[or-roots] Marriage, or non-marriage?

[Leslie Chapman]

I would have to say "lots of luck" getting a "correct" answer to that one,
for what it is worth here is one opinion I pulled off the internet;
*	*	*
Greetings! This is my first official "Don't Box Us!" contribution, provided
"frequent profile tweakings" are excluded. I'll tell you right off the bat:
this post isn't nearly as fleshed-out as I'd have liked it to be, but I
wanted to get the bare necessities down before something bright and shiny
steals my attention again.

And so, my friends, caveat lector.

Last week, Stephan Kinsella posted an article in the Mises.org blog
entitled, "How Can Bigamy Be Illegal?" I'll attempt to distill it here:

The state fails to accept responsibility when an illegal second marriage has
been granted. Indeed, the criminality of bigamy seems, according to
Kinsella, to mean the submitting of certain documents rather than the act
itself, since marriage alone is perfectly legal.

That the state plays a part in enabling illegal activity while
simultaneously condemning it is a curious hypocrisy. Kinsella notes how the
drug trade is comprised of what appear to be legally-recognized "sales",
without being characterized strictly as "the physical transfer of money if
it is somehow associated with the physical transfer of possession of
narcotics." He goes on to discuss the history of the phrase "legal tender"
and its place in contractual obligation, but that isn't what I wanted to get
into. At least, not today.

Let me state for the record that I find the Mises blog to be one of the most
intelligent blogs out there, and that I regularly enjoy Kinsella's work. In
fact, I could find only a minor bone--a phalanx, perhaps--to pick with
Kinsella about this one. It would have been worth mentioning that marriage,
as recognized by the state, may be a legal institution, but its true nature
is religious. Ergo, why does the state recognize marriage as legal at all,
when religion and public policy are supposed to keep off one another's
lawns, so to speak?

I used to believe that all marriages between and among consenting
individuals should be recognized as legal by whichever states deem it so.
The more I think about it, though, civil unions should be the basis for the
rights and privileges now conferred to "married" individuals, whereas
marriage should be an optional religious complement to a legally-recognized
union.

I still maintain, however, that we should protest a federal mandate in
either direction.

Ah, it's good to dream the impossible dream.

*	*	*	*

I had never considered it from the aspect of "blaming it on the state"
before; I guess what this person is implying is if the state grants you a
license to marry someone else when you are already married the "state" is
the one doing wrong. I have a hard time with that concept; I believe when
you obtain a marriage license you make a written statement that you are
"eligible" to marry, which the state considers is only a valid condition if
you aren't already married. Therefor by getting a license and marrying you
are committing fraud.

Never the less by so doing I believe the innocent party is still legally
able to consider themselves "married;" case in point a young man convinced a
young lady that a "bell captain" (glorified room service waiter) could
perform a legal marriage, his motives were of course dishonorable. He got a
big surprise when the young lady took the issue to court and the judge
declared that since she was under the impression she was "legally married"
he was so ordering and if the young man did not like the idea of being
married to her he was going to have to "try" to obtain a divorce.

So my take on it is that the Aunt is "married" until such time as either
she, her bigimist hubby, or the state dissolves the union. Now if the
dissolution is by annulment, I believe she would no longer have ever been
married.

Okay, I just googled that term and got this tidbit; one of the valid reasons
for an annulment

Your spouse was married to another living person at the time of the
marriage. (In some jurisdictions, such a marriage would be considered
bigamous and void under the law, and thus it would not be necessary to also
seek an annulment.)

What I see from this "legal advice" is that if the Aunt's marriage is
considered bigamy by law where she is; according to this source, she ISN'T
married.

So there you have 3,000 words with absolutley no resolution to your
question.

I tried.

Les C


-----Original Message-----
From:  ffarner at coinet.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:19 PM
To: or-roots at listsmart.osl.state.or.us
Subject: [or-roots] Marriage, or non-marriage?


I have a friend who is just getting started, and already she's asking
questions I cannot answer!!
===================
Here it is:
My aunt married a Mexican National, but he was already married in Mexico.
I found the marriage certificate. [I presume she means the aunt/Mexican
National]
Was she really married?
Mom said that my aunt was told to get a divorce.
What do I do?
===================
I'll pass along the answer, and try to get here to subscribe, soon.

Thanks,