I’m glad the Edith Windsor won her case. I think she deserves it.
The Supreme Court found that not allowing a survivor of a same-sex marriage (as recognized by Canada) to claim the U.S. Federal estate tax deduction that is available for survivors of heterosexual marriages violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution (Amendment 14).
For those who agree with me on the outcome of this case, but also wish to continue to apply different tax rules to high and low-income earners through a progressive tax code, I’m curious to hear why you think holding these two positions is consistent and why the latter position doesn’t violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
By the way, I don’t believe the problem is what the state defines as marriage. I think the problem is that we have a state so entwined in our lives that what it defines as marriage matters.
In this case, if there was no estate tax, there would have been no court case for the Supreme Court to rule on.
I have just one follow-up question for the Ms. Windsor. I’m curious if when her spouse was alive if she filed suit to be able to file a joint Federal income tax return to enjoy the same marriage tax penalty as heterosexual marriages.