The obligation of marriage according to law?

**Kollerkrot** · 07-19-2009, 10:09 AM

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?

**Kollerkrot** · 07-19-2009, 10:09 AM

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?

**MakeItRight!** · 07-19-2009, 01:26 PM

<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.

**federale86** · 07-21-2009, 08:17 PM

The obligation of marriage is procreation.

**Kollerkrot** · 07-22-2009, 03:35 AM

<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!

**Kollerkrot** · 07-22-2009, 03:37 AM

<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.

**Kollerkrot** · 07-22-2009, 05:16 AM

<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.

**Mrs. Mani** · 07-22-2009, 08:48 AM

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.

**federale86** · 07-22-2009, 10:11 AM

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.

**Kollerkrot** · 07-22-2009, 11:43 AM

<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?