Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Friends are saying "I do" - but might not understand the legal risks of their platonic marriages
Salon via MSN ^ | 6/26/21 | Nausica Palazzo

Posted on 06/26/2021 12:43:12 PM PDT by Libloather

**SNIP**

At the moment, though, friendship is not recognized by law. And only a handful of states allow friends to gain legal recognition through registration as domestic partners. These include Maine, Maryland and Colorado.

However, any two consenting adults – regardless of their genders – can get married in the U.S. Two friends, therefore, can pretty easily pull it off. But they can't admit that they're only friends.

Legally speaking, it could be seen as a sham marriage.

For this reason, two friends who tie the knot and receive a marriage certificate can still face considerable risks. They expose themselves to criminal sanctions and civil penalties on grounds of "marriage fraud" if a federal or state agency becomes suspicious of the union. And they may also be denied benefits usually granted to married couples.

Kerry Abrams, the current dean of Duke University School of Law, has outlined different doctrines developed in welfare law, social security law and immigration law over the course of the 20th century to specifically detect fake or sham marriages. Whether it's two people tying the knot so one can gain citizenship, seeking to obtain a housing allowance or getting married ahead of a trial so they can't be forced to testify against one another, the conclusions of the courts are the same: Their marriage is a sham, and the individuals expose themselves to criminal or civil liability and a termination of benefits.

Detecting a sham marriage isn't easy. And courts acknowledge that there are many reasons that may motivate a person's decision to marry that aren't "romantic," such as a desire to file income jointly to gain tax exemptions.

Therefore, courts look at whether there is what they call a "specific illicit purpose."

(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Education; History
KEYWORDS: friends; legal; marriage; platonic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
Don't do it. Just don't do it.


1 posted on 06/26/2021 12:43:12 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Destruction of the traditional nuclear family is essential to the managed decline of America.


2 posted on 06/26/2021 12:46:23 PM PDT by BusterDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Not good enough. I can apply the same rationale for siblings marrying each other as well as parent-child.

And of course polygamy, polyandry.

Just wait, it is coming soon (no pun intended).


3 posted on 06/26/2021 12:48:07 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The left does not want dialogue; it wants compliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I will never remarry. Ever.


4 posted on 06/26/2021 12:49:44 PM PDT by Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BusterDog

Ok so just hire someone to watch them engage in the sex act. That will prove it’s legit or will it? How many married folks are not doing it? the honeymoon’s over.


5 posted on 06/26/2021 12:50:08 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Polygamy definitely headed our way. I don’t see how a court can stop it. They’ve already said that if you love someone, you can marry them. It’s just that simple. You love 3 people? [shrug] Who dares to say it’s wrong?


6 posted on 06/26/2021 12:50:31 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

>>Polygamy definitely headed our way. I don’t see how a court can stop it. They’ve already said that if you love someone, you can marry them. It’s just that simple. You love 3 people? [shrug] Who dares to say it’s wrong?<<

They need only use the same “reasoning” word for word that was used to OK same sex “marriage” and just pluralize “person” to “people” and similar nouns and associated grammar.

I think the only reason it has taken so long is the trannie train took over the track. That and pedophiles in the caboose.


7 posted on 06/26/2021 12:55:32 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The left does not want dialogue; it wants compliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Let’s face it. The traditional notion of a marriage being consummated by sexual intercourse was de facto abolished in this country by Tony Kennedy’s Obergefell decision. It takes a man and woman to engage in coitus. No matter what forms of sodomy or mutual masturbation that the “pride crowd” engages in, they aren’t the reproductive act. So, the notion of “consummation” is out the window.


8 posted on 06/26/2021 12:55:34 PM PDT by irishjuggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

someone said “Just find a woman that hates you, and buy her a real expensive house, car, etc- and be done with it’


9 posted on 06/26/2021 12:56:14 PM PDT by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

>>Ok so just hire someone to watch them engage in the sex act. That will prove it’s legit or will it? How many married folks are not doing it? the honeymoon’s over.<<

But enough about my first marriage...


10 posted on 06/26/2021 12:56:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The left does not want dialogue; it wants compliance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

2 people of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage. Physically impossible. The left just can’t accept that marriage is a religious ceremony. Civil contract all you want.


11 posted on 06/26/2021 1:01:12 PM PDT by pnut22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

divorced 39 years here. Pretty much made up my mind at that time there would never be another marriage.


12 posted on 06/26/2021 1:05:56 PM PDT by LibertyWoman (Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: irishjuggler

So then, the law requires married couples to engage in some kind of “intimate act,” even if that act is risky or dangerous.


13 posted on 06/26/2021 1:06:25 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

We should have available a legal status of “contractual household” that would have firm rights and duties and would not raise the question of whether the parties are having sex or might have sex.


14 posted on 06/26/2021 1:42:26 PM PDT by Tax-chick (I found that yelling at my screen did not effect the change I sought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyWoman

“divorced 39 years here. Pretty much made up my mind at that time there would never be another marriage.”

*****

You still mad?


15 posted on 06/26/2021 1:57:43 PM PDT by BusterDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

There have always been marriages of convenience, for companionship, etc that were not sexual. There have even been negotiated marriages (85 year old man marries 20 year old beauty), she for money and he for, well we know. Pre-arranged marriages,etc.

This has happened because the state took over regulating marriage from the community. A marriage license is worth nothing except in the states eyes.


16 posted on 06/26/2021 1:58:59 PM PDT by LeoTDB69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

yes, I think it’s only a matter of time, before we have legal polygamy and group marriage.

The same legal arguments that were made for monogamous homosexual marriage, can be used to push for polygamy and “throuples” and other groupings of people.

And since we live in a time where any societal standards are considered “discriminatory”, I think it will happen.

when these issues get to court, do you really think Wise Latina type judges would rule against it? All it takes will be lawsuits to force this on all of us, just as happened with forcing homosexual marriage on America.


17 posted on 06/26/2021 1:59:49 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
So then, the law requires married couples to engage in some kind of “intimate act,” even if that act is risky or dangerous.

If sodomy and buggery qualify, how about a Vulcan Mind Meld?
18 posted on 06/26/2021 1:59:54 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (“At first you go bankrupt slowly, then all at once.” -- Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibertyWoman

No 2nd marriage for me either. Wasted half my life in the first and was too stupid to leave.


19 posted on 06/26/2021 2:00:29 PM PDT by RBW in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

Same.


20 posted on 06/26/2021 2:24:02 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson