If two friends of the same sex feel like they would be quite happy spending their lives together even though sexually they would continue to seek out the opposite sex should they be allowed to marry? They would essentially be roomates.
I’d say no, since marriage affords each spouse a large number rights, based on the fact that you the become each other’s next of kin once married. Would you want your roommate making end of life decisions for you, inheriting over your children etc?
This has been discussed more than a few times on the SDMB and probably at every other forum on the interwebz. We don’t make men and women prove that they’re marrying each other for love, so we shouldn’t make two men or two women prove it either. I really don’t give a crap if some people get married for convenience.
Is consummation still on the books? I can see one roommate/spouse wanting out (while the other disagrees) and using non-consummation as leverage.
Beyond that, I don’t see a problem.
What you are describing is essentially fraud. GOP politicians have been shouting about this for a while, and also throwing in the lovely (and hilarious) “slippery slope” into bestiality, to boot.
Of course, even if this does actually occur, how are they going to be rooted out and prosecuted, and to what end? And of course, there’s nothing stopping a heterosexual male and female from doing this, and society has yet to fall apart, so really, I don’t see how it’s a big deal. If you can find someone willing to go along with you on this, I say go for it.
Except that it’s not illegal in any way.
I agree that I wouldn’t want to impose a ‘love test’. But folks should be aware that if they agree to marry for convenience, they are giving a lot of rights to the person they are marrying. They better be well protected if they don’t want that person having those rights.
How would that be fraud? Essentially or otherwise?
I should have searched it before I posted. I know quite a few people who have had no luck in relationships but do have very close friends. To me it seems a fair thing to allow. Pre-nuptial aggreements should take care of any questions than might arise.
Not in a legal sense, no, unless you’re dealing with the INS (sorry, the “ICE”).
But let’s not be coy; you know what fraud is.
While I can’t see trying to get laws to stop people from doing this, I wouldn’t count on a prenup to solve very many of the problems that would arise.
The issue is that there are so many elements of law tied to marriage and in some cases you can’t override them. For example, many states have inheritance laws that makes it illegal to say “My spouse inherits nothing.” Community property states will treat all kinds of property as jointly acquired (and the IRS will even tax you on joint income), whether your prenup says so or not.
This hypothetical set of friends would definitely want to consult with an attorney about how they want the arrangement to work, and can find out from there which method is the best.
Right, it would fraud with the INS (although, to be fair, I think it would be fraud even if you had sex. It might also be prostitution).
But I do know what fraud is. How is chosing to establish a non-sexual household “fraud”?
I know what you’re saying. But with the possible exception of green card marriages, we don’t treat those relationships that way if it’s a man and a woman, and we shouldn’t treat same-sex couples differently. As far as I know there’s no legal way to do so anyway.
Mostly agree. There is the somewhat exceptional case of people marrying in order to obtain citizenship for the spouse, in return for money. But the State Department is pretty much helpless…so long as you only do it once. How can they prove it was bought-and-paid-for, rather than a real romance?
But as far as just two people (any sex) who marry because they can file taxes jointly, I just don’t find myself caring very much. The cost is pretty low. (Heck, they might even stumble into a “marriage penalty!”)
Look at it the other way around: people who truly are in love sometimes don’t get married, because one of them might lose a financial benefit (scholarship, disability, whatever.) When the law gets around to addressing that, maybe we can worry about marriages of convenience.
Because fake marriage lead to fake divorces*.
*-highly entertaining meltdown thread. Be sure to read the thread linked in the meltdown thread’s OP for background.
Those are reasons why one might not want to enter into such a marriage, not why society should prevent it.
I see no reason why society should try to prevent such a marriage. The fact that some people might enter into it without thinking through the implications certainly isn’t one, as it applies just as well or more to people in the throes of True Love.
Somewhere there’s a line between two people who want to share their lives and most important decisions together, but don’t want to get it on ever; and then there is “Hey dood! Wanna save on taxes? Let’s get gay married then get divorced if you ever get over your fear of commitment with some chick!”
I think the former is odd, but what are you going to do? The latter I disapprove of, but I can’t figure out any way to make a law against irresponsibility. If we could, we should apply that law first to parenthood and poorly thought out pregnancies, then tackle fake spousal relationships later.
I know what fraud is.
How does it apply here?
I’m confused why many of you are leaping to SSM. The OP doesn’t imply it.
You’re right, he doesn’t imply it. He states it explicitly.
The OP is only two sentences. Words six and seven says “same sex”. That’s why everyone is “leaping” to SSM.