The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 9)

Regarding Mr. Antle's comment about "concerns that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts will lead to the redefinition of matrimony nationwide," I submit two illustrations -- one obvious and one not so obvious.

First, motivated by avoiding or reducing the cost of health care, two same-sex, but not homosexual, roommates could marry to allow the roommate without health insurance to obtain coverage through the other's employer health-care plan. This may depend on whether the judicial decree or ultimate legislature's law requires the same-sex couples to be gay (which would create a whole other set of issues as I know of no requirement that a man and woman prove their heterosexuality to obtain a marriage license).

p>Second, a single person could marry himself or herself to obtain the benefit of "Married filing joint return" status on his or her IRS Return, providing lower tax rates. This is called a fiction, but use of fiction is not uncommon in law; for example, married couples (i.e., husband and wife married couples) may file joint returns where the IRC treats them as one person. OK, single-person marriage is a stretch. But if the definition of marriage, the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, allows for "same-sex" marriage, why wouldn't it provide for "single-person" marriage? br> -- Ted Lang br> Plymouth, Michigan /p> p> UP FOR GHRAIBS br> Re: P. David Hornik's Abu Ghraib and the Useful Idiots : /p>

P. David Hornik's article caused two disparate facts to fuse in my head.

1. During the Clinton administration, Liberal critics of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) decried as archaic and outmoded the notion that members of the military could be Court Martialed for adultery.

topics:
Islam, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Oil