David Quinn
Legally speaking marriage is now only a friendship pact, writes David Quinn
Two male friends are to marry shortly so one can avoid paying inheritance tax when the other dies. Neither of the two men is gay and the marriage will be totally legitimate in the eyes of the law. Revenue has confirmed to the Sunday Independent that they will not be investigating the matter. The marriage is legitimate because of how we redefined marriage in 2015. More about that anon.
Matt is 85 and in poor health. He has been looked after in recent years by Michael, who is 58. Michael is a divorced father of three. Matt has never been married and the pair have been friends for 30 years.
The two men are living in a house in Dublin. Matt explained to Liveline last week why they intend marrying next month.
He said: “I am marrying him [Michael] because he will be part of my life when I die and whatever I have, i.e., my home, there will be no problems, he can have it.
“It’s a way to avoid tax,” he added. “If he is to look after me in my old age, and this will be my 85th Christmas, I thought it was a very good thing that came into my head to say, nowadays, this is official.”
Investigation
Gardaí told the Sunday Independent that they are unlikely to investigate the marriage after the wedding because they believe it would be hard to classify it as a criminal matter.
Revenue said the validity of marriages is not a matter for it.
Actually, both bodies miss the point. In 2015, the Referendum Commission, which was charged with interpreting the meaning of the change to marriage then being debated, said such marriages could take place.
The Iona Institute, which I head, asked the Commission the following question:
“Could two heterosexual male or female friends who are not closely related marry each other under the terms of the proposed new marriage law?”
The Commission responded: “The simple answer is yes.”
Obviously two male or female heterosexual friends could not marry prior to May 2015 for the simple reason that only opposite-sex couples could marry.
The Iona Institute wanted to know whether they could do so after we redefined marriage, and the answer was yes.
But the reasoning behind our question went to the very heart of what marriage is about. Up till now it has always been assumed that a marriage would be consummated. Non-consummation was grounds for an annulment in law. It was presumed that a couple was forming a sexual union.
Iona was aware that other jurisdictions which had permitted same-sex marriage had dropped non-consummation as a ground for annulment. Why had they done so? It was because they could not define what the consummating act between a same-sex couple would be. What would it be between two women, for example?
Once consummation was dropped as an understood requirement of marriage, then what was to prevent two heterosexual friends such as Matt and Michael from marrying one another? The answer was, nothing.
We press-released the answer from the Referendum Commission. We said: “At present marriage is, by definition, the sexual union of one man and one woman. If the referendum is passed, it will simply be a legally recognised relationship open to any two people who are not closely related and are of the right age.”
We continued: “Over time, as the public understanding of marriage changes, and as people realise marriage is no longer understood as a sexual union per se, some will marry simply to avail of tax advantages, especially in terms of being able to inherit one another’s property without paying heavy tax”.
Our press release was either ignored or laughed at. But events have now proven us to be correct and Matt and Michael do not appear to be the only straight male friends marrying in order to avoid paying tax. A very senior lawyer told me about a similar case in Cork involving a bachelor farmer who has married a friend so that the farm does not have to be broken up upon his death.
It has been responded that it has always been open to opposite-sex friends to marry in order to avoid tax without them ever intending a sexual union. But it was assumed it was a sexual union. Such marriages did not change the definition of marriage in any way.
But same-sex marriage does, because consummation is no longer a requirement of marriage even theoretically.
So, what is marriage now? What is its essence? You never had to be in love to legally marry. All that was (and is) needed is the consent of both parties. It does not now have to be a conjugal union (which is to say the sexual union of man and woman), and since May 2015, it does not need to be a sexual relationship of any kind, same-sex or opposite-sex.
Previously we were able to say that marriage was a conjugal union, by definition, in its essence. Now marriage is more like a friendship agreement entered into for mutual convenience and for tax purposes.
It can involve a romantic element if you want. It can involve sex if you want. But neither of these things are now needed at any point in the marriage in order to make it a marriage, legally speaking.
But don’t you think the kind of relationship that is conjugal in nature is still different than any other kind of relationship, and more important because only conjugal unions can lead to children naturally?
And don’t you think we should give different things different names and treat them differently to other things?
We used to do that, but in May 2015 we utterly transformed the nature of marriage and what the word means, and the pending marriage of Matt and Michael proves that.
Under the new constitutional definition of marriage, the marriage of Matt and Michael is deemed as fundamental to society as the conjugal union of man and woman.
