Study: Google May Skew Search Results To Its Content
Discover Introduces 'Smart' Credit Cards With EMV Chip Technology. Are We There Yet?

Supreme Court Ruling About Marriage Will Make Banking Easier For Many Consumers

After the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June that legalized marriage nationwide in the United States for gay and lesbian couples, the American Banker magazine reported:

"Executives at big, regional and community financial institutions described the ruling as just and said it would simplify estate planning for some customers, hiring and other business matters... C1 Bank CEO Trevor Burgess, the first openly gay CEO of a bank listed on the New York Stock Exchange, reiterated this sentiment, noting that the decision would benefit businesses "by removing the patchwork system of laws that has led to the need for expensive and complex estate planning and legal maneuvering."

Before the Supreme Court's ruling, same-sex marriage was legal in 37 states. Many bank executives took the opportunity to highlight their inclusive hiring practices. And:

""The U.S. Supreme Court's decision provides important consistency and clarity in same-sex marriage laws across our country," Wells Fargo said in an email to American Banker. Wells Fargo recently became the first bank to showcase an LGBT couple in a nation television ad."

 Making banking easier is a good thing. Lowering and eliminating fees would be good, too.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chanson de Roland

The U.S. Supreme Court exceeding the ambit of its constitutional authority to hold that homosexual marriage is required by the U.S. Constitution--when there was, in fact, no equal protection violation, because with respect to marriage homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal in that only heterosexual couples can, by having sex with their mate, reproduce a human being and only heterosexual couples can pass on heritable traits by sexual attraction to their mates--was not necessary to banking equality, which could have been accomplished by a simple statutory act or, if the issue came to the Court, by a holding that allowed equality of banking.

But, where, as is the case with marriage, natural sexual reproduction was by law, tradition, and history an important aspect of marriage, the Court engaged in patent error to authorize homosexual marriage as a constitutional right, especially just to let homosexual couples have joint banking account or make arrangements in trust and estates law that were or could readily be handle by existing legal methods.

The comments to this entry are closed.