# Marry a Conservative Catholic, Or You're Written Out of My Will! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989 "2009-09-29T15:51:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/41 "2009-09-29T21:28:54Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > No. The US Constitution (more specifically, to address your question, the US Bill of Rights) protects Americans from having their rights infringed by their own government. A will, being a matter of private law, cannot be unconstitutional. It can have many problems that prevent it being executed, and be found void for a number of reasons, but “unconstitutionality” will never play a role. That’s not really true. In _Shelley v. Kramer_, the Supreme Court found that judicial enforcement of a racially-restrictive covenant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. _Shelley v. Kramer_ was brought up in _Shapria v. Union National Bank_, the Ohio case noted above. The _Shapira_ legatee argued that judicial enforcement of the Jewish marriage provision abridged his fundamental right to choose his spouse, a right long held to be constitutionally protected. The court held that the provision did not abridge his right to marry, only whether he would inherit or not. The court allowed in dicta that “if the facts and circumtances of this case were such that the aid of this court were sought to enjoin Daniel’s marrying a non-Jewish girl, then the doctrine of _Shelley v. Kraemer_ would be applicable, but not, it is believed, upon the facts as they are.” I take this to mean that if the court were requested to actually forbid or compel a marriage (the word _enjoin_ has two different senses, and I think the court intends them both), then _Shelley v. Kramer_ would apply. In _Shelley_, an injunction against the actual sale of the property was sought. Here, however, Daniel (the legatee) can still marry whomever he wishes; the judicial enforcement creates an _inducement_ rather than affecting Daniel’s ability to _execute_ any particular marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/42 "2009-09-29T21:58:15Z")
Thanks, **Kimmy**. Good to know! ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/43 "2009-09-29T22:26:29Z")
Public policy address wide issues not narrow ones. If the will had stipulated that the person _never_ marry it would be against public policy. But this isn’t what it said, it said you must marry in the stated faith. It’s highly unlikely that one couldn’t find a suitable marriage partner within one’s faith, unless you’re a Shaker or some other religion with a few members left. No where in the US Constitution or any judical ruling do you find rights to be 100% absolute. It’s kind of like if someone kills my wife I have a right to see to it that that man is tried and convicted, but I don’t have a right to decide what his punishment will be. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/44 "2009-09-30T00:05:46Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Indeed. ANY contract can be void due to public policy. But **Paul in Qatar** ’s comment suggested contracts impacting marriage were, by their nature, void. And that is bollocks. So noted. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/45 "2009-09-30T00:30:36Z")
Removed – Kimmy said it first, and better. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/46 "2009-09-30T01:32:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > (And the pedant in me feels the need to correct myself: I should have said “goy”, right? Marrying goyim would make one a polygamist, I think.) Correct on both counts. (Unless you’re using "marry"as a transitive verb.) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/47 "2009-09-30T02:30:21Z")
If any of you estate lawyers happen to come across a female beneficiary who is about to be cut out of a gazillion dollar bequest for lack of a liberal atheist to marry . . . ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/48 "2009-09-30T16:13:01Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > cut out bits … > > Lastly, I’ll observe that when it comes to testamentary clauses that restrict racially mixed marriages, courts are quite keen to excise those clauses. And rightfully so, in my opinion. Were I King of the Illinois legislature, I would make it known that marriage conditions for testamentary gifts are to be of no effect. You get your whole lifetime to influence your descendants’ life choices, and that’s all you get. Okay, my mind boggles easily. I agree with the quote above. Is the sense of the arguments presented that the Illinois Supremes were okay with religious restrictions but if it had been on race; they would have struck down? What about sex (must marry opposite)? Yea or nay. In my simplified ideal existence; race, gender, religion, age, national origin … are not legitimate means to discriminate. All involve large classes of people. Shouldn’t there be equal treatment under state laws as well? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/49 "2009-09-30T19:23:25Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > In my simplified ideal existence; race, gender, religion, age, national origin … are not legitimate means to discriminate. All involve large classes of people. Shouldn’t there be equal treatment under state laws as well? But let’s just be clear: if Granny is still alive, and patiently explains that you’re out of the will if you marry That Colored Fella – that’s _ **fine,** _ right? Until her dying day, Granny can discriminate by race, gender, religion, age, and national origin as she pleases: she can shower money each year on Grandson #2 and #3 (who married nice Jewish girls from the old country) while ignoring Grandson #1 (who didn’t) – and if Grandson #2 eventually gets divorced and takes up with a Baptist from Harlem or something, Granny can at that point decide she’ll leave everything to #3, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/50 "2009-09-30T22:17:18Z")
Yes. Granny can decide not to make a bequest to whomever she pleases. The constraints only come in if there is a bequest. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/51 "2009-09-30T22:38:17Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Public policy address wide issues not narrow ones. If the will had stipulated that the person _never_ marry it would be against public policy. But this isn’t what it said, it said you must marry in the stated faith. > > It’s highly unlikely that one couldn’t find a suitable marriage partner within one’s faith, unless you’re a Shaker or some other religion with a few members left. That assumes that the grandchildren are and forever remain of that stated faith. A head count of people on these boards who have changed religions (or abandoned them) at some point in their lives would produce quite a high percentile. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/52 "2009-10-02T12:40:05Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Public policy isn’t the end of the story, of course. If the grandparents disinherited a grandchild because, during the lifetime of the grandparents, the grandchild married someone not approved of, the courts wouldn’t undo that disinheritance. What we seem to balance is (1) our natural inclination to allow the owner of property to dispose of that property however she sees fit, (2) our public policy interest in promoting freely chosen spouses, and (3) our interest in preventing property ownership from being cluttered with conditions that really only matter to people who long ago became worm food. I don’t see any conflict whatsoever between (1) and (2). My opinion of course, in answering the OP’s question about what ought to be law. One may marry whomever one pleases. That’s completely distinct from whether or not someone sets that decision up as a condition of giving one some coin. Unmanageable clutter in wills carries some weight, I suppose. For example, a complex arrangement that required generations of administrators not directly paid for by the estate–I can see that public policy might legitimately have an opinion on such a matter. Everything else? None of our business. Marry who you want, leave your money in any way you want. The whole counter argument, ISTM, supposes some sort of entitlement to that money. There is none, IMO, except for certain exceptional situations (e.g., minors completely ignored in a parent’s will). And if there is none, than there can be no “unreasonable” restriction. There can be no undue restriction for access to money that in ANY event is yours only at the discretion of someone else (as a general rule). ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/53 "2009-10-02T13:00:23Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Everything else? None of our business. Except this: Dead people can’t transfer their assets. They require the connivance of the living to do that. So when a testator puts an objectionable condition in his will, saying something like “my house to my son so long as he doesn’t marry out of the white race,” this is not a transfer of assets, this is a request made on us survivors that we effectuate this intent. And one which we, frankly, find deplorable. Now why should we cooperate with this scheme? Suppose it were just an ordinary inter vivos gift. A father has a house in California that he wants to give to his son. He also wants to condition the gift on his son refraining from entering a mixed marriage. But here’s the rub: Dad is halfway around the world in Mongolia and can’t monitor his son’s romantic relations. So he asks you to monitor his son’s love life and report to Dad if the proscribed relationship is entered into. Do you feel at all obligated to honor Dad’s request? Of course not. Why should it matter if, instead of being in Mongolia, the reason for not be able to do it himself is that he’s dead? It’s not like there’s any element of unfair surprise. We all know we have a limited time here on Spaceship Earth. It is the fact that it is the living who must settle the affairs of the dead that allows the living to decide, to a certain extent, how that settlement will proceed. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/54 "2009-10-02T13:48:03Z")
Do they have to stay Jewish? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/55 "2009-10-02T16:24:51Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Except this: Dead people can’t transfer their assets. They require the connivance of the living to do that. So when a testator puts an objectionable condition in his will, saying something like “my house to my son so long as he doesn’t marry out of the white race,” this is not a transfer of assets, this is a request made on us survivors that we effectuate this intent. And one which we, frankly, find deplorable. Now why should we cooperate with this scheme? Why do we cooperate with _any_ intentions set in a will? And I think the operative point is that no one is compelled to effectuate his intent, if by that you mean making sure that only an “acceptable” marriage occurs. Everyone is still free to marry whomever they’d like. Why should we honor the dead guy’s intentions as specifically outlined in his will? For the same reason we honor much simpler bequests: that’s what he wanted done with his money and (for the most part) it’s nobody else’s business what his reasons were. We don’t decide who should get the dough, we don’t decide the conditions (with certain exceptions). Whether you or I would be offended by the condition is immaterial. > [@](#): > > Suppose it were just an ordinary inter vivos gift. A father has a house in California that he wants to give to his son. He also wants to condition the gift on his son refraining from entering a mixed marriage. But here’s the rub: Dad is halfway around the world in Mongolia and can’t monitor his son’s romantic relations. So he asks you to monitor his son’s love life and report to Dad if the proscribed relationship is entered into. Do you feel at all obligated to honor Dad’s request? Of course not. Why should it matter if, instead of being in Mongolia, the reason for not be able to do it himself is that he’s dead? It’s not like there’s any element of unfair surprise. We all know we have a limited time here on Spaceship Earth. It is the fact that it is the living who must settle the affairs of the dead that allows the living to decide, to a certain extent, how that settlement will proceed. “To a certain extent” is the operative phrase. I’ve already acknowledged that there is a tipping point, a circumstance where the complications of carrying out the intention place an undue cost that is born by someone else. That’s not what’s happening here. Let me ask you this: suppose the will cared for any expense associated with ensuring the conditions were measured, even if the cost was trivial, even if it was an administrative cost similar to one carried out for most wills. Would that change your perspective? Or is it still to some material extent a “dead guys’ intentions don’t count” issue? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/56 "2009-11-25T15:22:14Z")
deleted ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989/57 "2009-11-25T16:15:20Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I think the first three responses above fail to appreciate the law’s disfavor for trying to control the lives of your relations from beyond the grave. “Their money, their rules” certainly is a pithy maxim, but then again, so is “We all gotta go sometime.” I am not a lawyer…so will not respond based on law but will respond based on how I feel about this. When you are dead…you are dead. The dead shouldn’t have assets. The dead should not be interfering with the living. It was your money…but it isn’t now. So, in order to have your money go to where you want it to go your will should dispense with the money/assets NOW. No holding on with strings or trying to manipulate people. Your estate needs to dispensed with because YOU are dead…you no longer can have assets. JMHO. {This also relates to how I feel about people complaining about the ‘death tax’. No..it is not a tax on the dead or death. You are dead…you no longer have assets. People inheriting your lear jet and billion dollar mansion may have to pay a tax on it…but it isn’t YOU paying the tax…because you are dead - you know DEAD…as in no longer a part of this world - gone - goodbye man. The dead don’t pay taxes…because they have no assets. :)} [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marry-a-conservative-catholic-or-youre-written-out-of-my-will/511989.md?page=2)