Did they get married for the tax deduction?
The Supreme Court, will have to decide who exactly is allowed to be married. Many questions from the bench on Tuesday focused on whether the central purpose of marriage is procreation. According to
Legal counsel, Charles Cooper, who is arguing that "the inability of same-sex couples to have children together meant that to allow them to wed would change the historic definition of marriage."
Thank God for Sonia Sotomayor, " pressed Cooper on whether his argument meant that sterile heterosexual couples should not be permitted to wed because they cannot have children." That was my first thought. My other thought was that the definition of marriage, historically may be different than what Charles Cooper Esq. seems to think. Marriage, before 1545* was a private matter until, the almighty church got involved. Before that you didn't even have to get married with a priest or witnesses present. All you had to say was " I will marry you" That was it. Seems simple.
What I think is interesting is that no one, let alone the Supreme Court, questions that marriage is a sexist institution and wives are the unpaid labor of this religious, therefore, patriarchical construct. Historically, marriages were arranged as a means of brokering lands and finances. There are many parts of the world where wives are treated no better than slaves and women are trafficked as a business deal, no matter what they might want, and are sacrificed at the alter of marriage. So, what is really going on here, is that if a man can marry a man, a woman can marry a woman, then there is an equality that didn't formerly exist, in terms of gender.
Marriage is work and women are the ones who do the (unpaid) work in a marriage, all the guy has to do is show up. This has been true for centuries and is still true today. I would like to think that a Supreme court decision in favor of gay marriage would be a good thing for everyone, but I am not naive enough to think it would stop the comodification of women. Marriage has been marketed in this culture as something every couple should aspire to. Culturally, marriage between two different genders was constructed as a form of property exchange also profit for them both and of course, control of ladyparts.
Economically, "hundreds and hundreds of federal benefits are on the line"
Which begs the question as to why married couples get benefits? Why is there preferential treatment for married people? What kind of equality is that? But I digress.
The "purpose" of marriage as exclusively heterosexual is not based on procreation, it's based on the prohibition of all sex outside of marriage, premarital or extramarital.
It seems like there are a lot of "purposes" for marriage.That's not a real issue. The Constitutionality of all men being created equal, then gay men and women have just as much right to marry than anyone else, get over it.
*Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
12-144.exe - 12-144a.pdf Supreme Court Prop 8