No, Obama is Not Going to Block Keystone XL »« Julia Galef: Reason is Not Enough

Wingnuts: Sham Gay Marriages are Way Worse

Tony Perkins welcomed Rep. John Fleming to his radio show this week and they made the ridiculous and hypocritical argument that same-sex marriages could be shams just to get benefits — as if opposite-sex marriages could not be the same thing.

Fleming: But you know, it’s interesting. Humans can be very innovative sometimes and I can actually see where two people of the same sex, even who are not themselves homosexual in any way, could find a way to get married just for the purpose of sharing those benefits and only for practical reasons. So you can see the ramifications if the Supreme Court comes out and allows that.

Perkins: No question about it. And there’s no way to necessarily verify that. What you can then set up is a case where you discriminate against couples who are in some jurisdictions, because if they move their marriage is not recognized. And they could then be treated in a way that’s different than heterosexual couples that are cohabitating. It’s a mess once you go down this path.

Fleming: It is. It would be similar to marrying someone from a foreign country. Is it done for convenience? Did someone pay somebody to be married? I mean you can see how the whole institution of marriage could be demeaned. It could certainly be reduced in its importance and taken off the lofty place that we now hold marriage.

Funny how they admit that there are sham straight marriages too, like for the purpose of getting a green card, but that’s not an argument against allowing straight people to get married. Special pleading, anyone?

Comments

  1. Pierce R. Butler says

    Fight back against sham marriages!

    We have only one way to find out the truth: every application for a marriage license must be accompanied by two waterboardings!

  2. says

    The military is full of sham marriages. Namely, to get out of the barracks and receive benefits….So I guess if they are against sham marriages, then they hate the military :)

  3. matty1 says

    What you can then set up is a case where you discriminate against couples who are in some jurisdictions, because if they move their marriage is not recognized.

    Did he just argue for worldwide recognition of same sex marriage?

  4. Larry says

    What difference does it make. Isn’t their god angry at us anyway and will be smiting us real soon now. That should take care of the sham marriages I think.

  5. samgardner says

    I recall at the interview for conditional resident status for my wife being asked “why did you get married?” and thinking how odd a question it was. In few other contexts does one get asked an official question for which the “right” answer almost has to be a nonrational one. ( I toyed with the idea of saying something like, “because of the great sex” but figured humor wasn’t their strong suit)…

  6. says

    One of my good friends has been chronically ill for a few years now and remains undiagnosed despite innumerable tests and doctor visits. He is self-employed and functioning at only a fraction of his previous level, making it difficult to make ends meet while maintaining his health insurance. As a Californian, thanks to the Supreme Court, I could offer to marry him in order to get him excellent medical coverage under my health insurance. It would, of course, complicate his efforts to find a girlfriend, but sham marriages can be complicated that way.

  7. matty1 says

    Actually I’m not convinced that so called sham marriages are a bad thing. The government, or rather the law, certainly has an interest in letting people specify who they want to be their spouse for purposes of insurance, tax, inheritance etc but I see no reason for them to pry into the reasons someone has made that decision or hold it only counts between two people who are shagging.

  8. tuxedocartman says

    Because, ya know, our society (especially the male part) is SOOOOO accepting of guys that come out as gay. I mean, the benefits you’d receive are sure to outweigh the social shunning, harassment, and cries of “Queer!” and “Fags!” you’d receive. Why, what two dudes in America DON’T want to pretend to be queer? Sigh…

  9. tuxedocartman says

    @ #9 Zeno: Oh my god, the wingnuts were right!!! You’re friend will now want to marry you for health benefits, and then marry some girl for physical companionship; gay marriage WAS a slippery slope to polygamy! And my pet turtle’s looking all sexy now… SAVE US, JEEBUS!!!

  10. Scientismist says

    Come on, it’s just obvious that in both real and sham heterosexual marriages, since there is a real man and a real woman involved, things are gonna just happen. And in a “real” gay marriage, we can assume that somebody is the top, and somebody is the bottom. With a sham gay marriage, we outsiders (who are the keepers of the lofty places for marriage and other moral stuff) can’t tell who’s playing the man and who’s playing the woman. Maybe nobody! That’s just wrong! All those benefits, and nobody’s getting screwed. Demeans the institution, it does.

  11. Chiroptera says

    That’s funny. Before same sex marriage, lots of gays were in sham marriages. I would think that marriage equality would help alleviate this problem.

  12. Sastra says

    Most people — even the wingnuts — recognize that the original reasons people marry do not necessarily remain the only reason they stay married. Look at one of their own favorite narratives, the old-fashioned one: a young woman gets pregnant and the couple quickly marries because they “have” to. They barely know each other. Over time the mere fact that they live and work together as a couple leads to a deeper bond of commitment. Love grows.

    Wouldn’t many (if not most) marriages of convenience — “sham marriages” — tend to the same end if people really do live together? Marry her for the health insurance and end up respecting her sense of humor and strength. Marry him for the money but learn to love his kindness and patience. You bond and it becomes a real partnership and a real marriage.

    It can happen. Conservatives emphasize this possibility all the time. And they don’t necessarily care about the “sex is fantastic” part of marriage.

    So why would it be ruled out with same-sex couples? Where did the fairy-tale go?

  13. Draken says

    Many (if not most) people I know here in Europe are married for the economic and legal benefits. After all, if you’re not conservatively religious or hopelessly romantic, why would you bother. So are all those marriages shams?

  14. says

    Wasn’t their Christian hero, C. S. Lewis, sham married, so as to get immigration papers for Joy Davidman?

    The older term was “marriage of convenience”; perfectly respectable among those with properties to combine. But, of course, given a certain level of affluence, anything and everything is perfectly respectable.

  15. says

    gay marriage WAS a slippery slope to polygamy!

    Our only hope, tuxedocartman, is that he finds a girl with a good job and health insurance! Or a pet turtle with good health insurance.

  16. karmacat says

    Of course, if we had universal health coverage, there would be less need for sham marriage. of course, to these republicans, everybody getting health care is just crazy talk

  17. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    They’ve even slipped in a bit of casual racism at the end there.

Leave a Reply