A good reason to support plural marriage

If I understand this correctly, a line marriage in which simultaneous death of all partners is unlikely, would defeat the current version of death tax that robs people of most of their inheritance. It would be less about endorsing an extended definition of marriage and more about sticking it to the tax reapers. Although sticking it to them in a more terminal fashion might feel better, doing it by legal means is usually more effective in the long run.

This entry was posted in civil rights and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A good reason to support plural marriage

  1. David says:

    Don’t think my wife will buy the excuse… .

  2. As a stratagem for beating Fed.gov at its own game, yeah, this just might work. It might even be possible for holy matrimony to exist within such a structure, which would be erected purely for legal purposes. If you add partners to the “line” in pairs, who’s to say every couple can’t have their own house or apartment at a common address, and the couples can’t keep to their own beds? Why, Fed.gov has no business in our bedrooms, right?

    All kinds of possibilities here. The government opened up all of them with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

    • Actually, I know a very devout Christian who had his terminally ill wife help select potential replacement fiancees until they found one he liked and she felt was a good match for him. It seems to be working well.

      Just move up the timeline and marry before death. Continue as needed.

      For those who can handle plural relationships, same thing but sooner.

      With a properly established trust, the government will effectively NEVER get any property.

  3. staghounds says:

    Plural marriage isn’t necessary. It can be done now by putting property into a joint ownership/tenancy by entirety.

  4. Lyle says:

    When do we talk about actually getting government OUT of our private dealings and relationships?

  5. staghounds says:

    Government IS out of the private relationship.

    It’s the breakup of the relationship, where the people can’t agree, where government gets involved.

    • Paul Koning says:

      Um, no. Not even close. Government is all over this. It assigns special tax treatment to some specific kinds of private relationships. It denies that tax treatment to other similar relationships. It forbids yet other kinds of relationships entirely. And it does so on grounds that clearly violate the Establisment clause.

Comments are closed.