Gundog,
Fair enough. As you know, I don't believe it is the law to divert and get fuel.
Thus, I would assess the situation for myself and decide on the safest and most practical course of action.
For example, if I was only 30 mins away from destination, the amended TAF included only BKN cloud slightly below the alternate minima but still well above the landing minima, and the option was to fly 90 mins over water at night to get fuel from an aerodrome I have never been to before, so that I can fly another 90 mins back over the water to get to my destination 2hrs late in the worsening weather, then, yes, I would continue the 30 mins to the destination.
At the slightest hint that the ceiling, vis, etc. was at risk of dropping below LANDING minima, then I'd be diverting for fuel if I didn't already have it on board. When weight is not an issue I tend to take an extra 30-60 mins fuel to cater for scenarios like this.
It would alarm me, in fact, that some would be so tied up in their (misinterpreted) rules to make such a decision, adding incredible risk to the flight to avoid the alternate minima by 100ft, especially when under your interpretation of the rule, they may be ignoring a METAR that still shows no cloud at all, or, even worse, may even have the airport in sight and still divert!
My real argument is only with the legal interpretation of the rule. Airmanship then decides the course of action. I'm sure in MOST circumstances we would both take the same course of action.