I got nothing, except the observation that the best non- romantic friendships can outlast many marriages, and yet not be legally recognized in any way, and that that somehow feels … Like an omission.
post 82. cite that’s it’s wrong.
From the exact same article that you provided as your cite:
Not that it’s a particularly good cite anyway, as it is an interview conducted in a conversational style with no references to any actual laws or statutes.
The “In other areas of law” bit that you quoted would be extremely weak sauce anyway since it doesn’t actually cite any established laws. So it’s not a good cite even if you ignore that it contradicts your assertion two paragraphs after the bit you quoted.
That is why it isn’t fraud. It’s a “full” marriage, legally identical to any other marriage.
You’re totally wrong.
As much as I know I’m going to regret dipping my toe into these muddy waters, **Magiver **might, MIGHT, have a point. In US v Dedman there is a case about a woman marrying her adoptive father for his military benefits. She was found guilty of attempting to defraud the government through marriage and was sentenced to 27 months in jail and $200,000 in restitution. The main law she was found guilty of was specifically for defrauding the US government:
That’s where the argument, as far as I can tell, gets shaky for this thread. If the guy’s girlfriend is marrying a woman who is employed by the government, MAYBE this would apply based on case law history. If it’s any other employer, I have no idea.
That was a pretty good try but it is not relevant in this case. The federal government has nothing to do with this. If any laws were broken they would be state laws.
Did I miss that post where we found out where the girlfriend’s fiancee works?
I am not a lawyer, but I think the reverend was either mistaken or joking. In my state at least, the officiant simply has to sign the marriage certificate (when I got married, I think he went ahead and signed it half an hour before the ceremony just so he didn’t forget). No words mentioned had any legal effect.
As far as the OP’s women, they will probably just get married by a Justice of the Peace or a local judge. When I was filling out the paperwork for my marriage*, the lady that gave us the license and paperwork for the certificate said that if we wanted the cheapie court wedding we needed to show back up tomorrow and bring $20** for the judge. Where we would be rapid-fire hitched in about 30 seconds, with a dozen other couples before us and after us. We went for a normal church ceremony, but it was a normal thing.
- Incidentally, in the county where I live, you get marriage licenses and you file for divorce, not just in the same building, but at the same desk. The couple in front of us was getting divorced - they wouldn’t even sit next to each other while waiting, while my now-wife and I were trying not to giggle like schoolkids. It’s somewhat disconcerting to get to the desk and the first question is “Marriage or Divorce?”
** I think it’s was $20, but it was some token fee if you just wanted the judge to marry you in an anti-septic ceremony.
Or a green card, or (I believe) even a marriage-based immigrant visa.
Did I miss the post where anyone was convicted of defrauding the government by being under someones insurance? The cite given was a case in which the feds went after someone for fraudulently collecting a dead veteran’s death benefit. No mention of insurance. And one of the main points of the case was that the marriage itself was illegal not because they weren’t romantically involved, it was because it was between grandfather and adopted granddaughter. It was a good attempt at finding a cite but the elements are not really similar and its not relevant to this situation.
You missed my question, let me re-phrase.
You claimed: “The federal government has nothing to do with this. If any laws were broken they would be state laws.” I’m just asking you to substantiate that claim based on the information given in this thread.
Fair enough. I was just pointing out that there was nothing in this thread that showed that the federal government would be involved either regardless of if she was employed by the government. The cite given does not show that because it is for a much different situation. Like others I would need a cite to show that federal law would apply at all.
It seems the OP decided to open an “Ask the” thread and not provide any answers.
I don’t see anything wrong with this (and like Weeping Wyvern I’m probably more culturally conservative than most of this board).
There’s nothing in the definition of marriage that requires you live with someone, have sex with them, be in love with them or raise children with them.
I see you’ve met my ex-wife.
The moment the word “fraud” popped up, I panicked and asked the mods to delete the thread. I received an email back that I could request for it to be locked, but not deleted.
However, I think this thread has turned into an excellent discussion regarding the potential fraudulence of marrying simply to receive benefits, regardless of whether it’s a gay or straight marriage.
Now I was hoping this thread would be about thoughts and feelings regarding the matter, but sometimes threads take different directions than we intend. Thus, while I don’t want to reveal too much about the parties involved, I will attempt to clear up a couple of things:
[ol]
[li]My girlfriend and I were high school classmates. She was a stand-up person then and continues to be today. Her job (in which she is climbing the ranks unbelievably fast) requires to have an extremely high amount of integrity and professionalism. I have no reason to be concerned about her character.[/li][li]The friend in question, Debbie, is a bona fide lawyer by profession. She is leaving an extremely stressful and low-paying job with the Public Defender’s office to start her own practice. Yes, she has a medical condition that she’s having surgery for in a couple of weeks and will require expensive follow-up treatments and medications.[/li][li]Though some people here already know what state I live in, I won’t say which it is to prevent any identifying information. Safe to say, it is a state where same-sex marriage is legal and treated the same as heterosexual marriage.[/li][/ol]
I’m sure plenty of people get into the arrangements described above for insurance reasons described above. It’s not their fault, it’s the insanely stupid and expensive way insurance in America is handled that causes it. Bad laws breed bad behavior. Go to single payer and dump the big insurance companies, make everyone eligible and everyone covered, and these problem vanish, and our insurance costs get a lot cheaper.
I cannot find a single reason to condemn the ones who are getting married for insurance reasons, and tons of reasons to blame the insurance companies and American society.
AF I don’t believe your girlfriend will run into any problems with criminal law. However, you state that she has a job in which a high degree of integrity is needed. Presumably some people at work know she is seeing someone long term and isn’t a lesbian. Going from a single to family plan is more expensive. It costs the employer more. How do you think the employer will feel when they are spending their money to help your friend? I know my employer was very clear that they needed to know the minute I was divorced so they could take her off the policy and save money.If you are in an at will state it’s something to worry about.
Your stand-up girlfriend with a job that requires her to have an extremely high amount of integrity and professionalism wants to marry a bona fide lawyer, a right many people who loved each other fought long and hard for, for the sole purpose of getting benefits. Leaving aside the obvious ethical problems, do you know if your girlfriend’s insurance will allow her to add on someone with such severe pre-existing conditions and if so, might they insist on raising her insurance rates?