Good lord.
I read it a dozen times trying to figure why everyone was going there.
What’s that saying about opening your mouth and confirming you’re a fool…
[Emily Litella] Nevermind[/LT]
Arranged marriages - you considered yourself lucky if you managed to fall in love, they generally were a state of amiability and not hating each other. Then again, look at Henry the Second and Eleanor of Aquitaine … he tossed her into prison, I don’t get the feeling there was a lot of love in that marriage. [Look how many marriages in the past had separate bedrooms … ]
I don’t see any reason 2 buddies couldn’t get married, as someone said already, it is a matter of a pre-nup. The only thing you might have to worry about is if one fell in love and wanted out, or if the law catches up and manages some sort of adultery charge.
I’ve read all your answers to other posters asking why this is fraud, as well as your linked article. I still don’t understand what you mean or why you think this is fraud. Please explain - and, no, I don’t really know what you meant, and I’m not making an effort to be difficult
Is there something about the laws or the vows that are necessarily invoked in a wedding that establish a minimum emotional involvement, romantic feeling, or potential for the commonest kind of reproduction?
Many marriages are essentially friendly without being romantic. Are these to be kept secret or else forcibly ended by the state?
When we read about 90-somethings in a nursing home being wed, are we to understand the state somehow checks up on their consummation?
I Googled the quoted term “sexless marriage” and got 788,000 hits, of which the first was the Wikipedia article “Sexless Marriage” which included this:
“The US National Health and Social Life Survey in 1994 (Laumann et al. 1994) found that 2 percent of the married respondents reported no sexual intimacy in the past year. The definition of a nonsexual marriage is often broadened to include those where sexual intimacy occurs less than ten times per year, in which case 20 percent of the couples in the National Health and Social Life Survey would be in the category. Newsweek magazine estimates that 15 to 20 percent of couples are in a sexless relationship.[1] Studies show that 10% or less of the married population below age 50 have not had sex in the past year.”
Overall it looks like sex and romance is a typical but not universal component of marriage, and there’s no effort to use the force of law to guarantee a marriage will involve sex and romance.
I wouldn’t consider it fraud for an opposite-sex couple to do this, so nor would I consider it fraud for a same-sex couple. It’s not a decision I personally would make, but that’s no reason to deny the option to others, of any combination of sexes.
In England, it’s still on the books, but not for same-sex marriage.
Yeah, fucking hilarious.
Damn, what happeend? They want to stick each other for life?
Hilarious? Perhaps. Mind-blowing, certainly. As for me, maybe it’s just the post-Christmas blues setting in, but I’d be able to enjoy it a lot more if I knew how things worked out for Au Gratin and her husband. She’s still here; does anyone know of any epilogue to that story?
I admit also being curious, but it seems vaguely rude to inquire.
My thoughts as well, I was wondering if she had volunteered anything during the past nearly-nine years.
Weirdly, she just started posting again this May after an 8 year hiatus.
First of all, let me reiterate that frankly I don’t have a problem with this; if people want to engage in this activity, far be it from me to try and stop them. I don’t really give a shit; if you can find someone willing to go along with you on this I say go for it.
Second, clearly “fraud” was not the appropriate word. I recognize that the legal definitions of both fraud and marriage, and the practice of marriages that do not necessarily entail an intimate relationship e.g. arranged, diplomatic, and marriages of convenience, do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.
However, and perhaps I’m the only one, I do get at least a sense of dishonesty from this. Again, I don’t really give a shit, if you can game the system I say go for it, but it’s still gaming the system. Is it any worse than a heterosexual male-female couple doing the same thing? Of course not, but even if it is perfectly on the up-and-up legally, a sham marriage is still a sham marriage, and if you can’t recognize that as dishonesty, then there’s nothing I can do for you.
Yes, it’s manipulating the system. It’s using marriage laws in a way they weren’t intended to be used. But it’s legal to do that, so it’s not fraud from that perspective.
I never understood why we confuse romance with marriage at all. Sure, there’s a large number of couples who choose to get married because of romance, but I don’t see why that has to be the case. Focusing just on straight couples, sometimes in the past, men and women would marry for social reasons, or for having children, and may not actually have any real affection for eachother; hell, one or both of them might even have lovers on the side. There’s also plenty of cases where men and women just get married for the sheer convenience. Hell, even couples that ARE romantically intwined will sometimes not particularly care about getting married, or even have some reasons why they don’t want to, but ultimately decide to get married for the various benefits. I don’t see why this sort of benefit should only be limited to two people who can find a willing partner of the opposite sex.
And, sure, there are risks with getting married to a buddy just for the benefits, but I don’t see why that’s any more of a risk with a roommate than it is with a lover. Hell, if anything, it’s probably more stable in general because of how romance has a way of short-circuiting our logical thoughts. Is there any more of a meaningful risk that a long term roommate would somehow become a bad next-of-kin than a long-term lover? If your family is far away, dead, or estranged, wouldn’t you want a good friend or a roommate to be making those decisions anyway?
Frankly, I have actually mused about the idea that, if gay marriage were legal here, this sort of arrangement may not be a terrible idea under certain circumstances, which don’t exist now, but have in the past and may in the future.
Forgot to say, I also don’t see how it’s, in any meaningful way, fraud, or even gaming the system. This implies that the way laws are written necessarily have some sort of intended purpose. And, if they do, what is it? Is it that marriage is only for procreation? Is it that marriage is only for true romance? Is it that marriage is only between a man and a woman? I’m not really sure how, if you’re following the laws, it’s gaming the system. You might argue that it’s an unintended consequence, a loophole, but I can’t agree that it is a loophole, and even if it were, how would we close it? Make people “prove” they’re in love?
And, even if we were to concede it were gaming the system, I don’t see how it’s fraud either. Fraud requires an intent to deceive. For couples that don’t have an intent to have children, or can’t, it’s not like they actively pretend they do just to seem like a “real” married couple. I’ve known people who were married for convenience too, and they didn’t go around pretending to be in love. And if I were to partake in this myself with a male friend, I wouldn’t pretend to be gay and in love with him. So, I just can’t see any real intent to deceive, in general, in gaming the system.
So, really, if we, as a society, don’t like the laws, we shouldn’t be upset with people for following the laws, we should change them. It’s like with rich people and paying unfairly low taxes; I’m not upset at them for paying exactly what the law says, rather I’m upset at them for using their undue power to keep the laws in their favor against the general will of society. But that’s not the case here, no one “gaming the system” with a non-romantic marriage is fighting to keep the laws the way they are against the will of society. And if people are within the law, and being honest about it, I can’t conceive of any reasonable definition of fraud that would include that sort of behavior.
My wife and I don’t have a sham marriage, but I was accused of tax fraud (by a lawyer no less) because we are not monogamous. I wonder when the law will crack down on us?
Apparently polyamory is legal now in Utah, but I really don’t want to move there.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re driving at. Of course laws are written the way they’re written for an intended purpose. They don’t just pop into being.
In this case it’s intended to recognize and confer legal benefits on a family union. It’s true that the law doesn’t go into detail on what that union has to look like - because it’s practically impossible - so it could apply to people who decide to get married for financial or legal reasons but don’t really consider themselves a family. It’s fair to point out that this isn’t what was intended, though.
No, it’s now legal for a married couple to live with someone else and say they’re also married. The additional marriage just isn’t legally recognized in any way.
How were the marriage laws intended to be used?
For spouses, potentially including children.
What does that even mean? Marriage laws were intended to be used to get married, and maybe have children? I’m not seeing any way that the OP’s hypothetical violates that.