• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Marines Accused of Sham Marriages for Money

Violations of the UCMJ has to be enforced rigorously to ensure the strict discipline is maintained regardless of one status.
 
Yeah, the double-dipping makes it that much worse, IMO. The should be given little, if any, leniency. Corporal should know better.
 
The financial downside for a male in a divorce is usually horrible. I would think that would limit the amount of people stupid enough to try this scam in a hetero context.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Yeah, the double-dipping makes it that much worse, IMO. The should be given little, if any, leniency. Corporal should know better.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I agree, delta. I have a high degree of respect for the military, and hate hearing stories like this. We ask a lot of them, and I hope what they get back compensates them somehow, but it is fact that I hold them to high standards. Do NOT like seeing military folks act like welfare cheats. They are above that. Or should be. OR maybe I am too harsh. But-- joining the military in this time is voluntary, and they need to follow the rules and set the standard we all should follow.
 
jding said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is en route though. We're working on it. New York passing was HUGE, in my estimation.

And welcome to the board. :)
 
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?
 
justabubba said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BDBoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GPS_Flex said:
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.
Click to expand...

I favor SSM because I want all citizens in the USA treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Equally means just that. Equality extends to the justice system. Homosexuals who break laws and commit fraud should be treated exactly the same as heterosexuals who break laws and commit fraud. This couple committed fraud. They should be charged and tried for that crime.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The marriage act. True, married people fall out of love all the damn time. But the military specifically gives money to married people. These women got married to access that money. Hence, the fraud.
 
BDBoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
I just thought of something else.

Do ONLY married Marines get a housing allowance to live off-base?

Are higher-ranking enlisted single Marines able to live off-base as well, whether or not they have a housing allowance?

I'd appreciate if someone explained the rules to me, thanks.
 
Some perspective, but in a different context:

Hello, I Love You, Won

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.
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The IRS and ICE have standards for "sham" marriages designed to circumvent both tax and immigration laws. I honestly don't know all the criteria they use during their investigations, but basically it comes down to whether two people knew each other long enough and well enough to engage in a legitimate marriage (how did they meet? did they meet each other's families? what personal information does each partner know about the other... favorite foods, favorite colors, where they grew up, likes and dislikes, intimacy questions, that sort of thing.)

In this case, the couples involved have outright admitted that the marriages were arranged to fraudulently get off-base housing money. They just want to mitigate that fraud by claiming they had no choice, since they were denied the ability to marry each other. Legally, that excuse doesn't fly. They should be tried for the crime.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

But they were in love when they got married. That's the whole point. If you get marry to gain, then your gain is based on fraudulent actions.
 
justabubba said:
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?
Click to expand...

The federal law makes it illegal no matter what state laws are passed.
 
Now you guys are making my brain hurt trying to define what is a sham marriage.... but since these people admitted it, I think they are ON the hook.
 
GPS_Flex said:
The federal law makes it illegal no matter what state laws are passed.
Click to expand...

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
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
GPS_Flex said:
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.
Click to expand...

i realize they have (stupidly) fallen on their swords (a marine thing maybe) and confessed that they manipulated the system. so, they have given up their defense (again, stupidly ... insert playful marine reference here)

but let's instead assume that the two couples shared a home, as two married couples ... only they did not sleep with their spouses
since they have a marriage license, said their vows and fufilled the requirements of a marriage contract under the law, what would make their marriages unlawful?
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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."
 
BDBoop said:
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."
Click to expand...

I agree intent is the key, but it's VERY hard to prove if someone is marrying PURELY to gain financial benefits from the military/government. If they don't admit it, they just make up stories.
 
Wait...how is this a a story? Military personnel have been entering 'contract marriages' as early in their career as tech school to get BAQ and separate rations pay since the 70's. (and probably beyond that even)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom