Love & the Law: The Color of Love, So Sayeth the Law
In the first part of this series, \”Love & the Law,\” I discussed the undergirding of the marital relationship – privacy. This second part of the series examines a case that challenged the legal definition involving what parties to a marriage should look like, literally. Loving v. Virginia, which was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court a little more than 45 years ago to this day, banned laws prohibiting blacks and whites to marry. The facts of the case are fairly straightforward: In 1958, Mildred, who was African American, and Richard (Loving), who was white, lived in Virginia and were married in Washington D.C. They returned to Virginia to live and were charged and found guilty of violating Virginia state laws. The first law the Lovings violated was leaving the state to get married with the intent of returning to live as spouses when such a marriage was prohibited by Virginia state law, and theirs was such a marriage. In Virginia, interracial marriage was a felony, ergo, the second Virginia statute they violated, carrying with it prison time of 1 to 5 years. The Virginia court suspended their sentence for 25 years if, however, Mildred and Richard agreed to leave Virginia for the same length of time. The couple agreed and left, but they also appealed. The Supreme Court of the United States found that the State of Virginia had no rational reason for a law prohibiting interracial marriage. The Court stated that it “cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose…which makes the color of a person’s skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” Clearly, to be found guilty of a crime for an immutable characteristic was and is ludicrous. The Court further held that the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Accordingly, Loving resulted in the recognition that marriage is a fundamental right to be enjoyed by persons regardless of their racial or ethnic origins as detected by one\’s skin color. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
Love & the Law: Contraceptives
Updated May 27, 2023 As mentioned in last week’s post, to celebrate Pride month and advocate marriage equality, this piece and a few subsequent posts will revisit landmark cases in the area of “Love and the Law.” The first case on our docket is Griswold v. Connecticut, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1965. Though the issue in Griswold was whether a state law violated a married couple’s right to privacy and the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Douglas, asserted that it did, the concurring opinion written by Justice Goldberg provided the more compelling arguments and analyses. Facts Griswold was the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut and, with a licensed physician, advised a married couple on how to use contraceptives. At the time, Connecticut state law prohibited using contraceptives and also prohibited helping a person commit crime. Consequently, Griswold and the doctor were found guilty of assisting the married couple in the commission of a crime. The State argued that the case analysis should be based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to economic, business, or social situations. The Court disagreed and stated that Griswold didn’t involve those situations, but instead involved the “intimate relation of husband and wife and they physician’s role in one aspect of that relation.” The Court next discussed the various penumbras, i.e., implied rights, included in the Bill of Rights, particularly those of the First Amendment, such as the freedom to associate with others and the right to privacy. Within the right to privacy, the Court further explained, previous case law found privacy zones such as one’s house, person, papers, or effects. Finally, putting it all together, the Court stated that Griswold involved a case about a relationship – an “association” – within a fundamental zone of privacy, a married couple’s house. Accordingly, there could be no rational reason for having this kind of law. In his concurrence, Justice Goldberg fleshed out the reason why certain rights are “fundamental” in the first place: “In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the \”traditions and [collective] conscience of our people\” to determine whether a principle is \”so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental.\” Goldberg related the fundamental rights to the pursuit of happiness (read Loving v. Virginia) as discussed by the Founders along with the “right to be let alone”; sounds familiar? We\’ll get to Lawrence v. Texas, in a little bit. Goldberg then unequivocally stated that where fundamental rights are at stake, rational basis review (the lowest hurdle a law must overcome to pass constitutional muster) cannot be the standard of review for the law at issue affecting those rights. Unfortunately, Goldberg also included homosexuality in the acceptable array of intimate acts that the State also prohibited. However, this was 1965 and the courts were getting their fill of individual rights issues with the civil rights movement focused on racial equality. Lawrence, which decriminalized sexual activity between gays and lesbians, was almost 20 years away, but Griswold, albeit with this hiccup, was a start in the equality movement, recognizing marriage as a private, fundamental right for couples, irrespective of contraceptive use. The Love & the Law Episodes: Brief Case History | Contraceptives | The Color of Love | The IRS v. NY | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 1 | Privacy? No. Sex? No. History? No. Liberty? Yep. Pt 2
Love & the Law: Case Histories At-A-Glance
Updated May 27, 2023 Recently, courts across the country have handed down several decisions involving LGBT relationship rights. Additionally, June 12 was the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which held that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were illegal. Because the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is law in the United States, many speculate that the Court is going to eventually rule on the issue of same-sex marriage. So over the course of the next couple of months, I’ll provide a little case history on the decisions below (Griswold, Loving, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence, Prop 8, and Windsor) considered landmark decisions by many in the area of privacy and relationship rights. Windsor v. U.S. is not a Supreme Court case, but may be headed there just the same, and Proposition 8 (\”Prop 8\”) involves the California statute banning same-sex marriages that was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. Proponents of Prop 8 have already stated that they will appeal it to the the U.S. Supreme Court. Why does this matter to estate planners? Because we plan for families and the recent decisions are pointing toward a fundamental shift in the national, legal definition of family.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court Embrace Love Again?
On May 30, Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed lawsuits against the Illinois Cook County Clerk’s office alleging that the Clerk’s office discriminated against same-sex couples who wanted to get married in Cook County. The Clerk’s office has consistently turned away LGBT couples who requested marriage licenses because though Illinois passed the Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act (Civil Union Act), the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) still states that same-sex marriage is against the state’s public policy. Additionally, the Illinois legislature failed to pass the bill proposing same-sex marriage legalization for Illinois. Illinois, similar to the U.S., has a conflicting legal perspective on same-sex marriage. The Civil Union Act states that LGBT couples who enter into Civil Unions have the same obligations, benefits, rights and burdens as married straight couples in Illinois. Yet, the IMDMA states that Illinois citizens are against same-sex marriage. Ironically, high-ranking government and judicial authorities across the nation are not in conflict: President Obama has denounced the so-called Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) as unconstitutional; The First Circuit Court has recently ruled Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional; The Ninth Circuit rejected an appeal for an en banc hearing on its decision that Prop 8, the California law banning same-sex marriage in California, was unconstitutional as applied to California citizens; Illinois Governor Pat Quinn supports same-sex marriage; And more than a dozen states also have laws that either allow same-sex marriage or provide a process where LGBT couples can receive substantially similar legal treatment to heterosexual married couples. However, that is the point – substantially similar is not equal – and all of the United States of America, including Illinois, should provide more. As I explained in an earlier post, the government providing rights to one group and denying those same rights to another group, simply because of an immutable characteristic that certain citizens don\’t like is unconstitutional; it is blatant discrimination. Accordingly, DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, violates the United States Constitution because it validates harmful and irrational discrimination. Furthermore, DOMA places states that allow for same-sex marriages and civil unions in a legislative quagmire, where the states can provide benefits to LGBT couples as long as those benefits aren’t derived through federal programs. Because of the inherent discord between the individual states, the Legislative Branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial Branch, increasing speculation is that the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court. That may be a good thing or it may be a not-so-good thing. The composition of the Court is conservative, so if it decides to take the case, it may use historical analysis and side with DOMA’s proponents. A number of members of the Court believe that the Constitution should be interpreted using the values and perceptions of the time in which it was written – the 18th century. I care not to argue the ridiculousness of that rationale. The next scenario is that the Court could decide not to hear the case, reasoning that “Congress has spoken” by passing DOMA. So then, Congress would need to speak again to invalidate the law. Given the tumult in Congress and the blockade against getting anything done, it is unlikely that Congress would even put repealing DOMA on its “to get to” list, let alone its “to do” list. The last scenario is that the Court would take the case and rule in favor of DOMA’s opponents and rule Section 3 or all of DOMA is unconstitutional. Hmmm…. Given that 2 out of 3 scenarios point to a no-win situation for LGBT couples, taking the fight to this Supreme Court is an eyebrow-raiser, at the very least. Still, one can hope that the Court would respect the more than 40 years of precedent, ala Loving v. Virginia, and progression, ala Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas. But then, there’s that Citizens United decision, which overturned about 100 years of precedent.
Straight Couples & Civil Unions: Cutting Off Your Nose Off to Spite Your Face?
On March 29, 2012, I was given the honor to speak at the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA) CLE program on LGBT Employment and Relationship Rights Discrimination. My commentary addressed the challenges DOMA creates for members of the LGBT community and those providing them with needed services. If you\’re unfamiliar with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the statute’s language states that “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is husband or wife.” DOMA also states that this definition of marriage is the legally recognized definition for any federal or congressional law, “ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.” Accordingly, if a federal law or regulation concerns married persons, the definition of ‘marriage’ used to determine the applicability of the law or regulation will be DOMA’s definition, despite what state law says. DOMA is the first time since Loving v. Virginia that a branch of our government defined what a marriage can look like, and, although the court in Loving got it right, Congress and President Clinton with DOMA got it wrong. Consequently, because of DOMA, gay or lesbian couples cannot take advantage of the more than 1,000 benefits afforded straight married couples by the federal government, even if the couple resides in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. This unfair result is the basis of current court challenges: Gill v. OPM, Windsor v. U.S., and Golinski v. OPM. Each case involves the denial of federal benefits, such as retirement, social security, and estate tax refunds, to LGBT couples. Consequently, it should be easy to see how this discriminatory law has caused significant and unnecessary implications for American citizens and the estate planning community. One BWLA program attendee asked if straight couples could benefit from the Illinois Civil Union Act that affords LGBT Civil Union partners all the obligations, benefits, responsibilities, and protections of Illinois married couples. Ironically, a recent article in the Illinois Bar Journal espoused the benefits straight couples could glean from entering into a Civil Union instead of getting married. My colleague used the Alternative Minimum Tax calculation to support her argument, dismissing the marital deduction and portability “issues” because these techniques are applicable to the very wealthy and impliedly are outliers. This is a reasonable argument for lower-income families; however, repeating the response I gave at the program, suggesting heterosexual couples enter into Civil Unions is questionable guidance because of the more than 1,000 federal benefits attached to marriage. Thus, if a heterosexual couple is considering a Civil Union and is not approaching or is not in retirement, a careful balancing of income tax liabilities and other assets and future income should probably be performed before considering a Civil Union. What may be gained in an income tax refund may be lost several times over in employee, health, and other benefits.
Constitutional Discrimination against Love & Marriage
I recently participated in a discussion about Judge Parker, a lesbian judge in Texas who is refusing to marry straight couples because of her allegiance to the belief in marriage equality. The following is my commentary: This discussion is indicative of why [the subject of gay marriage] is so contentious. First, I agree, the judge is not doing her job and others are paying for it. Moreover, because as a judge she is held to a much higher standard of responsibility than most, I am sure she is going to suffer the consequences of her conviction. However, staying true to one’s convictions even when technically “wrong” is one of the historical methods individuals have used to fight discrimination, which brings me to my second point. Gay marriage is a constitutional issue on 2 and possibly 3 separate premises. Marriage in the United States is a religious, financial, and social status. Those who believe in the religious doctrine that marriage should only occur between one man and one woman (or man and woman) have the support of the Constitution with respect to religious freedom in that no one is being or will be forced to participate in the religious ceremony of a gay or lesbian couple. Yet, like a soldier cannot wear his Yarmulke while in uniform and Catholic agencies can\’t sustain contracts with the State of Illinois when they refuse to allow gay couples into their foster care registries, this judge cannot continue refusing to marry heterosexual couples without penalty because our freedoms are not boundless. Those who believe that marriage should occur between sober, consenting adults irrespective of their sexual orientation have the support of the Constitution with respect to the Fifth Amendment because there are approximately 1100 federal benefits given to spouses, which are not given to unmarried individuals despite their gender, e.g., the marital deduction in the federal estate tax system. However, because of DOMA, marriage is now conclusively defined by the federal government as a union between “one man and one woman” and those benefits are absolutely proscribed from gay and lesbian couples, be they married or Civil Union partners. Before Loving v. Virginia, African Americans and white individuals could not marry in Virginia or many other southern states. The issue of gay marriage is no different, unless one believes that individuals choose to be lesbian or gay and that’s another matter entirely. Like it or not, the fact is that DOMA has created a platform by which the federal government is discriminating. Finally, marriage is a social status. When a man and a woman enter a B&B and tell the desk clerk, “We’re married and would like a room for the weekend,\” no one questions them. When they show up at PTA meetings, no one questions them. When they show up in the intensive care unit, no one questions them. Their expressions of their union go without question. Yet, couples who marry in Massachusetts, if they happen to be the same gender, often cannot express the fact of their marriage verbally or on paper without question, without fear of discrimination, or without fear of worse. Consequently, being unable to express the fact that you are in a loving relationship with another consenting adult possibly implicates the other cornerstone of the First Amendment, freedom of speech. As an African American, female, how can I not, irrespective of my liberal ideology, recognize and acknowledge the fact that DOMA is a discriminating piece of legislation that should be repealed, just like that Virginia law was, more than 30 years ago.
5 Tips for Parents Young, Old, or Otherwise
One thing I love about my practice is serving new parents who GET IT. They understand how critical it is to ensure their children are provided for if something happens to one or both of them. They realize that children are vulnerable and depend on Mom & Dad, Mom & Mom, Dad & Dad, Mom, Dad, or Nana to keep them safe, healthy, sheltered, and learned. New parents know that just because they don’t have a lot of material wealth doesn’t mean that they can’t protect their young ones somehow. So hats off to all you parents out there who GET IT. For those of you who are contemplating parenthood, or who just started the voyage of sleepless nights and stinky diapers, or just witnessed the most glorious sparkle that can only be found in your child’s eye when he or she “DID IT!” whatever “IT!” was, I offer 5 tips, particularly from the Land of Lincoln: If you have minor child you need a will. Someone is going to have to step into your shoes and take care of your child if you and/or your spouse or partner dies. With a will, you can designate a person who will be recognized by the State of Illinois as a legal guardian, as long as they meet the criteria. Illinois has 2 types of guardianship because the state recognizes that caring for children requires more than one skill set (validating what mothers have been trying to point out for decades). A guardian of the person makes the value-driven decisions that affect the child, e.g., education, healthcare, and shelter. A guardian of the estate makes the financial decisions for the child and is critical when a minor inherits a rather large sum of money, such as life insurance. Speaking of life insurance, let’s separate fact from fiction. The notion that life insurance isn’t taxed isn’t accurate. Life insurance isn’t typically taxed as income. BUT life insurance is included within your estate for estate tax purposes. So make sure you have good counsel when staring at the twinkle in the broker’s eye as you think about buying that million-dollar policy. Also, while we’re on the topic of life, you don’t have to die to begin protecting your family. I wrote about this in an earlier piece and I speak about it often. Powers of attorney allow individuals you trust to step into your shoes and manage your financial affairs and make healthcare decisions for you when you are temporarily unable to. These powers are typically shared between spouses and understood to be held by each spouse in a reciprocal manner, but what if you are Civil Union partners or a single parent? What if your spouse is on sabbatical at Machu Picchu? Special needs requires special considerations. If you have a child who is disabled or requires special assistance, you must take care to ensure that the income you provide via your will or trust doesn’t result in your child becoming ineligible for needed government benefits. So, again, seek prudent and experienced counsel. As I said earlier, I adore new parents who GET IT. However, whether you’re a new parent, old parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or you just love kids, be sure the ones you care about are protected. For LSSG
Caution: Fund-Raising Spoiler
Tis the season to be giving … and we all have our favorite causes. Yet, many of us would likely become impoverished if we tried to contribute financially to each one. But those tax deductions are so darned attractive. So, if you want your deduction, then get out the checkbook or, better yet, \”go green\” and donate online. Still, you might want to recall that old axiom, “charity begins at home.” Then, before you start writing in those zeroes or clicking the bright green “Donate” button, consider whether you’ve been sufficiently charitable to yourself and your family: Has \”life happened\” to or around you? Has a significant event occurred in your life that you should consider, and, accordingly, recalculate your retirement projections? If a life event hasn’t happened to you, has it happened to a member of your immediate family? Perhaps your son or daughter married or became civil union partners. If that’s the case, might a trip to whatever popular children\’s fantasy world developed in Florida 10 years from now be on your retirement travel list? Has the likelihood of these little people been considered in your estate plan? Were your investments negatively affected by the Great Recession? If so, have you recovered your losses and is there enough room for you to take aggressive steps, if you can tolerate the risk, to place you back on track? Or do you need to revise your retirement and estate plan? If your retirement planning is on track and in sound shape, have you ensured that the education of your children and their descendants is reasonably secure? Are you relying on 529 plans and, if so, are you confident about the state’s (such as Illinois’) fiscal outlook in 10 or 20 years? My late grandmother’s words always ring true for me and may make sense to you, “Home and family come first.” Keeping that in mind, I have advised clients, “Before you write the check to the institution that will educate the next generation of alumni, be sure that your estate and retirement plan is solid so that you can help educate the next generation of your descendants.” They may not want to attend your alma mater. Money-Saving Tip: When travelling to children\’s destinations, stay away from nearby golf resorts for accommodations, unless you or a travel companion is a golf enthusiast, because the amenities, e.g., greens maintenance, that you will not use will be added to the price of your stay. Now, other than family, what is your favorite cause? Send me your responses and comments below.
DOMA Forces Same-Sex Couples to Commit Fraud
In June of this year, 2011, Illinois enacted the Civil Union Act, which provides that all the rights, benefits, and obligations of Illinois spouses are also attributed to Illinois Civil Union partners. A little more than a month later, on July 24, New York enacted the New York Marriage Equality Act, legally recognizing same-sex marriages. Other states continue this progressive and important march toward ending love discrimination while other states remain firmly entrenched in their discriminatory public policies against the LGBT community. Differences between states and discriminatory laws and policies will continue and remain in force until DOMA is repealed. So, it’s important that members of the LGBT community who are partnered in civil unions or are same-sex spouses, their loved ones, and professionals servicing them understand the implications of their status, based on DOMA. President Bill Clinton enacted DOMA (the “Defense of Marriage Act”) in the wee hours of one morning in 1996. The law stipulates that the U.S. federal government only recognizes marriage as between one man and one woman as husband and wife and “spouse” means a person of the opposite sex with respect to his or her husband or wife. Consequently, any spousal benefits derived through the federal government, and there are approximately 1,138 of them, are unavailable to civil union partners or same-sex spouses, despite state laws. Yes; Illinois provides that civil union partners are afforded all the rights, benefits, and obligations of spouses but despite that language the federal government, through DOMA, tells same-sex couples “not in my backyard.” Tax benefits are one backyard where same-sex couples experience discrimination because of DOMA. For example, the divorce settlement between heterosexual couples is tax-free. However, for same-sex couples, the payee ex-spouse or ex-partner must generally pay taxes on any divorce settlement received. More importantly, as an annual fiscal household matter, same-sex couples must file income tax forms that are fraudulent on one hand because the forms don’t reflect the true nature of the relationship, requiring individuals to state that they are “single,” when they are legally married or partnered. State income tax in Illinois is coupled with federal income tax, so even if a couple’s union is afforded the same “benefits” per Illinois law, that couple cannot take the marital tax benefit on either the state or the federal income tax form. Finally, if it’s not enough that same-sex couples are discriminated against in tax treatment with respect to income and divorce, same-sex couples also face the insult with respect to death. To illustrate: Debbie and Janet entered into a legal civil union on June 5, 2011. On July 12, Janet passed away, leaving an estate valued at one million dollars to Debbie. If Debbie were married to “John” and not a civil union partner of “Janet,” Debbie would take the estate tax free. However, Debbie was partnered with Janet and, thus, will have to pay approximately $350,000 in estate taxes. A case similar to these facts, Windsor v. United States, is why the current administration stopped defending DOMA. It is a discriminatory law promulgated by a country that is supposed to consider all people equal in the eyes of the law. How can a law that requires individuals to falsely claim who they are be constitutional?
With This Estate Plan, You May Take My Coat
Individuals sometimes ask me, why, if they are not millionaires, do they need an estate plan, ending with something akin to, “I’m not rich; I don’t have anything.” My response is usually the typical T&E (Trusts and Estates) mantra, “You don’t need to be ‘rich” to need an estate plan.” Furthermore, the converse is generally true – the smaller estates need equal, if not more, protection. Moreover, non-millionaire employees are “richer” than they think. Like an IRS person once said, “Stop thinking it’s your money.” So, if you\’ve been steadily employed, don’t think that the federal government sees you as a pauper, irrespective of your current financial woes. Acknowledging that these are horrendous economic times citizens worldwide, I must say that millions are also fortunate. They are employed; have retirement or profit-sharing plans; have life insurance; and they have a house, which may be worth less than what they paid for but they still own a home. My “Who Killed Kenny” winter down coat is worth less than what was paid for it but, considering January in Chicago, it would take a permanent move to my favorite desert oasis to get me to sell that coat. Pardon my slight digression, though I think you got the point: It may feel like you’re managing paycheck-to-paycheck, but even so, you may find solace in the midst of this economic maelstrom. Consider your retirement plan. It may have taken a beating over the summer, like most of our financial accounts. However, you may still be able to use your plan to your advantage in the long-term and/or to your loved ones advantage. The 2 most popular retirement accounts are 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). A 401(k) is typically a qualified plan where your employer matches your contributions. Teachers often have 403(b) accounts that operate in basically the same way as a 401(k). While 401(k) contributions are tax deductible, generally any income earned is taxed on withdrawal. Additionally, once you reach 70 ½, you must make a required minimum distribution (RMD). With a 401(k), your spouse is presumed to be the beneficiary, so if you designate other beneficiaries in your will, your spouse must waive their right to the distribution in order for the other beneficiaries to take. Also, because 401(k) plans are governed by federal law, civil union partners cannot be designated spousal beneficiaries of 401(k) plans. IRAs provide a little more flexibility than 401(k)s, because there is no RMD at any age and withdrawals from Roth IRAs are not taxed. However, the maximum contribution is significantly lower than that of a 401(k) and an IRA account may not even be available if you also have a 401(k). Still, unlike a 401(k), with an IRA, there is no presumption of a spousal beneficiary, so who you names as beneficiary, even if it is your civil union partner or same-gender spouse, is the beneficiary. If that person passes away, then the beneficiary will be the person named next or if there’s no contingent, the distribution will follow the state’s testamentary code. Equally important, you can provide for your grandchildren by creating IRAs for them, so that the distribution that would be made to your children is instead rolled over into accounts for your grandchildren. So before you think you’re “not rich,” consider your retirement plan. Basic it may be, but if properly implemented, it could provide you with comfort like my \”Who Killed Kenny\” coat on those cold, January, Chicago days.