Comments: I've been waiting for this

Extend marriage to same-sex straight couples??? Hell, it needn't stop there: perhaps the Berlin Wall also qualifies for all the benefits of marriage. :-)

Posted by Paul Burgess at August 6, 2005 07:59 PM

this seems like a new spin on an old story... i remember back in the day gay guys marrying straight female friends to make a point. and we've all heard of marriages of convinence - the one's where people stay married or get married for much the same reason.

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by KG at August 6, 2005 08:10 PM

These two guys want to get married for the tax advantage. To my mind this is indicative of the callousness with which straights have traditionally viewed marriage. Let's not forget that some fifty percent of straight marriages end in divorce -- the rate is higher in the red states. And, whose fault is that?

Please bear in mind that this is a sham wedding between two heterosexuals. No gay person is getting married here. The homophobes need to grow up and take responsibility for their own marriage woes. Stop blaming everybody else for your adultery and divorce rates. The lack of sanctity in your own marriages has nothing whatsoever to do with gays. In fact I'll bet you anything that gays will make a better go of marriage than your lot has.

Posted by Noah at August 7, 2005 06:26 PM

Ain't no way on this little blue planet I'll take Noah's bet (and I say this as a gay male).

Me personally, I've been rather amused at the whole situation. Just goes to show that where there's a law, there's an exploitable loophole.

The joys of the human condition...

:)

Posted by Doug McKay at August 7, 2005 10:42 PM

████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

Posted by bob at August 8, 2005 10:28 AM

You've included some very good points. Well done.

Even still, the biggest issue for me is the family. All the stats show the families with a man-woman team leading perform better than the rest. It's what is best for the children (our future) that matters most. That, and the whole "God said we should" thing.

Posted by Paladin at August 8, 2005 01:11 PM

They are exploiting a loophole in marriage laws, not gay-marriage laws. I don't say this to condemn anybody. I wish it were true that all marriages were conceived in love, with the result of building a family, HYDI (however you define it).

What house were you in? I haven't come across many Techers in the blogosphere (euphemism, meaning none). Ruddock here. Nice blog.

Posted by AbbaGav at August 11, 2005 04:39 AM

Marriage is - as always - a legal arrangement. These guys are just making the point for everyone (whether intended or not) that there are potential legal niceties if you are married. So, buyer beware, good luck guys.

The gay activist quote seems a little out of context. He didn't say " marriage should be for love" or " People who don't..."

In fact the article goes on to say "Walker isn't personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights."

I guess these guys got their 15 minutes of fame.

SG

Posted by Super G at August 12, 2005 03:36 PM

That should of read he didn't say "Gay marriage should be for love" or "Gay people who don't..."

Posted by Super G at August 12, 2005 03:37 PM

The Gay "Moral Majority"?

Preaching that gay marriage should be for love, only?

::: removes rose-colored glasses :::
::: blinks :::

Wow. Impressive.

I do believe I've seen everything.

Posted by Margi at August 16, 2005 02:57 AM