- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
This is more of a gay marriage issue than a DADT issue.
They're intertwined.
This is more of a gay marriage issue than a DADT issue.
You would be correct considering Corporals are now considered NCO's (non commission officers), this in it's self mandates that one will be held to even a higher standard of conduct opposed to what would be expected from a enlisted servicemen.Yeah, the double-dipping makes it that much worse, IMO. The should be given little, if any, leniency. Corporal should know better.
Yes this is fraud, but there's a human ingredient here. Do they deserve the punishment of the law, I believe yes since they broke the law. But if the current law do not allow same sex marriages, I think we have to reconsider this. The bottom line is we are discriminating towards gays in many aspects. For regular people like ourselves, we can just be who we are. But for gays, they have to choose to 'come out' even then they face numerous discrimination from others. That in itself is quite unfair.
I'm originally from China, I can not tell you the discrimination gays face there. It's treated like a disease. No one can just 'came out' like here. US although far ahead of China is still not quite the notion of 'equality' for gays. For a society based on human rights, it really troubles me to see gays cannot get the equal rights here.
ok
two couples got married
which legal marriages enabled them to enjoy financial benefits provided to legally married couples
would someone please explain the part where what they did is illegal?
They weren't in love. They did it because they couldn't afford (in their estimation) to survive as a lesbian couple, so they each married a man.
California Marines Accused of Sham Marriages for Money
I was originally opposed to the repeal of DADT because I was worried that the military would suffer additional burdens in the form of lawsuits and requirements of special treatment for gay or lesbian members.
I changed my position on the issue when many of you made clear that lawsuits against the military for discrimination etc. are not allowed under current law. With that in mind, I would like to know if any of you now think the individuals in this story should get special treatment and not be charged with a crime.
This still brings us back to the question of what part of a sham marriage makes it illegal, what exactly is the legal basis for precisely determining what is a sham marriage and what is not. I mean, there are plenty of married people who don't really love each other, and there are plenty of estranged couples who remained married but live separately and with other partners. Legally, what's the difference? Can someone explain this to me? Thanks.
They weren't in love. They did it because they couldn't afford (in their estimation) to survive as a lesbian couple, so they each married a man.
I informed him of the penalties for filing a fraudulent marriage or fiancé petition — the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments Act of 1986 provides a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine for any “individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws,” but, like most con-artists, he tried to stick to his absurd story. Most fraud perpetrators know that marriage fraud is extremely difficult to prove and few are ever punished.
This still brings us back to the question of what part of a sham marriage makes it illegal, what exactly is the legal basis for precisely determining what is a sham marriage and what is not. I mean, there are plenty of married people who don't really love each other, and there are plenty of estranged couples who remained married but live separately and with other partners. Legally, what's the difference? Can someone explain this to me? Thanks.
i would submit bill & hillary are not in love (at least not with each other) as a singular example
their marriage is found legal
they live apart. bill in harlem and hillary in DC ... rumors have it that the both enjoy the company of women
marriage is a legal contract. the marines (and one civilian) got married consistent with that legal marriage contract
now, why is it that the way they chose to live their marriages is found illegal
ok
two couples got married
which legal marriages enabled them to enjoy financial benefits provided to legally married couples
would someone please explain the part where what they did is illegal?
The federal law makes it illegal no matter what state laws are passed.
i would submit bill & hillary are not in love (at least not with each other) as a singular example
their marriage is found legal
they live apart. bill in harlem and hillary in DC ... rumors have it that the both enjoy the company of women
marriage is a legal contract. the marines (and one civilian) got married consistent with that legal marriage contract
now, why is it that the way they chose to live their marriages is found illegal
What they did was wrong because they committed fraud when both married marines and claimed that they lived with those marines in order to fraudulently receive money.
Fraud is fraud.
but i still don't see it
not trying to be obtuse (... it's a gift, i don't have to try)
i do recognize these marines have already confessed, so they are toast
but LOTS of people are in loveless marriages
lots of people who are married have relations with others outside of their marriage - often with spousal acknowledgment
marriage is a contract. two people comply with that contract and say their vows and get a marriage license
what more is required
or if it is easier to respond to, what about a marriage (short of the couple agreeing it is a sham) then constitutes a sham
Does me telling you "it goes to intent" help any? Every single thing you've described does not equal "we're getting married so we can have the marriage monies."