Because heterosexuals would never do that, but . . .

Onion worthy: A top Republican in Georgia has sounded an ominous warning that legalization of same-sex marriage may also lead to fraud. (I know, it’s not worth our time to rubber neck at the legions of stupid, but sometimes . . . )

Sue Everhart, chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party, told the Marietta Daily Journal in a story published Saturday that once gay nuptials are legally permitted, there will be nothing to stop a straight person from exploiting the system in order to claim marital benefits.

“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

Straights have just been waiting for the opportunity to fake-come-out-gay so they could grab onto that gravy train, right?

35 responses to “Because heterosexuals would never do that, but . . .

  1. and when it finally happens, the first ones to take advantage of the situation would most likely be God-fearing Right Wingers who feel that since they are to inherit the Kingdom, they are entitled to any and all benefits – – – right?


  2. Yeah, considering a lot of the gay bashing that still goes on in some areas of the country, I’m sure a ton of people are just dying to pretend they’re “gay married” so they can deal with the extra harassment…brilliant idea.


  3. It will happen. I don’t think it’s much of an incremental problem though as I can’t picture any greater percentage of fake queer marriages than there are similarly fake normal marriages…and that percentage is pretty damn low since the bulk of them are for immigration purposes and the ICE has gotten pretty good at ferreting them out.

    It’ll also be more likely in areas like NYC and across the Left Coast than in the Deep South where queers are less well tolerated by normal people.


    • @ jonolan,

      I agree with your comment although I deplore your bigoted nomenclature. There probably will be some abuse of an expanded definition of marriage, albeit not enough to be of great concern. Fear of being stigmatized by people like you who use such terms would be enough to deter most. But I submit the issue is worthy of discussion if only because it might lead to fruitful discussion of why there are exemptions for married people in our Frankenstein tax code. Exemptions for things like the mortgage deduction simply don’t stand up to serious scrutiny.

      Your comments are usually thoughtful and might be taken seriously by more people if you toned down the rhetoric, and even more if you abandoned the anonymity that enables it. (But that would take the fun out of it, wouldn’t it?)


      • 😆 My face in the gravatar wouldn’t make a difference and anyone with a lick of skill could pull up my name – my handle is a concatenation of it – and location. Anonymity is myth. I know; part of my job for years has been tracking various sorts of people online.

        As for “bigoted nomenclature” – Being straight, no matter what nomenclature I used, someone would claim it was bigoted, and “queer” is a word that many of them use to describe themselves and each other…and it’s short and easy to spell.

        Face it, there is NO “safe” descriptor for queers. Even the psych term, “homosexual” will get you whined at by some of them. Hence, I don’t bother to worry about it much.


    • “Normal People”

      Reminds me of this joke. “They had a meeting of functional families and only two showed up and they were both in Denial”
      I have sneaky suspicion your gravatar pic looks that way because it is somewhere dark and stinky.


      • 😆 I doubt that those two would meet a rational definition of normal.

        As for the gravatar – Dark? yes. Stinky, not really – unless you dislike the smells of good food and cleanish living. It does, however, suit me…as it should since I created it out of several images, one of which was my face.


    • Oy, lad, you say “queers are less well tolerated by normal people”. Perhaps you’ll define ‘normal’ for us.


      • In this context, straight – i.e., 90 – 99% of the population. It doesn’t get more normal than that, Moe. That might be why many queer activists like to rant about heteronormative privilege and prejudice. 😉


        • So if you’re less than 10% of the population you can be assumed to be not normal? Harsh, given that ‘abnormal’ in the popular vernacular carries a very negative meaning.

          Also 90%? Maybe, although I htink a bit understated. 99%? Absurd.


          • Normal is normal. If someone wants to add baggage to that, it’s not my problem unless I have some use for them or they have control over me, Moe.

            Now, if I had used “normative.” you’d have a better case for argument but I deliberately chose not to do so as it would have been overly prejudicial.

            BTW – 90% is the “kindest” estimate available and 99% the “sternest.” The numbers were based upon the fairly well-accepted studies of the prevalence of homosexuality and are, of course, flawed because of not accepting a “sliding scale” that includes bisexuals.


  4. More crazy shit like this is gonna pop up …….


  5. I mean crazy bull shit that is…..


  6. Even if such a scenario were true, it cannot justify continuing to deny rights to a much larger group of citizens.


    • Marriage isn’t a right. At best, it’s a privilege, and it’s long been regulated by the government.

      I’d rather see the queers allowed the legal protections and privileges that the government has decided to attach to marriage, but arguing that it’s a right is foolish and not an argument that most will really listen to.


      • It is not marriage that is the right to which I refer. It is the 1200 rights that follow to married people that are denied others.


      • In fact, jonolan, marriage is counted as a ‘right’ and has been called that by the US Supreme Court. Denying a civil right to a category of people is official bigotry and nothing else.


        • Well the Warren Court certainly did, making the ruling less than worthy of being listened to by Americans. Even they, however, couched their opinion in terms that made easy to interpret as not being applicable to queers.

          You want queer marriage? Cool! I really don’t mind and am even intellectually in favor or it…and it might, as its opponents claim, lead to legalized polygamy which would be in my own direct interests.

          Try to argue for it in a manner that makes sense under the law and American culture though – perhaps by getting the government out of it as anything other than a records keeper.


          • So the liberal Chief Justice Warren and his Court were not quite American and you say in another thread that the (very) cconservative Chief Justice Roberts is almost anti-American. Is any branch of the US government as defined by the US Constitution legitimate in your mind?


            • The Warren Court cared little or nothing for the Constitution, their appropriate powers, or the law. I’d say that made them less than American despite the fact that they had laudable intentions in a few cases.

              As for Roberts – How would you describe a person of power in America who made decisions based more upon how history might view him than upon the criteria set forth for him to use in his position?

              And, Moe, all three branches of the federal government are, in my mind, legitimate. I, however, hold a different opinion of many individual who hold and befoul positions in all three of those branches.


  7. It’s scary that people this stupid have a opinion. The stupids should really be called out for what they say. Then maybe they might learn something


  8. Pingback: R-E-S-P-E-C-T | Still Skeptical After All These Years

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s