The various headlines in my Twitter feed say that marriage is not limited to a man and woman union. I'm not surprised, though I feel slightly uneasy with the SCOTUS ruling.
The origins of getting a marriage license is based on the notion it prevented bigamy, thus gave legality of passing estates to the results of legal unions.
My understanding of biology along with what I understand from The Origin of Species makes the long term ramifications of same sex marriage murky when compared to traditional marriage when considering family lineage.
Bastards used to be frowned upon. I'm not sure when bigamy became frowned upon.
The meaning of marriage has been embedded into religion, so it's naturally embedded into the tax code.
Marriage laws have had other lax moments such as those involving common law marriage.
I remember many years ago, the actor Nick Nolte was sued for palimony by a woman who claimed to have been his common law wife back when they both lived in a commune community. I googled trying to find it, but only got this.
Now, suppose that you have a roommate with whom you have no physical love, but share in household tasks or clean after because he's a slob and you can't stand too much filth for a given amount time while you are in college or getting established in a rent is too high city, does that mean you can sue for your share of your roommate's wealth if he becomes rich or famous many years later?
No comments:
Post a Comment