I’m in MA marriage has been legal for a little bit now. I know no one personally gay or straight who has gotten married for solely platonic reasons. Right now people of opposite sex can already marry to gain benefits and it’s hardly happening at an alarming rate. I fail to see why it’s an issue that people of the same sex could manipulate the system in the same way.
I’ve known at least one couple who were in a sexless marriage (it’s not like I quiz my friends about this so there may have been other couples but I wouldn’t know unless they volunteered the information). They were good friends and really, if they didn’t divulge the information you’d have no way of knowing.
Royalty and nobility have long married for reasons of politics, inheritances, power… anything but love.
Personally, I don’t care why people declare themselves a family, that’s their business. And if we’re going to have marriage equality (however that’s defined) then it should apply to all. I don’t see where we’d need an “orientation test” prior to same sex marriage any more than we require it before opposite sex marriage. What married people do or don’t do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business, not mine.
No, I don’t think we should keep “domestic partnerships” if same sex marriage is legal. You want a domestic partnership? Get married.
*(I am a Canadian lawyer who does a lot of family law.) *
With non-same sex marriage, there are occasionally marriages made in name only (e.g. marry for immigration, pension or health benefits purposes). With same-sex marriages, I assume that there is neither a higher nor a lower rate of marriages made in name only, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an increase (from barely a blip to a hair on a bare blip).
What I come across a fair bit is marriages that started out well enough, but then failed and turned into marriages in name only, but the parties remained together (be it physically living together and staying married, or physically living separately but staying married), for immigration, pension or health benefits, financial or co-dependency reasons).
Here’s where there is a slight difference between same-sex and non-same-sex marriages: same-sex married couples who want to get divorced can only get divorced in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriages, and most Canadian and American jurisdictions have some sort of residency requirement for divorces. In short, people come here to get married, then when things fall apart back home, they often find that they cannot get divorced so easily.
As far as Canada in particular goes, the only significant difference between being married rather than simply living together is in private health benefits that top up whatever is not covered (typically drug and dental) by universal health care, but even then it is a bit of a mixed bag.
Up here, it does not matter if you are married or not for universal health care coverage, or for government old age pensions (Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security), for immigration admissibility, for life insurance, or for wills.
About the only significant difference that comes into play is with private medical benefits insurance, which varries company by company. They almost always permit a “spouse” to be on a person’s benefits plan, and most consider a spouse to include a non-married spouse, but some only consider a married spouse to be a spouse. Also, when it comes to spousal benefits termination, a separation does not usually terminate spousal benefits coverage, but a divorce always does, so often separated married folks hold off on getting divorced so as to not lose the spousal benefits that separated non-married folks have.
In other words, marriage just isn’t that big of an advantage in Canada.
Just to be clear, I used the phrase “take advantage of” in a good way. I did mean that people would be doing something even slightly unethical or immoral. Think “avail themselves of” instead.
Just a different perspective to add - I’ve known of older relatives who had steady relationships but did not get married. Their contention was that there was a tax disadvantage to marriage. They calculated that it would be advantageous to remain unmarried. Now, as others have stated, there are advantages for some to getting married, so I’m not knowing how these individuals I am citing made their full calculations - perhaps they missed some crucial element. So, at least at one level, the examples I’m mentioning suggest to me that there might not be, on balance, an advantage for people getting married as the OP describes?
When considering the advantages of marriage, one should also consider the disadvantages. Marriage is a contract, with the terms set out in the body of family law, including a right to a distribution (depending on jurisdition either equitable or communal) upon separation. Anyone wishing to take advantage of the benefits of marriage (be it a legitimate marriage or a fraudulent marriage) would do well to weigh the benefits against such costs, and cya with a domestic contract, a will, and POAs. The same can be said for folks wishing to take advantages of living together in a non-married spousal relationship, for upon separation there often may be rights based on remedial constructive trust. Married or not, spousal separation often triggers rights to spousal support. In other words, the grass may appear greener on the other side of the fence when you longingly gaze at it from a distance, but up-close in reality it is just a different distribution of cow pats.
I think most platonic friends would have to be pretty whackadoodle to take advantage of same sex marriage. How many advice threads have we seen on this board where people strongly advise people not to go in as co-signers on other people’s loans, even family members, because of the great exposure to risk if things go poorly? While some might sign a pre-nup to mitigate the risks, even that supposedly bulletproof pre-nup in “Intolerable Cruelty” didn’t exactly work out that well.
I think there’s a big difference between two people who claim to be platonic friends and would like to reduce their income tax bill, versus two people who want their lives intertwined to the point that they share responsibility for end-of-life medical decisions, dispositions of estates, intermingling of financial affairs, possible legal action and lawyers bills if the friendship goes south, etc – but oh yeah, they just aren’t going have sex with each other. Either people are pretty dumb to assume the financial risks of marriage because all they are thinking about are some modest tax breaks or health care coverage, or their relationship is actually more serious and complex than simply being good buddies who want to have a laugh at the courthouse.
In any case, there’s already a Federal law against perpetrating a fraud on the government by using marriage to get green cards. If there’s other risks of defrauding the US government for other reasons – like tax benefits or whatnot – there’s no reason similar laws couldn’t be enacted to prevent unethical abuse of the rather modest benefits of marriage.
There is no reason for such laws. If marriage is a right, then the government has no business looking at the motive. And I did not mean to imply so in my OP, just be clear.
My first thought is: So F—ING WOT???
If you wanna go full stereotype: what’s wrong with 2 older women getting married and enjoying some tax benefits? If they are with their best friend, whats wrong with that? And isnt’ that what all married people strife for, being with you best mate?
Well, there’s plenty of people who can challenge the existing law prohibiting marriage solely for the purpose of evading immigration laws. It looks like the courts have upheld the law from not a few challenges, as far as I can tell from the Google.
Just thinking about this a little bit – isn’t it common in state law to require marriage to be consummated?
Some states probably. It’s just silly at this point, we’ve already established the state has no right to police what goes on in the bedroom, if this actually came up I think it could easily get thrown out on the same basis of Lawrence v Texas.
I really don’t want the state determining how valid a marriage is, the individuals are more than capable of figuring that part out. I just want to state to handle the legal enforcement of the contract.
I live in the suburb that was the first town in the country to vote for city employees having equal partner benefits as married couples. And from the start, it was made clear that straight cohabiting couples would share the benefits, regardless of anybody’s gender. But once the law was passed, people just have “benefits.”
Well, it’s not my business in a “I have a right to know, Grandma” kind of way, but it’s a right to know in a “I think this is the sort of thing I would know about my close friends and family members”. “Grandma and Ethel are very good, supportive friends” is really different than “Grandma now considers Ethel to be her next of kin: all her other relationships are subordinated to that one”. Frankly, knowing someone’s sexual orientation is like knowing their gender: it may not be something they are compelled to share, but it’s something it would be weird to not know after a long relationship.
And that’s why I don’t think there will be too much of this. Marriage is a Big Deal. Marriage makes someone your closest relative: they suddenly jump the line ahead of your mother, your sister, your child. I don’t think that’s something two people would do at all casually, and I think it’s unusual that two entirely platonic friends would decide they wanted to become each other’s next-of-kin in a fairly permanent way.
I’d just like to note that this thread reminds me of a highly entertaining earlier one about “fraudulent divorce” (i.e. a married couple gets legally divorced, though they intend to keep living together, so one of the former spouses, now with a greatly reduced income, can qualify for government aid), in that it examines marriage as a purely legal construct and the ramifications thereof.
John Mace, have you been watching Adam Sandler movies again?
If there’s one actor I can’t abide in movies, it’s him. I like him in short, SNL skits, but after a few minutes it get’s tiring. 
I would love to see how any state could prove the marriage was “consummated.” If that only involves intercourse, then gay marriage wouldn’t be legal. But does non-intercourse sexual activity prove “consummation”? The mind boggles.
Well, you can imagine the hilarious hijinks that would flow from the premise in your OP.
Or, at least, presumably could flow from the premise in your OP if addressed by someone with a bit of cleverness and a deft comedic touch.