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
-
-
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 -
In my case even "lateral adoption" would have been disastrous because I rapidly came to utterly despise both of the people I would have "adopted" four years ago But my experiences also taught me a lot about how bullshit our mentality of what is and isn't a "sham marriage" is
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Before we even said vows I was persuaded that in fact, we wouldn't be a sham, because we genuinely loved each other (possibly true!) and they felt deeply protective of me and were sincerely thinking of me as a life partner So, really, they entered into a sham and I didn't
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
I was genuinely in love with my "partner". Everybody could see it. I literally would tear up talking about them. So, like. Idk. It was like Schrodinger's Sham Marriage. It was real or fake depending on who was observing it.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @iridienne
The fact that she immediately started wanting to unwind the legal consequences of marriage once it affected her financial situation (the third C) was a very strong argument for it being a "sham"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I hate to sound all neoliberal about this but you know What's even more of a gesture of good faith than "Did they let you touch their genitals?" in today's world is "Did they combine their credit history with yours"
-
-
This brought up all kinds of feelings about my ex. He’s one of those dudes who, in spite of being a complete atheist, retained a ridiculous amount of Catholic body shame from his childhood...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @SerenissimaLAz1 @arthur_affect and
But what *really* mattered to him, in the end, is that my disabilities made me a depreciating asset and, like any good capitalist, he needed to divest.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.