Do I have to be gay to marry another dude?

[Ragnar]

Is it "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage"? Any legal beagles at USMB do any work on the issue, maybe especially in gay friendly States. What about activist for or against gay marriage?

I'm not well informed on the issue and just happened to stumble across the below article the other night. As a right leaning libertarian I don't have a problem with gay marriage or civil unions. I would just as soon see the government not be involved in marriage at all. I've been pretty dispassionate on the topic as a straight guy who's life can't really be affected one way or another. Or can it?

Blog: Same-sex Marriage: No Gay Required

"When applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity. Ironically, the very heart of the "gay marriage" movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application"

The only stipulation until now has been that the applicants must be one male and one female. I don't know how they verify that and I don't want to know. State-by-state, we are now in the process of removing that requirement. Unshackled and free at last, two men or two women are now permitted to tie the knot, but not too tight, please.

That's two men or two women. Not two gay men. Not two lesbians. Two men or two women, period. This is why "gay marriage" tells only part of the story and "same-sex marriage" picks up the slack. In several states it's now legal for any two people to get married, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual preference.

I'm not saying that two straight women or two straight guys are going to rush right out and get married just because they can. I'm sure that would be extremely rare (at first), but the point is that they can, and to leave this little tidbit out of the marriage discussion is disingenuous. Marriage has traditionally been the perfect solution for difficult family inheritance and money matters, not to mention a convenient path to citizenship for foreigners who want to go through the express lane. Now that the gender requirement is going away, the use of marriage as a weapon will be open to everyone, no gay required.

In a society constantly searching for loopholes and unintended consequences, it's curious how this little sidecar has mysteriously escaped our scrutiny. As silly as it seems now, this glitch will undoubtedly have future legal implications, possibly scrubbing sex out of marriage once and for all

Well. "Future legal implications"? I'm not sure. What say you USMB? Can I marry another dude for tax advantages, inheritance, citizenship, etc etc? (once same sex marriage is legal... or is it gay marriage)

 

[Tank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHUFz0e8NA8]‪Chuck and Larry‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

Is it "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage"? Any legal beagles at USMB do any work on the issue, maybe especially in gay friendly States. What about activist for or against gay marriage?

I'm not well informed on the issue and just happened to stumble across the below article the other night. As a right leaning libertarian I don't have a problem with gay marriage or civil unions. I would just as soon see the government not be involved in marriage at all. I've been pretty dispassionate on the topic as a straight guy who's life can't really be affected one way or another. Or can it?

Blog: Same-sex Marriage: No Gay Required

"When applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity. Ironically, the very heart of the "gay marriage" movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application"

The only stipulation until now has been that the applicants must be one male and one female. I don't know how they verify that and I don't want to know. State-by-state, we are now in the process of removing that requirement. Unshackled and free at last, two men or two women are now permitted to tie the knot, but not too tight, please.

That's two men or two women. Not two gay men. Not two lesbians. Two men or two women, period. This is why "gay marriage" tells only part of the story and "same-sex marriage" picks up the slack. In several states it's now legal for any two people to get married, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual preference.

I'm not saying that two straight women or two straight guys are going to rush right out and get married just because they can. I'm sure that would be extremely rare (at first), but the point is that they can, and to leave this little tidbit out of the marriage discussion is disingenuous. Marriage has traditionally been the perfect solution for difficult family inheritance and money matters, not to mention a convenient path to citizenship for foreigners who want to go through the express lane. Now that the gender requirement is going away, the use of marriage as a weapon will be open to everyone, no gay required.

In a society constantly searching for loopholes and unintended consequences, it's curious how this little sidecar has mysteriously escaped our scrutiny. As silly as it seems now, this glitch will undoubtedly have future legal implications, possibly scrubbing sex out of marriage once and for all

Well. "Future legal implications"? I'm not sure. What say you USMB? Can I marry another dude for tax advantages, inheritance, citizenship, etc etc? (once same sex marriage is legal... or is it gay marriage)

your tax advantage would only be within the state allowing same sex marriage.... no federal advantage for same sex marriages is given by the federal irs....or for social security given to a spouse....so only within the state will there be advantage/tax wise

 

[IndependntLogic]

Is it "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage"? Any legal beagles at USMB do any work on the issue, maybe especially in gay friendly States. What about activist for or against gay marriage?

I'm not well informed on the issue and just happened to stumble across the below article the other night. As a right leaning libertarian I don't have a problem with gay marriage or civil unions. I would just as soon see the government not be involved in marriage at all. I've been pretty dispassionate on the topic as a straight guy who's life can't really be affected one way or another. Or can it?

Blog: Same-sex Marriage: No Gay Required

"When applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity. Ironically, the very heart of the "gay marriage" movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application"

The only stipulation until now has been that the applicants must be one male and one female. I don't know how they verify that and I don't want to know. State-by-state, we are now in the process of removing that requirement. Unshackled and free at last, two men or two women are now permitted to tie the knot, but not too tight, please.

That's two men or two women. Not two gay men. Not two lesbians. Two men or two women, period. This is why "gay marriage" tells only part of the story and "same-sex marriage" picks up the slack. In several states it's now legal for any two people to get married, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual preference.

I'm not saying that two straight women or two straight guys are going to rush right out and get married just because they can. I'm sure that would be extremely rare (at first), but the point is that they can, and to leave this little tidbit out of the marriage discussion is disingenuous. Marriage has traditionally been the perfect solution for difficult family inheritance and money matters, not to mention a convenient path to citizenship for foreigners who want to go through the express lane. Now that the gender requirement is going away, the use of marriage as a weapon will be open to everyone, no gay required.

In a society constantly searching for loopholes and unintended consequences, it's curious how this little sidecar has mysteriously escaped our scrutiny. As silly as it seems now, this glitch will undoubtedly have future legal implications, possibly scrubbing sex out of marriage once and for all

Well. "Future legal implications"? I'm not sure. What say you USMB? Can I marry another dude for tax advantages, inheritance, citizenship, etc etc? (once same sex marriage is legal... or is it gay marriage)

Well, I'm just glad there aren't any straight people who marry for money or other non-holy reasons!

 

[Ragnar]

Is it "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage"? Any legal beagles at USMB do any work on the issue, maybe especially in gay friendly States. What about activist for or against gay marriage?

I'm not well informed on the issue and just happened to stumble across the below article the other night. As a right leaning libertarian I don't have a problem with gay marriage or civil unions. I would just as soon see the government not be involved in marriage at all. I've been pretty dispassionate on the topic as a straight guy who's life can't really be affected one way or another. Or can it?

Blog: Same-sex Marriage: No Gay Required

"When applying for a marriage license, there is no box to check, no oath to take, no questions about a person's sexual proclivity. Ironically, the very heart of the "gay marriage" movement -- homosexuality -- gets nary a mention on the marriage application"

The only stipulation until now has been that the applicants must be one male and one female. I don't know how they verify that and I don't want to know. State-by-state, we are now in the process of removing that requirement. Unshackled and free at last, two men or two women are now permitted to tie the knot, but not too tight, please.

That's two men or two women. Not two gay men. Not two lesbians. Two men or two women, period. This is why "gay marriage" tells only part of the story and "same-sex marriage" picks up the slack. In several states it's now legal for any two people to get married, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual preference.

I'm not saying that two straight women or two straight guys are going to rush right out and get married just because they can. I'm sure that would be extremely rare (at first), but the point is that they can, and to leave this little tidbit out of the marriage discussion is disingenuous. Marriage has traditionally been the perfect solution for difficult family inheritance and money matters, not to mention a convenient path to citizenship for foreigners who want to go through the express lane. Now that the gender requirement is going away, the use of marriage as a weapon will be open to everyone, no gay required.

In a society constantly searching for loopholes and unintended consequences, it's curious how this little sidecar has mysteriously escaped our scrutiny. As silly as it seems now, this glitch will undoubtedly have future legal implications, possibly scrubbing sex out of marriage once and for all

Well. "Future legal implications"? I'm not sure. What say you USMB? Can I marry another dude for tax advantages, inheritance, citizenship, etc etc? (once same sex marriage is legal... or is it gay marriage)

your tax advantage would only be within the state allowing same sex marriage.... no federal advantage for same sex marriages is given by the federal irs....or for social security given to a spouse....so only within the state will there be advantage/tax wise

Fine and good but I was looking at the broader questions. I believe gay marriage will be the law of the land, State and Federal, within a decade or so. Will this mean more government bureaucrats determining if our marriages are "frauds"? Will gay marriages receive disproportionate scrutiny?

Ironically the "Chuck and Larry" scenario may be much less comic farce and a little more true life (sans laugh track). It's an aspect of the debate that had honestly not occurred to me in all these years.

 

[Ragnar]

Well, I'm just glad there aren't any straight people who marry for money or other non-holy reasons!

The most prolific, if cliched examples being dirty old men with money marrying much younger female tarts. (presumably an exchange is taking place: money for gross looking sex)

It happens but it's beside the point. The question is should gay marriage require "certified" gays? If so, how is that enforced? (same way as ye olde timey marriage?) If not, what is the point of having marriage law at all.

My thinking is that gays just what the same marriage rights and laws that straight people have. The question is if the government has the will to enforce the laws equally in a very PC dominated culture. Does society have the will to protect gay marriage from same sex marriage?

 

[ekrem]

You are only gay if you are the passive part when making love.

 

[rdean]

Do I have to be gay to marry another dude?

What's his name? Does he know you're interested?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Well, I'm just glad there aren't any straight people who marry for money or other non-holy reasons!

The most prolific, if cliched examples being dirty old men with money marrying much younger female tarts. (presumably an exchange is taking place: money for gross looking sex)

It happens but it's beside the point. The question is should gay marriage require "certified" gays? If so, how is that enforced? (same way as ye olde timey marriage?) If not, what is the point of having marriage law at all.

My thinking is that gays just what the same marriage rights and laws that straight people have. The question is if the government has the will to enforce the laws equally in a very PC dominated culture. Does society have the will to protect gay marriage from same sex marriage?

Hmmm. Well when my lovely bride and I took our vows, I don't recall anyone certifying or even asking whether I'm straight.
I don't know that anyone would want to pay for a new government agency to go around "certifying" sexual preferences. Would you vote for that kind of spending? I wouldn't. I don't think anyone would.

btw, my lovely bride is much younger than I am and that does not make me gross!!!

 

[Ragnar]

Well, I'm just glad there aren't any straight people who marry for money or other non-holy reasons!

The most prolific, if cliched examples being dirty old men with money marrying much younger female tarts. (presumably an exchange is taking place: money for gross looking sex)

It happens but it's beside the point. The question is should gay marriage require "certified" gays? If so, how is that enforced? (same way as ye olde timey marriage?) If not, what is the point of having marriage law at all.

My thinking is that gays just what the same marriage rights and laws that straight people have. The question is if the government has the will to enforce the laws equally in a very PC dominated culture. Does society have the will to protect gay marriage from same sex marriage?

Hmmm. Well when my lovely bride and I took our vows, I don't recall anyone certifying or even asking whether I'm straight.
I don't know that anyone would want to pay for a new government agency to go around "certifying" sexual preferences. Would you vote for that kind of spending? I wouldn't. I don't think anyone would.

btw, my lovely bride is much younger than I am and that does not make me gross!!!

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)


btw, congrats but yeah, it's a little gross.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The most prolific, if cliched examples being dirty old men with money marrying much younger female tarts. (presumably an exchange is taking place: money for gross looking sex)

It happens but it's beside the point. The question is should gay marriage require "certified" gays? If so, how is that enforced? (same way as ye olde timey marriage?) If not, what is the point of having marriage law at all.

My thinking is that gays just what the same marriage rights and laws that straight people have. The question is if the government has the will to enforce the laws equally in a very PC dominated culture. Does society have the will to protect gay marriage from same sex marriage?

Hmmm. Well when my lovely bride and I took our vows, I don't recall anyone certifying or even asking whether I'm straight.
I don't know that anyone would want to pay for a new government agency to go around "certifying" sexual preferences. Would you vote for that kind of spending? I wouldn't. I don't think anyone would.

btw, my lovely bride is much younger than I am and that does not make me gross!!!

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)


btw, congrats but yeah, it's a little gross.

Ah, so you mean gay marriage as it applies to immigration. That is another matter altogether. I don't see that things would change that much.

and it is NOT gross! People always peg me as being in my mid thirties. So we only look like we're maybe fifteen to twenty years apart!

 

[Ravi]

You shouldn't have to be.

 

[Ragnar]

Hmmm. Well when my lovely bride and I took our vows, I don't recall anyone certifying or even asking whether I'm straight.
I don't know that anyone would want to pay for a new government agency to go around "certifying" sexual preferences. Would you vote for that kind of spending? I wouldn't. I don't think anyone would.

btw, my lovely bride is much younger than I am and that does not make me gross!!!

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)


btw, congrats but yeah, it's a little gross.

Ah, so you mean gay marriage as it applies to immigration. That is another matter altogether. I don't see that things would change that much.

and it is NOT gross! People always peg me as being in my mid thirties. So we only look like we're maybe fifteen to twenty years apart!

OK. I was just teasing so sincerely congratulations. The point is marriage is between consenting adults and no business of anyone else after all.

I was really seeking informed legal opinions. I agree with the article in that obviously there will not be some kind of flood of marriage cheats. The open question is does gay marriage by necessity preclude same sex marriage? If so, how?

Apologies if I phrased the question badly before. (why I wanted legal/informed opinions as opposed to say, rdean's)

 

[martybegan]

Depends if civil marriage requires consummation, which I dont think it does. Can homosexuals actually physically consummate a marriage? I think they have too many of the same type of adapters.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is it "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage"?

Personally I usually opt for "Same-sex Civil Marriage". "Same-sex" is more correct because there are no requirements for any kind of display of sexual orientation in order to receive a marriage license. Law are written based on gender no sexual orientation. For example there is not one law in the United States that bars homosexuals from entering in to Civil Marriage, the laws bar it to members of the same gender.

I usually to ensure I use "Civil Marriage" also because someone will usually try to use the lame talking point that "gays can marry, it's just not recognized by the state".

I'm not saying that two straight women or two straight guys are going to rush right out and get married just because they can. I'm sure that would be extremely rare (at first), but the point is that they can, and to leave this little tidbit out of the marriage discussion is disingenuous. Marriage has traditionally been the perfect solution for difficult family inheritance and money matters, not to mention a convenient path to citizenship for foreigners who want to go through the express lane. Now that the gender requirement is going away, the use of marriage as a weapon will be open to everyone, no gay required.

In a society constantly searching for loopholes and unintended consequences, it's curious how this little sidecar has mysteriously escaped our scrutiny. As silly as it seems now, this glitch will undoubtedly have future legal implications, possibly scrubbing sex out of marriage once and for all

Well. "Future legal implications"? I'm not sure. What say you USMB? Can I marry another dude for tax advantages, inheritance, citizenship, etc etc? (once same sex marriage is legal... or is it gay marriage)

Will it happen? :shrug: Sure, but it happens now with different-sex marriages. Different-sex couples on rare occasions marry for tax advantages, joint property ownership, inheritance, and to bypass immigration laws so allow an alien to remain/enter the country. Hell, I knew a couple of couples that married in the military simply to attempt to manipulate the assignment process to get perferential assignments for co-location.



>>>>

 

[IndependntLogic]

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)


btw, congrats but yeah, it's a little gross.

Ah, so you mean gay marriage as it applies to immigration. That is another matter altogether. I don't see that things would change that much.

and it is NOT gross! People always peg me as being in my mid thirties. So we only look like we're maybe fifteen to twenty years apart!

OK. I was just teasing so sincerely congratulations. The point is marriage is between consenting adults and no business of anyone else after all.

I was really seeking informed legal opinions. I agree with the article in that obviously there will not be some kind of flood of marriage cheats. The open question is does gay marriage by necessity preclude same sex marriage? If so, how?

Apologies if I phrased the question badly before. (why I wanted legal/informed opinions as opposed to say, rdean's)

No worries.

And I was only teasing about the age difference. We're within 17 years of each other.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)

There is no government agency that "certifies" marriages now. A license is issued, it's signed off pay the participants, the person performing the wedding, and (in some cases) witnesses to he event. At that point the Civil Marriage is complete and there is no investigation conducted into the marriage.

Now, there are immigration laws, and in those cases where the government suspects there is a case of fraud being perpetrated as a means of circumventing federal law, then the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) may investigate the immigration status to determine fraud. But that is an immigration investigation, there is no general investigation of marriages between citizens.


>>>>

 

[Ragnar]

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)

There is no government agency that "certifies" marriages now. A license is issued, it's signed off pay the participants, the person performing the wedding, and (in some cases) witnesses to he event. At that point the Civil Marriage is complete and there is no investigation conducted into the marriage.

Now, there are immigration laws, and in those cases where the government suspects there is a case of fraud being perpetrated as a means of circumventing federal law, then the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) may investigate the immigration status to determine fraud. But that is an immigration investigation, there is no general investigation of marriages between citizens.


>>>>

Well ya, I guess I knew that marriage qua marriage is not certified by the government which is why it was always in quotes. The article questions what legal matters would arise and grow from gay marriage. (or is it same sex marriage?)

I keep asking that because words matter. Maybe not in politics but in law, words matter very much. Laws must be specific. That is the entire difference between having lawmakers and rule of law verses having say, a mother.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Will this mean more government bureaucrats determining if our marriages are "frauds"? Will gay marriages receive disproportionate scrutiny?

No to both, it’s an equal access issue only – as gays have entered into opposite sex marriage as well.

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage.

Not going to happen. States write the marriage laws.

 

[Ravi]

I'm already on record as not wanting the government involved in marriage at all. Anyway it would not be some new agency, it would be whoever investigates and "certifies" marriage now. (typically when immigration status is involved etc)

There is no government agency that "certifies" marriages now. A license is issued, it's signed off pay the participants, the person performing the wedding, and (in some cases) witnesses to he event. At that point the Civil Marriage is complete and there is no investigation conducted into the marriage.

Now, there are immigration laws, and in those cases where the government suspects there is a case of fraud being perpetrated as a means of circumventing federal law, then the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) may investigate the immigration status to determine fraud. But that is an immigration investigation, there is no general investigation of marriages between citizens.


>>>>

Well ya, I guess I knew that marriage qua marriage is not certified by the government which is why it was always in quotes. The article questions what legal matters would arise and grow from gay marriage. (or is it same sex marriage?)

I keep asking that because words matter. Maybe not in politics but in law, words matter very much. Laws must be specific. That is the entire difference between having lawmakers and rule of law verses having say, a mother.

You keep asking and yet you've already had your answer.