Do I have to be gay to marry another dude?

[Foxfyre]

The short answer is no, you do not have to be gay or straight or anything between to marry.

Except in the very few states where lines are now blurred, the marriage laws in every state will vary somewhat but essentially come down to this:\

1. The marriage contrqct must be signed by a certified person: minister, ship's captain, jusitce of the peace, or whatever persons are authorized to finalize the contract by signing it.

2. Only two people can be included in the marriage contract: one man, one woman.

3. The parties must not be in another legal marriage in order for the current marriage to be legal.

4. The parties must be of legal age: generally 16 or older. Some exceptions have been made but only as a result of a legal hearing before a qualified judge.

5. In some states a blood test is done to help identify any communicable diseases that may be present.

6. The parties must not be closely related.

7. In some states there is a required waiting period between the time the marriage license is issued and the marriage contract can be completed.

Every single one of these laws is intended to protect children. Take children out of the equation and there is absolutely no need for any of the laws included in a typical marriage contract. Every state applies the law without prejudice and without respect to race, ethnicity, country of origin, sociopolitical or economic standing, or sexual orientation.

There is no requirement in any state to declare a sexual orientation or profess love for one another or that they even have sexual relations if both are happy not to have sexual relations.

 

[Sunshine]

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)

How many hetero marriages do you know of in which one partner 'comes out' after a number of years. I'd say, there's no way to check.

This issue isn't a moral issue, it is an economic one, as you have identified. I suppose if your dog paid into SS you could marry him, knock him off, and get benefits for the puppies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

As a straight married guy for 24 years, whose wife sacraficed a lot in support of my military career, let me mention a couple of things.

Because the government recognized my Civil Marriage to my wife, when I received orders for permanent change of station (PCS) duty overseas, she was authorized to accompany me and the government shipped our joint household goods overseas. If the government were not involved in Civil Marriage at all, many in the military would leave because of extended family separation (multiple tours measured in years).


Because the government recognized my Civil Marriage to my wife, she was able to receive treatment and health care at military medical facilities (where she had two difficult pregnancies with our children). If the government were not involved in that at all, many in the military would leave because the military does not have "health insurance" for spouses and the cost would be prohibitive to purchase private insurance on an enlisted persons pay.


Very often in a family one spouse takes on the role of primary responsibility for the family, often making sacrificial career decisions that allow them the greatest flexibility to support the family. To this day she makes about 50% of what I do because she has taken the supportive role which allowed me to excel as the primary bread winner in the family. Under current law there is a provision, one that cannot be duplicated with contracts, where when one spouse of a Civilly Married couple dies, the surviving spouse at retirement age (or upon the death of a spouse if already "retired") which allows the surviving spouse to draw Social Security retirement at the deceased spouses rate if higher than their own. This is intended to ward off a financial crisis caused by the supportive spouse not having had the earning potential of the primary bread winner. Without government recognition of Civil Marriage, this would often leave the surviving spouse destitute.


Another interesting fact is that as a Civilly Married couple build an estate, upon the death of one spouse the value of the estate can pass to the surviving spouse. Without government recognition of Civil Marriage, even considering 50% joint ownership of property, the surviving spouse would then have to pay taxes on the remaining 50% of the estate received from the deceased spouse.


One more, there is a provision under the law where when real property is sold a single person can exercise a $250,000 tax exemption on the profit realized from the sale of a home. For married couples the amount is $500,000 (two people, twice the exemption, makes sense). However, because the government recognizes Civil Marriage, the surviving spouse of a Civilly Married couple can continue to claim the $500,000 exemption for up to two years after the death of a spouse to allow for liquidation of the property they had owned jointly even though upon the death of the spouse the person is now legally "single" and would normally only qualify for 1/2 the exemption.


And another, under federal law (Family Medical Leave Act) because the government recognizes my wife and I as Civilly Married, if she (or I) were to fall grievously ill then she or I could take FMLA Leave to care for the sick spouse without fear of loosing our jobs and the financial ruin that might cause.


In pretty much ever state that I can think of, the government recognizes and establishes that parties that are in a Civil Marriage are the legal parents of a child born into that Civil Marriage. If the government were not to recognize that, then every father in the United States married to his wife, would then have to obtain a lawyer and petition for adoption of their children because that would no longer be recognized because of the Civil Marriage.


As a war veteran, I'm entitled to burial in a national veterans cemetery and because the government recognizes my Civil Marriage - my wife can join me and rest at my side. Without the recognition of Civil Marriage, from the governments standpoint, she would just be a stranger. If you think this is far fetched, I believe it was one of the aspects of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services because of joint administration between the states and the feds in administration and operation of cemetaries. The feds told MA they could not allow legally married couples where one was a veteran to be buried together in cemetery administered by the state because it had received federal funds in the past as a place of veteran burial.​

Those are just a few items of the top of my head where "government is involved" with Civil Marriage. If anyone really thinks that there will ever be the possibility of "getter government out of Civil Marriage", I would respectfully suggest that the likelihood is that it will never happen and the ones to shriek the loudest if it were ever tried would be us heterosexuals that got government involved in Civil Marriage to begin with. In my 51 years I never once heard anyone complain about government being involved with Civil Marriage until 2003 and the impact of the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.


Just some of the consequences of the "getting government out of marriage" idea. There are thousands more examples when you look at the totality of federal and state laws where the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of Civil Marriage are involved.





OK, I'm off to bed, have a good night.

>>>>

 

[Luissa]

People have been getting married for other reason than love since marriage was invented.
Why should the government be involved in your reasons to get married?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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)

Why shouldn't you be able to marry another man for financial issues or whatever? Men and women have been marrying each other for reasons other than sex and "love" for centuries. If you're going to extend the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, then their reasons and feelings should be no more the business of the government than the reasons of hetero couples are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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!

Non-holy? When did sex become "holy"?

To my way of thinking, ANY reason for marriage that produces a sincere commitment to the relationship and the spouse qualifies as "holy", if one wishes to phrase it that way. What's not "holy" is this revolving-door, seflish interests, "if it doesn't make me feel good, I'm outta here" attitude people have toward relationships today.

 

[percysunshine]

The short answer is no, you do not have to be gay or straight or anything between to marry....

There is a between?

 

[rdean]

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)

You haven't told us. Did he accept? Where didn't you "pop the question"?

 

[Wiseacre]

Do you have to be gay to marry another dude?

Well, I imagine it wouldn't hurt. Otherwise, somebody is in for a big surprise on the wedding night.

 

[Sarah G]

I really don't think you should marry anyone asking a question like that.

 

[Valerie]

I really don't think the sex police are going to show up for verification of relations...

 

[Cecilie1200]

The short answer is no, you do not have to be gay or straight or anything between to marry....

There is a between?

Yes, there's a lot of "in-between". No, you don't want to know.