It's not just immigration, either. In many, many legal systems, the entire CONCEPT of "what is a legal marriage" is premised on people who fuck each other, or at least intend to fuck each other. If you don't fuck? Your marriage can be declared invalid!
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @iridienne
Yup, marriage is construed under the common law as consisting of the three Cs (consummation, cohabitation, commingling of finances)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
If any one of these is missing, it's grounds to challenge the marriage is invalid for the purpose of annulment etc, if all three are then the annulment is pretty much guaranteed
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
Some people may fail to achieve one of these things, but it takes a true, pink-streaked, procyon rube to fail the hat trick
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @arthur_affect
In Canada, for immigration purposes at least, the definition also includes monogamy. "Open marriage" is, we were told in no uncertain terms, invalid according to the Canadian Immigration Bureau.
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect
Yeah well The insistence that I marry my spouse was made in the context of Trump having gotten elected and me wanting to write out medical/mental health Powers of Attorney to personal friends since I didn't trust my mother I just wanted to push my biomom out of any emergencies
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Back when I actually liked this person, I bemoaned the absence of a reliable system of "lateral adoption", e.g., formally and legally committing to being somebody's sibling, with all the emergency powers that entails Basically the complete self-determination of one's family
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Like there's not really any good reason why I should be eternally connected in a bureaucratic sense to my bioparents I should be able to completely define who the people relevant to my life are and who I consent to have any involvement in it But the tyranny continues
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @iridienne
Back in the day lesbian couples in New England (the so-called "Boston Marriages") were well known for exploiting a legal loophole where the older member of the couple would adopt the younger one as an adult child
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The fact that the adoption is "vertical" rather than "lateral" doesn't actually matter legally once both parties are adults, the upshot is it serves to make you legally each other's closest next of kin (assuming neither has any bio children to take precedence)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Of course, this was only possible because the courts didn't really contemplate sexual relationships between women as a thing -- you are very much NOT allowed to adopt someone you have a sexual relationship with, that's incest So it most likely wouldn't work today
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.