Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The obligation of marriage according to law?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The obligation of marriage according to law?

    Hi it's me!

    I am thinking about the effects of marriage (its legal meanings according to law). Does it obligate the state/government in any way if proof exists that the government would have been the forceful cause of nullification? I know marriage has a strong societal/legal cause of obligation.

    Is there anything I would be able to use in my defense?

    I don't know if I make myself clear?
    “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

  • #2
    Hi it's me!

    I am thinking about the effects of marriage (its legal meanings according to law). Does it obligate the state/government in any way if proof exists that the government would have been the forceful cause of nullification? I know marriage has a strong societal/legal cause of obligation.

    Is there anything I would be able to use in my defense?

    I don't know if I make myself clear?
    “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

    Comment


    • #3
      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
      Hi it's me!

      I am thinking about the effects of marriage (its legal meanings according to law). Does it obligate the state/government in any way if proof exists that the government would have been the forceful cause of nullification? I know marriage has a strong societal/legal cause of obligation.

      Is there anything I would be able to use in my defense?

      I don't know if I make myself clear? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

      Even Koller is using code now.
      Nullification is automatic. The law only confirms it.
      USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

      Comment


      • #4
        The obligation of marriage is procreation.

        Comment


        • #5
          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
          Marriage is a bilateral contract recognized by the state. The state is a 3rd party not bound to the terms between the two. However, if the state supports the institution of marriage it would be reasonable to assume they have an inherent duty to make an effort to avoid causing harm to the marriage.

          Kind of like the situation of a person opening a store on a busy road. The state built the road to support the economy. Even though your lease contract is with the owner of the building you are relying on the state to maintain the road. Is there a case if the road becomes unusable? Maybe.

          Lets say the store was not built to code and the lessee takes possession without knowledge of the defect. The state subsequently discovers the problem and orders the building demolished. The lessee would not have a case against the state. A violation from one party to another, lessor to state, would not create an obligation to a 3rd party,lessee, due to the infraction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

          So I do and I don't!
          “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
            The obligation of marriage is procreation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            That's according to religion not law - but most civil laws of today's modern world have originated from biblical text or religion - absolution being one that comes to mind.
            “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

            Comment


            • #7
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
              Marriage is a bilateral contract recognized by the state. The state is a 3rd party not bound to the terms between the two. However, if the state supports the institution of marriage it would be reasonable to assume they have an inherent duty to make an effort to avoid causing harm to the marriage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

              How many greencards solely based on marriage do you think USCIS has approved today? Why do they approve greencards based on marriage. I would think they do it, because they recognize such duty.
              “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, the Federal Government definitely feels that the right to marry is a "fundamental right" and takes seriously any encroachment on that right. I guess a logical extension of the right to marry would be the government's duty to protect that right.

                It seems that the government's desire to keep married couples united (especially if one is a USC) may be partly an extension of the desire to protect marriage as an institution. Would also explain why the spouse of a USC is an immediate relative not subject to quotas and the spouse of an LPR is subject.

                Comment


                • #9
                  According to the Law of God, revealed unto mankind, and above all, the natural order of the Universe created by Him. Marriage is not a contract, it is a binding Sacrament, a gift from God to aid your soul and to come and know His love.

                  Plus in California it gives you half of someoneelse's property for no apparent reason.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
                    According to the Law of God, revealed unto mankind, and above all, the natural order of the Universe created by Him. Marriage is not a contract, it is a binding Sacrament, a gift from God to aid your soul and to come and know His love.

                    Plus in California it gives you half of someoneelse's property for no apparent reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    I do consider marriage very serious. USCIS charged me with (212)(a)(6)(A)(i) because I came here to live with my USC husband. I did not enter that marriage lightly - can I mount a claim that USCIS did?
                    “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                      Probably not since there is an avenue to gain legal entry in order for a person to reside with their spouse.

                      If that course is unavailable then it becomes an issue concerning the ineligibility to use the given path and not the bar imposed to the marital relationship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                      I don't understant that last sentence. Can you please rephrase that for a "poor foreigner".
                      “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                        Sorry. The thing that prevents a person from using the normal legal path to come here can't be used as an argument to say their marriage is being impeded on by the government.

                        If they could. Then all the convicted felons in jail would say the government is hurting their marriage by locking them up. The sentence for the crime can't be connected to another unrelated event, the marriage.

                        Or, anyone who isn't married would get married prior to sentencing as a way to overcome their required jail time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        But I am special!!
                        “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                          Gotta convince Obama of that one, LOL.

                          Seriously, I think this angle is a waste of time. The government, no matter what, will not accept any liability for a broken marriage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          I completely forgot to attach the appropriate emoticons.
                          “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What am I to do with this 212 (a)(6)(A)(i). What would be my option to get around that and defend myself appropriately?

                            Anybody, please?
                            “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Doesn't look good.

                              Aliens Present Without Admission or Parole [Effective April 1, 1997.]
                              Under the new INA §212(a)(6)(A)(i), an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible. An exception exists for certain battered women and children under under the new INA §212(a)(6)(A)(ii).

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X