Andrew Defaria

cindyabs wrote:

    > Dolf,
    > In the US a marriage "before the church" IS a legal marriage. If a
    > legally recognized person performs a marriage ceremony over you,
    > whether it's a minister, priest, rabbi etc, etc, that's an officially
    > recognized ceremony. You don't HAVE to have a second ceremony at city
    > hall in order for it to be legal.

I beg to to differ. If you don't "go downtown" and get a marriage
license then if you have a marriage ceremony at a church you are *not*
married.

--
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

Andrew Defaria

katooli wrote:

    > They will absolutely NOT issue you with a K-1 visa if they think there
    > is even a remote chance that you already got married....church
    > ceremony or otherwise. In the States, a religious ceremony is just as
    > legal as a
    > civil ceremony.

I have never heard that a religious only ceremony is considered legal
and binding in court. I doubt that it is. Where did you hear this? I've
always thought that here in the US the church is NOT part of the government.

    > I know this has been a problem for people who stage a 'non-legal'
    > wedding ceremony before getting their K-1. Don't do it, it will
    > potentially cause all sorts of trouble.

Many people have a religious ceremony in a foreign land without any
problems. As long as it is not legally a marriage and not binding on you
the USCIS does not care.

    > I have to say, you do not seem very willing to take advice from anyone
    > here

Actually considering that often the advice is incorrect I don't blame him.

    > - people who know the ins and outs of this process like the back of
    > their hands. That's a shame, because if you continue on as you
    > propose, you might be putting yourself through alot of trouble and
    > heartache.

His last proposal was legal and just find - many immigrating fiance's do
that with no trouble whatsowever.

--
If you can read this I can hit my brakes and sue you.

cindyabs

Beg all you want Andrew, you stated the obvious which I took as a given, however what I think Dolf was thinking of was that a church wedding was not a "real" wedding, being ceremonial rather than legal.

Rete

As long as your wedding is not conducted with a marriage certificate, then it would be only a blessings ceremony and not a legal binding marriage. At least that is how I would see it.

However, since you would and are planning on returning to Amsterdam with your "non-legal bride" why don't you call the US Consulate in Amsterdam and discuss this with them. I still think since you will have to do the medical and the police clearance and compilation of all other forms of documentation required that you might well be better served to do the DCF I-130 at the US Consulate instead of going through the K-1 route. The advantages to you doing this are many fold and can only make your future life in the US so much easier and cost efficient. You can do a lot of the leg work now, i.e. medical, long form birth certificate, etc. and only have to wait out the interview date with the US Consulate after they get your police clearance. I believe in the Netherlands the US Consulate are the ones that have to apply for that for you.

Give them a call and do a little more thinking. The K-1 road is easier than other avenues but it is froth with problems. Particular if you want to work asap when you get here. There is the issue of applying for an EAD since unless you get the stamp (only available at the JFK airport) which is only good for 90 days and a social security number you need the one year one that you file for after marriage and when you file for AOS. The one year EAD takes a maximum of 90 days to obtain. And that leads to the issue of driver's licenses which some states will not give you unless you have a one year EAD and/or a green card. There is so much involved and entering the US as a Conditional Permanent Resident will make things so much easier on you.

think about it.

Rete

Rete

Really? Hmmmmm I will not comment further.

Rete

Pollyana

If you go for a church wedding, with the intention of it not being legally binding, then be absolutely sure that the priest/minister understands that you want that.
A church blessing is fine, that has no legal recognition, but many priests will not undertake a blessing until AFTER the marriage. However, certain words and phrases in the actual wedding service make it a legal ceremony, so discuss with the priest beforehand exactly what you want/need.

Pollyana

Rete

Perhaps this is so in some countries but in the US unless the officiant has the marriage license and signs it after the ceremony and sends/takes it in for registration, a religious ceremony is nothing more than that ... a ceremony without any legal basis in the eyes of the state where performed.

Rete

Andrew Defaria

cindyabs wrote:

    > Beg all you want Andrew, you stated the obvious which I took as a
    > given, however what I think Dolf was thinking of was that a church
    > wedding was not a "real" wedding, being ceremonial rather than legal.

Since you don't seem to want to believe me let me quote from another
here who happens to also be a paralegal (I believe), Rete:

Perhaps this is so in some countries but in the US unless the
officiant has the marriage license and signs it after the ceremony
and sends/takes it in for registration, a religious ceremony is
nothing more than that .. a ceremony without any legal basis in the
eyes of the state where performed.


--
I was hitchhiking the other day, and a hearse stopped. I said, "No
thanks - I'm not going that far."

Dolf Van De Baan

Dear Kate,
As you can see it is not very easy to do what everybody says, because
everybody seems to differ and it sure is not like how you say:

    > you do not seem very willing to take advice from anyone
    > here - people who know the ins and outs of this process like the back of
    > their hands

Let me remind you that we are not going to cancel the K1 visa, you
could have read that in an earlier reply by me:

    > We just let the K1 application going how it is and wait for the time for me > to go to the US embassy in Amsterdam, Netherlands. I will quickly take a
    > trip to Amsterdam for their scheduled appointment then run through
    > that...hopefully get my K1 visa quickly

And I sure do appriciate all the information that I get and I sure do
not go my own way in this! I didn't go through getting a visa before
and it is all new to me and I don't know how everything goes. Besides
that, I'm not an American so for me it's even harder to know what it
legal binding and what is not, this when I refer to the church
ceremony as being a for the law legal wedding.

I thank you what for the advice you have given me, but although we
know and did the whole thing wrong and in reverse as I interpret you
correctly, which you would have done better without a doubt, we are
just human who make mistakes. We thought we knew enough so we took
those steps, in our eyes the right thing.
I guess that prayer is going to be the only solution here! And I hope
that the people who will read this will say a prayer for my situation
too.

Thank you all so much already!

Dolf Van De Baan

thanks again Rete!

I'm still a little confused by going the I-130 route because that
means that I have to cancel the I-129 (K1 visa). And I thought that
this wasn't recommended. I will contact the pastor about our wedding
situation and ask him what he knows about this situation.
I read through the I-130 form, but that means that we have to get
married somewhere first...can we do that then in the US? Or do we need
to do that in the Netherlands. I'll get more into it and look for
answers.

Thank you!


Rete <member167@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > As long as your wedding is not conducted with a marriage certificate,
    > then it would be only a blessings ceremony and not a legal binding
    > marriage. At least that is how I would see it.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, since you would and are planning on returning to Amsterdam with
    > your "non-legal bride" why don't you call the US Consulate in Amsterdam
    > and discuss this with them. I still think since you will have to do the
    > medical and the police clearance and compilation of all other forms of
    > documentation required that you might well be better served to do the
    > DCF I-130 at the US Consulate instead of going through the K-1 route.
    > The advantages to you doing this are many fold and can only make your
    > future life in the US so much easier and cost efficient. You can do a
    > lot of the leg work now, i.e. medical, long form birth certificate, etc.
    > and only have to wait out the interview date with the US Consulate after
    > they get your police clearance. I believe in the Netherlands the US
    > Consulate are the ones that have to apply for that for you.
    >
    >
    >
    > Give them a call and do a little more thinking. The K-1 road is easier
    > than other avenues but it is froth with problems. Particular if you
    > want to work asap when you get here. There is the issue of applying for
    > an EAD since unless you get the stamp (only available at the JFK
    > airport) which is only good for 90 days and a social security number you
    > need the one year one that you file for after marriage and when you file
    > for AOS. The one year EAD takes a maximum of 90 days to obtain. And
    > that leads to the issue of driver's licenses which some states will not
    > give you unless you have a one year EAD and/or a green card. There is
    > so much involved and entering the US as a Conditional Permanent Resident
    > will make things so much easier on you.
    >
    >
    >
    > think about it.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rete
    >
    >
    >
    >

cindyabs

Andrew, I believe you, for crying out loud, I got married myself twice here in the US so I am quite well aware of what is legally binding and what one has to do to make it so! Jeesh!
I still stand by the point I was trying to make to Dolf and this is the quote from what he replied-it was as I thought.........

"I'm not an American so for me it's even harder to know what it
legal binding and what is not, this when I refer to the church
ceremony as being a for the law legal wedding"

Rete

The only true problem you have is if your fiancee insists on having the legal wedding in the US. If she does then you might not be allowed into the US to have that wedding since there is a K-1 pending and the examiners at the POE will know that you clearly have immigration intent. You might be able to circumvent the issue by bringing your return ticket and perhaps one for your new wife as well for after the wedding, the paperwork from the US Consulate regarding her filing for your I-130 while she is there, etc. But that is a "might" and not a guarantee.

The pastor won't know anything about the USCIS procedures for migrating but he/she can certainly tell you about the legalities of marriage and blessings ceremonies.

Eileen has given you the URL for her site which outlines the procedure for DCF in Amsterdam. She is quite specific on what she and her husband had to do in order to accomplish this and it is a good site to get a handle on that procedure.

A suggestion would be to marry her in Amsterdam and then apply and then have your honeymoon. Then when you can legally free to come to the US as a conditional permanent resident you can have that lovely church wedding you two were planning.

Note that there are special documentation that she would need in order to be free to marry in Amsterdam so you will have to check that out. Believe that is also covered in Eileen's site.

Rete

Dekka's Angel

In 16 states, this is absolutely, positively, FALSE in at least some circumstances.

Those 16 states recognize common law marriage, which is just as legally binding as a solemized marriage (including the imposition of the requirement that to get out of the marriage, you have to have a *legal* divorce). In most states, you need do little more than hold yourself out as a married person for a certain period of time to be deemed married under the laws of that state. You certainly do not need a license, and having a religious marriage ceremony would probably be all that you needed to show the intent to enter into a common law marriage, in those states that do recognize it. Of course, since marriage in one state is recognized in all other states under the doctrine of full faith and credit, the fact that one state does not recognize common law marriages created in its jurisdiction does not mean that it will not recognize and uphold common law marriages created in a sister state.

Fortunately for the OP, his state of Wisconsin is not one of them.

Blanket statements about what is, and what is not, the law of marriage in the US are by definition false since marriage is a matter of state, not federal law. Short of looking at the law in your particular state, you cannot make a general statement about what is, and what is not, "married" in the United States.

As far as the OP's 10 foot pole matter, I'm going back into my corner and refraining from comment.

Rete

Common law marriage is more than just living together. There is normally a timeframe in which the couple must co-habitat together in order for the relationship to be considered common law. It is not just a matter of going before an officiant and having him/her declare you married which is exactly what this poster and responses where dealing with.

BTW NYS does not recognize a common law marriage from another state. In VA when CM was still legal, NYS did not recognize my daughter's co-habitation with her CLP of 8 years to be a marriage even if VA did.

Also I wonder if the Federal government would recognize common law marriage for the sake of immigration. Something tells me no.

Rete

Dekka's Angel

I thought the rule was that immigration law recognizes marriages based on the law of the jurisdiciton in which the marriage took place? If that is indeed the rule, then an otherwise valid common law marriage taking place in the *US* is something that I do not think the federal government has the power to ignore, except in certain circumstances involving dishing out federal money. Obviously, I do not know whether the laws of other countries have anything like our types of common law marriage, and thus do not know whether the federal government has to recognize them. My gut says that if they are legally sufficient marriages in the country of origin, then BCIS will recognize them. But obviously, not being an immigration attorney I cannot say this with certainty. What I do know is that there are many federal statutes making clear that the federal government must honor a valid marriage regardless of the place of its origin.

Actually, there is no particular "time frame" required by any of the states recognizing common law. The only test for those states that make an issue of time together is that it must be "significant". However, many states do not make time an issue at all, and focus on cohabitation plus declared intent. (And in a couple, like Alabama, stated intent+consummation=married married married, so you have to be really careful there LOL).

This makes sense, considering that common law marriages cannot be formed unless there is actual *intent* to be married. Intent is the dispositive issue, and is coupled in most common law states with a requirement that your intent be publicly demonstrated by *holding yourself out as a married couple*.

Thus, you can live together 20 years and as long as you never hold yourself out as married to third parties, or express an intent to be considered married, you are not married, even under common law doctrine. In contrast, common law marriages where the parties had the requisite intent and held themselves to others as husband and wife while living in a common law state for a matter of days and weeks have been routinely upheld as valid -- and recognized in other states, including New York (if you like I will send you some NY case cites).

Thus, the situation that the OP describes - going to a religious officiant for a declaration that they are married -- is *precisely* the type of thing that in a common law state *could* result in you being legally married, assuming the other remaining tests for a valid common law marriage in that state are met (i.e. hold yourself out to third parties as being married). It is simply incorrect that they need to live together for any fixed period of time. They do not, in most common law states.

Cohabitation is not common law marriage and cohabitation without more can *never* result in common law marriage. In any of the states that still recognize it.

As far as your daughter is concerned, the question is "recognize" her cohabitation for what *purpose*, assuming that what you are saying is that she asserted that she was married but New York said she wasn't (it's unclear whether you are in fact saying this, so I'm asking). New York has actually been quite consistent in recognizing as valid and binding common law marriages formed in other states and enforcing the spousal rights of those asserting them when a valid common law marriage has been found.

But therein lies the problem -- New York does not recognize any relationship as a common law marriage that does not qualify under the original state of residence as a common law marriage any more than any other state does. And in every state that recognizes it, there are fixed criteria that need to be met to demonstrate intent. If those requirements are met, the full faith and credit clause *requires* New York to treat a valid Virginia common law marriage as a valid marriage. And New York can get the pants sued off it if it does not for violating the Constitution.

But that doesn't mean that New York has to treat that marriage the same as other marriages in circumstances that do not implicate the natural "incidents of marriage", i.e. certain types of government benefits. That phrase "incidents of marriage" is a legal term of art, and too complicated to explain on an NG. But because of this term of art, to understand why New York behaved as it did in the case of your daughter one has to know more about the context.

But make no mistake - if your daughter was lawfully married based on the then-common law in Virginia, she was lawfully married in New York. And she could not have married anyone else without a formal divorce. That's an critical distinction that most people misunderstand when discussing common law marriage. Marriage is a status, conferred by the state in which the status was created, that no other state can impact short of the legal process of divorce or annulment. Whether or not it doles out money or benefits based on it.