Posted on 11/11/2014 8:22:03 AM PST by Jonah Vark
Donald Trump: Obama's name was Barry Soetoro. Obama changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama...
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
‘Relax. As I said, it’s not a problem. I understand perfectly. I’d be a little embarrassed as well, I might even make up some excuses for not going there. It’s OK.’
This was redundant. You’ve already proved multiple times that you either didn’t read my first post to you or couldn’t comprehend it. But if you feel the need to keep on proving that fact again...and again...and again...and again...etc., etc., no one can stop you. It’s boring and mindlessly repetitious, but otherwise no problem.
‘Clearly, you’ve decided that these official records aren’t of sufficient solidity to prove the case.’
Comprehension is Just Not Your Forte. I decided nothing. Barack Obama and Michelle Obama made the case. I merely quoted them.
‘it seems weird to me that two people would go through a formal divorce if they weren’t ever married’
Common ground at last. It seemed weird to me as well. So much so that I [try to imagine the novelty of it] investigated the issue. That’s what people do, who are looking for the truth.
Well shazam, you’ll never guess what I found. There is one circumstance under which people who have never been legally married get divorced. And Coincidence, Coincidence, WHAT a Coincidence, that one reason ***just happens*** to apply to the Obama scenario. Who could have guessed it???
No, I won’t give you the link. If I could find it, so can you. Happy hunting.
"There is one circumstance under which people who have never been legally married get divorced."
Not legally married but there was a marriage even if it had no legal effect. Careful, you might be adding to the 'evidence for" pile.
So you are saying there was a marriage, just not a “real”, “legal” marriage?
What kind of a marriage are you suggesting? An African tribal marriage?
Yes to the former, no to the latter.
To clarify - The former is a possibility although the divorce papers would recognise the putative nature of the marriage as the reason for the divorce. They don’t.
Also bearing in mind that proof of the 1961 marriage was presented to the court which granted the divorce.
“Can you be married but not legally married?
No. Marriage is a legal arrangement under civil law. That means marriage in the United States is restricted and governed by state laws. Therefore, in order to be considered legally married the parties must meet all the requirements for a valid marriage in the state where they will be married.”
http://www.answers.com/Q/Can_you_be_married_but_not_legally_married
Copies of the Stanley Ann/Barack Obama Sr. divorce papers are available for viewing all over the net. Which page should I look at, to study the ‘proof of marriage’ document?
Yes but what it says is that two people can go through a marriage ceremony, consider themselves married (or at least one of them may think so) but not be legally so - if one of them is already married for example.
In this case, that is all moot. In retrospect, it might be possible to argue that given Obama Sr’s previous marriage in Kenya, his marriage to Dunham in Hawaii wasn’t legal. However, the contemporary divorce documentation show’s that the court had proof presented to it that Obama Sr and Dunham were married in February 1961 in Hawaii and that the divorce was granted for grievous mental suffering with no mention of putative status or bigamy.
Bar a copy of a the original marriage certificate being found, that is about as definitive as anyone is going to get that there was a marriage ceremony on that date in Hawaii - which was during Dunham’s pregnancy.
If proof of the aforesaid marriage was presented, it would be included in the divorce decree papers. I have them displayed on a different tab. Which page should I look at, in order to study the ‘proof of marriage’ document?
“Copies of the Stanley Ann/Barack Obama Sr. divorce papers are available for viewing all over the net. Which page should I look at, to study the ‘proof of marriage’ document?”
Allow me to echo a previous post of yours to me...
“No, I won’t give you the link. If I could find it, so can you. Happy hunting.”
In this case, I already knew the answer. There is no proof of marriage included in the decree.
I didn’t say that there was. I said that the court had proof of the marriage presented to it or is the judge involved in a conspiracy?
‘”How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it’s not even clear that people back in Kansas were informed.”’
Micelle Obama, speaking to public school kids: ‘His own mother [Stanley Ann], she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.”’
There is no record of what was presented to the judge. Or am I mistaken? If you have any info re: what the ‘very young and very single’ Stanley Ann presented as ‘proof’ of her ‘reported’ marriage, you are the only one. Where & how did you get it???
Yes, I read that stuff the first time.
Looks like there are two sets of evidence:
1. Interpreting the words of two people (who weren’t present at the time) writing or talking 35+ years after the event. One of whom doesn’t say that the marriage didn’t happen, he actually says that the marriage did happen just the circumstances are murky - possibly not surprising given the possible shotgun nature of the event. The other who is well known for talking crap about pretty much everything.
2. A listing in the official Hawaii Marriage Index
A statement in the contemporaneous divorce papers about the marriage, the date (Feb ‘61 ) and the place (Hawaii).
A signed document by the judge who allowed the divorce which states that proof of that marriage had been presented to the court.
I imagine you’re going to go with the first. Fine. I think any rational observer of that evidence would consider the second to be more convincing or at least expect some serious explanation as to why that evidence is not credible. Each to his own I guess.
That would be something sufficient to convince a circuit court judge that the couple were married on February 2, 1961 in Maui.
‘One of whom doesn’t say that the marriage didn’t happen, he actually says that the marriage did happen just the circumstances are murky - possibly not surprising given the possible shotgun nature of the event. The other who is well known for talking crap about pretty much everything.’
You’ve got them confused. It is B. Obama who is ‘well known for talking crap about pretty much everything’.
‘I imagine you’re going to go with the first. Fine. I think any rational observer of that evidence would consider the second to be more convincing or at least expect some serious explanation as to why that evidence is not credible. Each to his own I guess.’
It is not known what was presented. How stringent were the requirements of “proof”? No primary documentation of a marriage has ever surfaced, no marriage license, no state-issued marriage certificate. You seem willing to assume one of these documents was presented. Barring evidence of exactly what ‘proof’ was offered, I am unconvinced.
& yes, I do take Obama Jr.’s statement seriously, along with Michelle’s. They know something about the ‘marriage’ & have let that something slip. Of course you believe they have no idea what they’re talking about. You know more about Obama’s parent’s ‘marriage’ than he does. Or so you seem to think. I disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.