Skip to main content

View Diary: The Supreme Court hears the same old arguments (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "The fertile octogenerian" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milton333, NCJan

    is an assumption of property law's "rule against perpetuities."  I'm not going to explain it, and I swear it's not because I can't, though it hasn't come up since studying for the bar exam.   It's just that other points are more interesting.  

    A law banning adultery, which is what Cooper really should be talking about, is unconstitutional, which is why he builds his arguments around "norms."  But that's irrelevant: nobody's demanding the law require anyone to like gay people, but it wouldn't hurt the bigots to do so.  

    And I suspect the law presuming that a child born into a marriage is a product of it does nothing to deter infidelity.  It lets the "infidel" party have the cake and eat it too.  In any event, questions about paternity isn't the only reason why the law might want to give favorable treatment to (mostly) monogamous couples, with or without children.  On balance, marriage seems to make people in marriages happy, and the different tax advantages make that easier, not to mention clarity around inheritance and health care proxy decisions.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:10:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site