A somewhat random thought regarding marriage...

[SacredCow]

Last night, there was a Dateline (or somesuch show- they're all the same, really) story about how the Federal government is actively pursuing the non-citizen widows of American citizens. They went through several cases where the American in question had passed on, and now the department of immigration is after their widows hot and heavy to get them out of the country- and spending no small amount of scratch in said pursuit.

What does this have to do with LGBT issues? The other day, I got in an online debate with some idiot whose position on gay marriage was basically, "Gay's DO have the right to marry- They can marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex." I've heard this argument many, many times now, and it's starting to camp on my last gay nerve.

It is absolutely true, of course- I can't deny that. I could go find myself a down-on-her-luck lesbian woman, draw up a pre-nup and marry her, so she could have access to my health insurance, etc... But that would be about as clear-cut of a case of fraud as I can imagine. Ergo: The fundies would rather promote fraud (or bearing false witness, in bible-speak) than provide for a legal status (be it called marriage or something else) for homosexual couples. The hypocrisy just slays me- "I believe that this sin is a lesser sin than that sin, so we'll say that this is OK, but that isn't..."

And are we supposed to believe that such marriages wouldn't eventually be challenged a-la the Federal governments questioning of the aforementioned marriages? Sure as I sit here, there would be "witch hunts" of sorts, and interviews to prove that a marriage is legitimate... And the fundies would be 100% behind it.

[Ian David]

1. Ask that person if he or she wants to be the one to marry a gay person...

... bear children with them, and then have that person divorce them to take their kids to live with a same-sex partner.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Re. the "They can marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex" argument....

The Commonwealth of Virginia used that tactic when it argued before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia, specifically: that all people were free to marry someone of the same race and equally banned from marrying someone of a different race; therefore the law was not unequal; therefore the law was constitutional.

The Court did not buy that argument.

[SacredCow]

3. It's pretty clear-cut....

but fundie logic is a breeding ground for epic FAILs...

:hi:

[jobycom]

4. Seems a logical extension then

to say that if a person can't be restricted in terms of race in marriage then they can't be restricted in terms of gender.