage as we know it is profoundly morally flawed in its origins and effects, Callahan disagrees with Card's suggestion that queer activists in the United States should not be working for the inclusion of same-sex couples in the institution.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Charles Gardner Geyh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 1 introduces the long-standing debate over how best to select judges in the United States and summarizes the positions of the disputants to the end of exposing the interminable and seemingly unresolvable nature of that debate. When a court issues a decision that at least some of the population finds objectionable, the fate of its judges may depend on whether they are appointed or elected. To illustrate, the chapter contrasts the lack of impact on the U.S. Supreme Court justices from any backlash in their upholding same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges versus the failure in retention elections of Iowa Supreme Court justices following their upholding same-sex marriage in Varnum v. Brien.

The Evolution of Same-Sex Marriage Policy in the United States

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Poggione
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Marriage Equality ◽  
Strategic Choices ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The U.S

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that same-sex couples have the right to marry, and newspapers across the country declared that gay couples could now exercise this right in all 50 states. While the Obergefell decision was an important moment in history and a significant victory for the LGBT movement, it was not an immediate and complete change in policy. Rather, the change emerged slowly over decades from numerous complex interactions among federal, state, and local governmental actors. These same actors continue to influence marriage equality even after the Supreme Court’s historic ruling. A careful consideration of the path of marriage equality demonstrates the importance of federalism in the evolution of policy in the U.S. context. Not only does the extent of federal involvement influence state decision-making, but state policies also respond to the policymaking processes in other states. Examining the progression of marriage rights for same-sex couples also illustrates how variation in state government institutions shape policy outcomes in the U.S. system. For example, aspects of state courts such as judicial capacity influence the nature of state policy responses on the issue of gay marriage. Finally, focusing on marriage equality provides an opportunity to consider how institutions of government and political actors strategically interact to influence the policymaking process. For example, advocacy coalitions make strategic choices to focus on levels and institutions of government that are more responsive to their interests. Overall, same-sex marriage policy and the scholarship that investigates it highlight the complex and sometimes convoluted development that characterizes the policymaking process on many important issues in American politics and society.

The Challenge of Polygamy

Just Married ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Macedo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Mormon Church ◽  
Plural Marriage

This chapter examines the different forms of plural marriage and provides some historical background and context, focusing on the long-running conflict around polygamy in the Mormon Church in North America. It asks whether we can justify prohibiting or denying recognition to polygamous marriages, whether we ought to drop restrictions based on numbers and focus on the quality of people's relationships, and on what grounds nonrecognition and discouragement of polygamy can be justified. It also considers the so-called “polyamory” and argues that same-sex marriage and polygamy have little in common, aside from being deviations from “traditional” monogamy. Finally, it explores plural marriage as a doctrinal tenet of the Mormons and the 1947 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. United States.

The DeBoer v. Snyder Trial, 2014

2021 ◽  
pp. 171-190
Author(s):  
Michael J. Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Department Chair ◽  
Professional Organization ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The U.S

Chapter 13 tells the story of the DeBoer v. Snyder trial, the expert testimony on both sides, and how the witnesses called to defend Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban were found to be entirely lacking in credibility. Defense witness Douglas Allen presented graphs that he admitted were not even intended to be accurate. Defense witness Mark Regnerus’ testimony was disavowed by his department chair and criticized by his professional organization. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses described the scholarly consensus about the health of children raised by same-sex couples. This scholarly consensus was accepted by Judge Friedman. The DeBoer trial resulted in a victory for plaintiffs DeBoer and Rowse and their children, but the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision on constitutional grounds, necessitating a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document