[Beckwith]

Stanley Ann and her attorney contend in the divorce pleadings that the two were married on 2-2-61. That is the ONLY evidence of a marriage.

The best evidence of a marriage would be a marriage license, or better yet, a state-issued marriage certificate.

Now, this should be easy to ascertain as marriages are public, but no marriage license or marriage certificate exists in the public domain.

[Brown Deer]

and even if one existed from the U.S., it wouldn’t be a legal marriage in this country.

[frog in a pot]

“The best evidence of a marriage would be a marriage license, or better yet, a state-issued marriage certificate.”

That is true, of course.

But if, as you agree, the divorce pleadings contain “the ONLY evidence of a marriage”, then that filing is the best (and certainly here the most persuasive) evidence, isn’t it?

IMO, what is of importance, other than the two assertions the parties were married, is to determine the motivation of the actors behind the two different dates. If either of the dates is accurate, the other deserves examination.

[Will Escott]

You are, of course, right but the divorce papers do provide prima facie evidence of a marriage.

Also I’ve been through a divorce and know other people who have and in every single case it was mandatory to produce a marriage certficate, etc, to start the ball rolling.

Maybe Hawaii is different.

[bgill]

There was a HI marriage index that listed Sr. and Ann. Don’t know if it was deemed true or false.