The national pension plan is based on the statistical assumption that all Americans put money into the group but never take any money out because of early death, never married (survivor benefits), or childless (survivor benefits).

When you die early, you don't get any money. The money that was put in by you is pooled for other Americans. That's understandable and realistic.

When you never marry, you don't get any money from the pension money that your spouse put into the system. That's understandable and realistic. If you choose to not marry, you choose to not benefit at your spouse's death.

Gays do not have that choice. When you establish that gays can marry, you establish that surviving spouses get benefits. That's not understandable and it's unrealistic.

The pension pool is skewed toward heterosexuals who marry and away from homosexuals who cannot marry. So gays are supporting heterosexual retirement without commensurate homosexual retirement benefits.

Since gays cannot marry with full benefits, I suggest a radical approach. Gay men marry gay women.

They do not have to have sex nor prove that a marriage has been consummated (there are many sexless heterosexual marriages). At death or retirement, either gets full pension benefits.

They do not have to live together (there are many wealthy heterosexual who live in different states or countries). At death or retirement, either gets full pension benefits.

They do not have to have children, but should the other spouse want a child, that child would be legally part of either spouses pension and get full survivor benefits.

Heterosexuals marry for convenience, tradition, or reputation. Only a fool marries without a pre- and post-nuptial arrangement. That is not harsh. That is the reality that fuels life and medical insurance policies, credit and mortgage companies, and divorce lawyers.

Accountants, lawyers,and actuarians praise fools.

Should the surviving spouse not need the money from the dead spouse's pension, donate the monthly check to a gay organization or cause.

The national pension plan is based on the statistical assumption that all Americans put money into the group but never take any money out because of early death, never married (survivor benefits), or childless (survivor benefits).

When you die early, you don't get any money. The money that was put in by you is pooled for other Americans. That's understandable and realistic.

When you never marry, you don't get any money from the pension money that your spouse put into the system. That's understandable and realistic. If you choose to not marry, you choose to not benefit at your spouse's death.

Gays do not have that choice. When you establish that gays can marry, you establish that surviving spouses get benefits. That's not understandable and it's unrealistic.

The pension pool is skewed toward heterosexuals who marry and away from homosexuals who cannot marry. So gays are supporting heterosexual retirement without commensurate homosexual retirement benefits.

Since gays cannot marry with full benefits, I suggest a radical approach. Gay men marry gay women.

They do not have to have sex nor prove that a marriage has been consummated (there are many sexless heterosexual marriages). At death or retirement, either gets full pension benefits.

They do not have to live together (there are many wealthy heterosexual who live in different states or countries). At death or retirement, either gets full pension benefits.

They do not have to have children, but should the other spouse want a child, that child would be legally part of either spouses pension and get full survivor benefits.

Heterosexuals marry for convenience, tradition, or reputation. Only a fool marries without a pre- and post-nuptial arrangement. That is not harsh. That is the reality that fuels life and medical insurance policies, credit and mortgage companies, and divorce lawyers.

Accountants, lawyers,and actuarians praise fools.

Should the surviving spouse not need the money from the dead spouse's pension, donate the monthly check to a gay organization or cause.

I wrote: "Gays do not have that choice. When you establish that gays can marry, you establish that surviving spouses get benefits. That's not understandable and it's unrealistic."

Corrected:That IS understandable and IS realistic.

Congrats to Kurt, and I hope you both enjoy your future life as divorce(e)s.

I'm at the I-751 stage right now myself, without the help of a lawyer, and I've found it simultaneously fascinating and dehumanising to be facing these people who are employed to judge what constitutes a marriage. You may have noticed that there are few consistent standards on this front, so USCIS mostly uses a shopping list of things you ought to be paying for together - children, a house, health insurance, shared savings. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all afford stuff like that?

I'm a financial services grunt, and therefore not inclined to share savings or debts with anyone who I am having sex with - after the things I've seen I'm surprised by how many people think this is a good idea for their marriages. So how do I prove that I am married? I seriously considered mailing them a used condom, but my spouse wouldn't let me so I'm hoping that the odds and ends we scraped up from the bottom of the barrel are going to do it. My favorite part is that they want records - leases, bills and so on - from 'the entirety of your marriage' which includes the year and a half where we had to live in a relative's basement room because USCIS wouldn't let me work.

My advice to any couple who are doing this and who can't afford a lawyer, whether you are hetero sex partners or otherwise, would be to take out a high-limit credit card in both your names and use it to buy lots of useless bullshit you don't need. Either that, or have a baby you don't want. Show some commitment to spending money! USCIS will appreciate that. If you don't have enough money to throw around to prove that you're married, you're more or less fucked.

Just to add to the above ramble - while being gay is obviously a huge barrier to settling in the US with the person you love, Kurt and Mary have proved that it isn't the most insurmountable one. That would be money. Even without paying for a lawyer I've run up over $2000 in immigration fees. Last year I met a man who'd become undocumented because after two years of being legally married to his American wife, they couldn't afford the $590 filing fee for his green card.

In this respect, Mary and Kurt are immensely privileged. To call the process 'painless' says a good deal about their financial situation compared to that of most immigrants.

Wouldn't a divorce immediately after the acquisition of a green card be kind of a red flag to the immigration authorities? Don't they keep track of that sort of thing? Or do they just say, "Here's your green card, have a nice life," and close the file for good?

Chelydra_serpentina - my understanding is that once the initial two-year period of conditional residence is up and you become a permanent resident, you can divorce for whatever reason you like. Theoretically you could be deported if they proved immigration fraud (unless you've become a citizen, in which case it's a felony but they can't deport you) but after going through the entire process and being accepted, the DHS wouldn't have much of a case against you (and tons of gays & lesbians get into straight marriages before coming out later in life - it's not per se fraudulent to have had that experience).

During the conditional period you pretty much have to leave if you divorce for any reason other than being the victim of domestic violence from your US citizen spouse. If this happens, you have to have reported the incident to the cops, to a doctor or to a priest and you need to send USCIS photos of your wounds. I am not making this up, and I would absolutely love to see The Stranger run an article about women who have had to do this.