• 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

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.

Well, these guys are busted. Hopefully, the next potential fraudsters take a lesson from these guys.
 
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.
where is the fraud.
the law says they must meet conditions to receive a marriage license. they do that and then says their vows ... which can be of their own creation
they have thus fulfilled the legal contract of marriage
how is that fraudulent

excuse the sting, but here goes
you are presently in a marriage but your husband is living with another woman
does that cause your own marriage to be fraudulent?

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."
some people get married to have sex
is that a superior reason than the marines wanting to get married to have a family
 
you are presently in a marriage but your husband is living with another woman
does that cause your own marriage to be fraudulent?

No, it causes my own marriage to be dead. No sting, no worries. :)
 
No, it causes my own marriage to be dead. No sting, no worries. :)

so why are those couples, married to others than those with whom they are living, found to be in marriages less illegal than your own
 
so why are those couples, married to others than those with whom they are living, found to be in marriages less illegal than your own

Like I said above. Intent. They married someone they didn't love to gain military monies.
 
Like I said above. Intent. They married someone they didn't love to gain military monies.

the marines should have stood strong and forced the authorities to prove "intent"
 
the marines should have stood strong and forced the authorities to prove "intent"

the Marines are their own authorities in this case, I believe (at least with the corporal). I'm not sure how the military found out, but the women pretty much admitted that the marriage was fraudulent.
 
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?

Federal law.
 
where is the fraud.
the law says they must meet conditions to receive a marriage license. they do that and then says their vows ... which can be of their own creation
they have thus fulfilled the legal contract of marriage
how is that fraudulent

excuse the sting, but here goes
you are presently in a marriage but your husband is living with another woman
does that cause your own marriage to be fraudulent?


some people get married to have sex
is that a superior reason than the marines wanting to get married to have a family

Here is the problem with it as it relates to this story:

The Corps subsidizes a portion of a marine’s housing expenses if the marine lives off base. The Marine can also choose to live on base but they get no housing subsidies.

What these marines and civilian did is they told the Corps that marines were living in housing they weren’t actually living in and scammed the Corps for around $75,000, according to the article, because the Corps was paying for 3 marines housing where only 1 marine lived.
 
Here is the problem with it as it relates to this story:

The Corps subsidizes a portion of a marine’s housing expenses if the marine lives off base. The Marine can also choose to live on base but they get no housing subsidies.

What these marines and civilian did is they told the Corps that marines were living in housing they weren’t actually living in and scammed the Corps for around $75,000, according to the article, because the Corps was paying for 3 marines housing where only 1 marine lived.

actually the marines were not living on post and thus qualified for a housing allowance because they had entered into a marriage contract
that marriage contract is required to receive a housing allowance
they were entitled to that housing allowance because (a) they were married and (b) they were not residing in on post quarters

no one has shown me where a married couple is required to live together
until that becomes a requirement, they did nothing wrong ... other than fall on their sword and admit they committed fraud. they should have instead compelled the authorities to have proven they violated any law
 
actually the marines were not living on post and thus qualified for a housing allowance because they had entered into a marriage contract
that marriage contract is required to receive a housing allowance
they were entitled to that housing allowance because (a) they were married and (b) they were not residing in on post quarters

no one has shown me where a married couple is required to live together
until that becomes a requirement, they did nothing wrong ... other than fall on their sword and admit they committed fraud. they should have instead compelled the authorities to have proven they violated any law

I think in both military law and civilian law, there are specific rules regarding sham marriages. Sham marriages are essentially contracts that are entered into PURELY for the sake of gaining financial benefits (or other benefits, like citizenship). In this case, it was used to gain a housing allowance, so Boop is right.
 
I think in both military law and civilian law, there are specific rules regarding sham marriages. Sham marriages are essentially contracts that are entered into PURELY for the sake of gaining financial benefits (or other benefits, like citizenship). In this case, it was used to gain a housing allowance, so Boop is right.

had they not confessed how would it have been proven they entered into a sham marriage
 
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.

Forced to enter a sham marriage? Nobody put a gun to their head and order them to engage in a sham marriage, did they? The law is the law, and this couple should be prosecuted for fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom