My Marriage License

This gay man got a marriage license in Seattle last week. Unfortunately, I only obtained it by agreeing to marry a lesbian.


There's nothing absurd about our marriage laws. Most state laws regarding marriage, insofar as they exist, state only the religious and cultural expectation that marriage must be between one man and one woman--not between multiples, nor between an adult and a child, nor between same-sex couples.

You're fairly well-read, so I'm sure you're aware that in the past, marriages were seen more as contracts than as expressions of love. In some cultures, the bride and groom met each other for the first time on their wedding day. The understanding was that love was a by-product of marriage, not a reason for it.
I agree with the point you were making in obtaining a license for a sham marriage. I wonder if anyone has considered this as a possible basis for a hilarious new sitcom?

Imagine: Two couples, consisting of two gay men and two lesbians, both try to get marriage licenses and are denied. So they swap partners to get sham marriage licenses and then both couples, along with their children, all live together in one big house, continuing their original relationships in private while following their sham marriages on paper. It would be a great opportunity to illustrate the very real differences between a committed relationship between two people who love each other and a marriage which satisfies the discriminatory definitions of current law.
At 1: There would be nothing absurd about Washington marriage laws if arranged marriages were the norm. I understand that you're a little shaken up after being flown in from early 11th-century Europe and have little idea of love leading to marriage, but that's how it works nowadays.

In conclusion, my good troll, may you be anally raped by the flabbiest, grossest, most disgusting man in America. Yes, please be molested by Bill O'Reilly. Good day to you, sir.
At 1: I agree with #3's first paragraph- cultural expectations of marriage have changed. Marriage is now about two people expressing their love for and devotion to one another, and it seems silly to bring up cultural expectations from 600 years ago as an argument against gay marriage.
Also, while marriage is now about people in a loving relationship demonstrating their commitment to one another, you're right that it's also a contract, a contract that provides a couple with hundreds of rights that they otherwise wouldn't have access to. It's absurd and, frankly, rather unconstitutional, that people should be denied access to so many rights simply because they can't help being attracted to the same sex.

At 2: Great idea!
I'm white, male, hetro, married, a Washingtonian, and really really tired of discrimination. You should have the same right as me, and I the same rights as you. I remember something being said about finding some self-evident truths; all men are created equal, or something like that.
It's should be obvious to all, discrimination based on preference is still wrong. You have my vote.
All men...and women are created equal and I agree with RS- discrimination based on preference is wrong. So is discrimination based on religious dogma. I believe in separation of church and state. I'm a spiritual person, not religious, and I'm really tired of having other people's religious beliefs shoved down my throat. The state has no right to dictate religious doctrine. You should be free to marry who you want, whether same-sex or hetero.