comment: >
  
  It is God that makes a marriage great. Marriage comes from the Bible after all
context: /u/BrokenManOfSamarkand (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  There's an easy fraud. 
  I'm already legally married, I sign a doc saying I'm not, and get married again. 
  Fraud. >
  
  
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate.
  
  It's usually pretty straightforward actually.
  In most cases of marriage fraud that are actually pursued there's clearcut evidence that the union was entered into fraudulently, with the express purpose of gaining legal benefits.
  Most fraudulent marriages that are prosecuted involve two parties who have either never met, have only met briefly, or who meet only at the time of the marriage and then spend no time with one another after the marriage. 
  Evidence in such cases generally comes down to digital traces such as texts, emails, messages etc that show clear intent to enter into a fraudulent marriages or (even more immediately damning) one party who admits during questioning that the marriage was entered into purely for legal benefits or that they were compensated for entering into the marriage specifically for legal benefits such as immigration status. >
  
  But my point is that there are no possible grounds to declare a marriage illegitimate.  Marrying for a benefit is not only not fraudulent, it's actually the only thing that inherently characterizes a marriage.
  
  Most fraudulent marriages that are prosecuted involve two parties who have either never met, have only met briefly, or who meet only at the time of the marriage and then spend no time with one another after the marriage. 
  
  As far as I know, there is no requirement that spouses be well acquainted. >
  
  Federally, marriages that involve foreign nationals marrying U.S. citizens strictly to obtain U.S. citizenship are governed under 8 U.S.C. 1325(C) and 18 U.S.C. 1546, they provide for a penalty of up to five years in prison for the offense. Under that statute, you can also be fined up to $250,000.
  You argue that 
  
  Marrying for a benefit is not only not fraudulent, it's actually the only thing that inherently characterizes a marriage.
  
  But U.S. and international law has consistently, and over centuries, disagreed with you both as relates to the purpose of a marriage, the legality of marrying someone strictly for legal benefits, and the criteria for determining when a marriage is not valid.
  Marriage laws, from a legal history and theory perspective, are designed to encourage beneficial relations between two partners (polygamous marriages are universally illegal in the U.S.) that is both to their benefit and that benefits society as a whole.
  There are no personal or societal benefits from allowing mercenary unions purely to game the system and obtain otherwise illegitimate citizenship status.
  
  But even this is undercut by practices like prenups that aim to decide this in advance.
  
  In reference to this specific point, prenups are strictly regulated and cannot shield all property, particularly property acquired in the course of the relationship. 
  It's very, very easy to invalidate a prenup if it is found to have been entered into under fraudulent circumstances. >
  
  
  There are no personal or societal benefits from allowing mercenary unions purely to game the system and obtain otherwise illegitimate citizenship status.
  
  I mean, I'm not that creative and I can come up with numerous potential benefits without thinking much about it, increasing number of taxpayers, potential service members, labor force etc.
  But my point is a slightly different one.  There is nothing about marriage as we understand it that really requires any sort of social gain.  The union is said to exist solely based on consent of the two parties and no other indicia of any benefit to the parties or society. Since that's the case, it's incoherent to single out this one particular union. >
  
  
  There is nothing about marriage as we understand it that really requires any sort of social gain. The union is said to exist solely based on consent of the two parties and no other indicia of any benefit to the parties or society. Since that's the case, it's incoherent to single out this one particular union.
  
  And I provided you with direct links to legal precedent, history, and examples which clearly showed that interpretation is false.
  Specific to 
  
  The union is said to exist solely based on consent of the two parties and no other indicia of any benefit to the parties or society
  
  The union categorically does not exist solely because of the consent of the two parties.
  The union must comply with the legal standards of a jurisdiction in order to be recognized as a lawful union.
  Those legal standards are based on prevailing societal norms that evolve over time (as recently as 2015 gay marriage was not federally protected prior to the Obergefell decision) and are open to interpretation, but which always require the legal recognition and approval of the prevailing jurisdiction to be seen as a lawful union.
  You claim that "no one can say what a marriage is" and I refuted that by pointing out that marriage is now and has always been a societal construct based on historical and evolving societal norms that is not valid unless legally recognized. >
  
  Nothing you are arguing for is more than a vague notion of "norms." Of course norms decide what is and isn't a marriage.  But that's not the topic here, which says that the norm is incoherent.  
  Behavior that is acceptable for one group, but unacceptable for another solely because of immigration status is incoherent. >
  
  The norm isn't incoherent, you just disagree with the prevailing norm.
  The current norm is that a marriage shouldn't be entered into for specifically and strictly mercenary purposes (including marriages strictly for the acquisition of wealth, though generally those are just "frowned upon" rather than actually illegal).
  My point was specifically that
  
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate.
  
  The government can find a marriage illegitimate when it was entered into specifically to perform a function (getting a green card/citizenship) that the government has legally prohibited.
  You disagree with that interpretation, but I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand the governments position and the criteria they used to determine fraud. >
  
  Of course I understand what the government prohibits, and I understand it's rationales for prohibiting these marriages.  But understanding these reasons, doesn't make them coherent.
  You can marry for whatever benefit you desire and there is, as far as I know, nothing like the infrastructure we have set up for immigration to make sure every marriage is based on more than obtaining a benefit from the government because, again--marrying for wealth is truly marrying to obtain the power of the state to enforce your rights. >
  
  Coherence is the standard you  based your CMV on.
  I pointed out that the government has set a coherent, understandable, and completely reasonable standard by which to determine when a marriage is fraudulent.
  The standard is that you cannot enter into a marriage solely for immigration purposes, with no other reasonable purposes.
  Anyone who enters into a marriage, during which you make a legal and binding declaration as to the intent of their marriage, for purposes specifically prohibited by U.S. marriage laws has by definition committed fraud.
  It's an extremely cut and dried, understandable, logically consistent, and coherent position.
  If this doesn't offer a clear refutation of your point, then what standard would you accept to change your view? >
  
  I'll award a ∆ to the extent that it is true that it's a coherent position that if the government defines X as fraud and then you commit X, you've committed fraud. It's true as a tautology, but I still think it's not quite my point, which is essentially that the law says "anything goes" in just about every scenario, but then applies an extraordinary level of scrutiny not seen elsewhere to a small subset of marriages.  There is no overarching regime or enforcement infrastructure holding American marriages to these heights of rigor and integrity. >
  
  
  There is no "fraud" if one citizens marries another solely to attempt to get their wealth.
  
  There is if you've presented yourself as entering into it for anything but that.  It's not a fraud on the government, it's a fraud on the spouse.
  
  whereas in a green card marriage, one is attempting to "fraudulently" obtain citizenship from the government
  
  If they do anything other than go to the office and declare "This is a green card marriage, and I'm only doing this for citizenship and nothing more", then they have absolutely committed fraud on the government.  
  
  If you marry someone for wealth you are also attempting to "fraudulently" compel the government to enforce your rights to your spouse's wealth and potential benefits. It's no really different.
  
  Of course.   Both are illegal, by the way. >
  
  
  If they do anything other than go to the office and declare "This is a green card marriage, and I'm only doing this for citizenship and nothing more", then they have absolutely committed fraud on the government. 
  
  I agree that it's fraud as currently defined, but my greater point isn't that it's not legally fraudulent, but that it's an incoherent position.  Marrying for benefits in part or whole is a legitimate practice.
  
  Of course. Both are illegal, by the way.
  
  I haven't heard that before, but would be interested to read more about fraud on a spouse in marrying for wealth, if you would be able to point me towards a source or law. >
  
  I don't believe anything in this says that the marriage itself was fraudulent, unless I missed it. >
  
  The issue here is why we give immigration benefits related to marriage.
  The reason the benefits exist is as a service to citizens to allow them to live with their families and not have a border permanently separate them. It is not to allow people to immigrate by arrangements with total strangers who happen to be citizens.
  If you openly allowed marriage of convenience for immigration purposes, you would totally destroy support among the American public for allowing sponsorship of spouses at all, and that would mean a huge harm to those who do want to actually live with their spouses out of love. >
  
  
  What makes a marriage legitimate? When you think of the concept of marriage no doubt many images are conjured in your head. Children. Love. Commitment. Property.
  However, as a country, we've come to agree that none of these notions are essential for a couple to be wedded. I argue that since we do not believe that any possible criteria is necessary for a legitimate marriage, we have no grounds upon which to declare any marriage null or fraudulent.
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate. Marriages do not require any aim of producing children, love, commitment, living together.
  
  The confusing thing is that these factors are typically used as tests for marriages when there is suspicion of fraud, while they're not in and of themselves requirements that must be fulfilled in order for any marriage to be legally valid. 
  If there's a suspicion of marriage fraud, these factors may be tested to see if the fraud suspicion can be disproved. If they find that there are indeed indicators of love, commitment, property sharing, pregnancy etc., this would help to disprove the fraud suspicion, but it doesn't make them positive requirements for the validity of all marriages. It even helps if just one or two of those factors can be demonstrated. They're effectively only treated as providing an "alibi" against fraud accusations, but not as marriage requirements. >
  
  
  What makes a marriage legitimate?
  
  That depends on the marriage, of course. Basically every country, religion, and society has their own version of marriage. 
  In legal terms, there are certain requirements you must pass before you can get married (or registered partnership). These vary from country to country. 
  
  So all of this is just to say I do not understand how the government can find a marriage illegitimate.
  
  None of the things you mentioned carry legal weight. Why would you expect them to matter to the government? 
  
  Marriages do not require any aim of producing children, love, commitment, living together.
  
  Also the opposite: 
  Producing children, love, commitment, living together. None of these require people to be married. 
  
  There is no "fraud" if one citizens marries another solely to attempt to get their wealth.
  
  It depends. 
  Sadly, many countries only recognize traditional, monogamous marriages as legit. 
  
  How is it fraud to marry someone to obtain citizenship?
  
  Again, specific reasons and legislation will differ from country to country. 
  It is generally fraud because this abuses a loophole introduced to keep married couples together, it was not intended as a highway to citizenship. >
  
  Exactly. It's a loophole. One almost certainly originally intended to be used by military service members stationed overseas 9/10. >
  
  What do you think about marrying someone to get citizenship or a permanent residence in a country? >
  
  I can only speak for my understanding of the American green card system, but:  
  What is the government giving a foreign spouse a green card besides the American spouse basically sponsoring their immigration? There's rules about financially supporting them for a certain number of years, the marriage part means you can absorb the other's debts or they can absorb your property upon marriage dissolution. I think if I'm willing to legally tie myself to a friend knowing those rules, I should be allowed to regardless of if I'm having sex with them or if we even sleep in the same house. If "I promise to support this person if you let them into the US" is a reason the government will give you residence, I don't think adding romantic love makes sense as a bonus requirement. I can understand having that sort of carve out if there's kids, because a child deserves to not have one parent 1000s of miles away due to border rules, but the specifications of love feels ridiculous. >
  
  Many countries don't require any kind of real sponsorship, you just show you are married and get the documents entitling you to the same benefits as all other citizens of that country. >
  
  That doesn't sound right. What countries are you referring to? >
  
  Well, most of the countries. >
  
  Most countries provide special visas or residence permits with marriage plus other requirements. I know zero countries that provide citizenship benefits, like voting for example, by only "showing you're married and getting the documents". That's why I'm asking, what countries are you referring to? >
  
  It seems like you've picked a few potential reasons for marriage, then decided that since none of them are legally essential, there are no illegitimate reasons to marry. That isn't how the law works. It articulates specific reasons that a marriage might be fraudulent. Amd those reasons see to be instances in which one has married solely to gain the legal benefits of marriage, rather than social or cultural benefits or expectations. I don't see any incoherence there. >
  
  You almost hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph: what's unique is that you're defrauding the government. You miss when you turn to:
  
  "fraudulently" compel the government to enforce your rights to your spouse's wealth and potential benefits
  
  Even if you're using the government to enforce things fraudulently obtained, you're not defrauding the government itself. >
  
  In my country an annulment can be granted in several circumstances.
  a)a marriage was not consummated
  b)mistaken identity/false identity
  c)bigamy
  So I'd say the actual factors that make a marriage legitimate are that no one is already married, that the person is who they say they are and isn't commuting some kind of identity fraud, and sex.
  
  I argue that since we do not believe that any possible criteria is necessary for a legitimate marriage, we have no grounds upon which to declare any marriage null or fraudulent.
  
  So, I'd say these three grounds are reasonable ways of saying a marriage is illegitimate. >
  
  Social Security will try to deem You as married to someone You live with, even if You are already married to an absent spouse, making it a punishable offense under US LAW to declare so yourself! 
     The Administration will say that you can be declared as such for their section of the Government, or for purposes of their Office, which, by the way, is to "legally" strip You of Your SSI and insurance coverage if You are disabled! Dirty dirty tricks They pull, Seeing as how They Craft their own rules/compliance structure, and They don't under normal Procedure answer to ANY other Govt offices concerning how often or how shadily They restructure the rules to finish the current agenda quota. >
  
  Humans define things into existence. We’ve decided that some types of marriage are fraudulent so when a particular union meets these criteria, it’s defined as fraudulent. Simple. >
  
  A marriage is fraudulent if one or both parties enter into the legal arrangement with the intention of ending it at some point in the future after the intended benefit is realized. >
  
  
  Commitment
  
  Every real marriage has a mutual intention to commit.  That may eventually disappear and the government doesn't need to force people to remain together, but it must be present at some point or it's not a real marriage.
  If it's provably lacking you don't need a no fault divorce, you can get an annulment because it was never a marriage. >
  
  A green card marriage also involves a low level of commitment between the parties as well.  They incur certain duties towards each other while married. >
  
  And being on a soccer team is a commitment. But only a marriage is a commitment to try to make a marriage work.
  Legal marriage is only supposed to occur when the two people are trying to be genuinely married.  It's not supposed to be used when the two people don't consider themselves genuinely married. >
  
  
  But only a marriage is a commitment to try to make a marriage work.
  
  This is not a requirement for marriage, and no fault divorce strongly undercuts the notion that spouses must work to preserve a marriage. >
  
  It's a requirement to start a marriage, and annullment recognizes this.  No fault divorce doesn't undercut that, it's just a recognition that people sometimes need a divorce even in the absence of abuse or adultery. >
  
  If I’m understanding you right, you might be confused about what marriage fraud is. If my boyfriend just wants to get married for the green card and then we do it, that’s going to be hard to prove as marriage fraud. I’m not even sure it qualifies, as long as we actually live together and merge our assets and stuff like that. If that were prosecuted as fraud, I’d agree with your perspective that it’s a bit incoherent. But even then, we can imagine a scenario where a marriage between citizens could be legally challenged on similar grounds. If a liar tricked a rich person into marrying them based on love, when the intention was just to get all the inheritance, those cases can be contested by the people who would have inherited otherwise. 
  Most marriage fraud that we’re talking about when we say marriage fraud is where there is no intent to live as married people. When one party pays the other to enter into a legal marriage and then create fake evidence to submit in support of an application for a green card. They take fake wedding pictures, pretend to live together, etc. And they let the people close to them know that they’re still seeing other people romantically and that this marriage isn’t real. It’s the intent to deceive the government into believing that they live as a married couple that constitutes the fraud. What makes it coherent is that even when two citizens marry for money, they’re not doing any active deceit against the government as part of a scheme they planned together. Usually they live as married people do, or they at least consider themselves subjectively to be “actually married.” >
  
  
  Most marriage fraud that we’re talking about when we say marriage fraud is where there is no intent to live as married people.
  
  My point is that marriage does not have a requirement of living as married people that goes beyond two people signing a document that says they are married.  There is nothing no infrastructure to determine that two married citizens have any actual intent to live as "married people."  But that is not seen as illegitimate by the state.  If two gay men get married for tax benefits, there will be no rigorous inveatigation to prevent them. >
  
  I’m not sure how the fact that some marriage fraud is prosecuted and some isn’t means that whole concept itself is incoherent. If two gay men got married for tax benefits and didn’t live together or share a life, they would likely share a subjective belief that they’re not “really married” and that they are deceiving the government for a benefit. That’s not viewed as legitimate in the eyes of society. It’s viewed as a fake marriage. The only reason it may not be considered fraudulent under the law is because they don’t have to fabricate evidence to get the benefit. 
  I’m just not seeing how any of this incoherent. Fake marriages between citizens are not a major concern for the federal government because the benefits are pretty minor. By contrast, fake marriages for immigration purposes happen constantly and give you huge benefits. So it’s reasonable that the government cares more about them. But they’re both fake because the parties know they’re fake and know they’re doing it for reasons unrelated to the desire to have a life together >
  
  You're forgetting that governments confer benefits on married couples: joint tax filing, an easier path to immigration, etc. Marriage fraud is defrauding the government in order to obtain benefits you are not otherwise entitled to. >
  
  Marriage fraud is specifically marrying primarily for legal benefits. Its called fraud because you're scamming the state (and likely you're scamming the other person as well), which would otherwise never grant you the marriage had you been honest about your intentions. The other person probably wouldn't have married you either knowing the truth. But maybe it's a deal you made and they agree? Ok, but you're still scamming the government >
  
  Its illegitimate when one party thinks the marriage is for a particular reason, but the other party has lied to use the marriage for another. 
  It can also be illegitimate if one party is married in another country, goes to a different country and tries to gain citizenship though getting married to a citizen there under false pretenses. Hence the term, fraud. 
  Fraud is fairly straightforward. 
  The law states you can't get married specifically to give someone legal citizenship status. You may disagree with that and think that law is stupid. I think it's stupid. You can even think that's a valid reason to get married. Unfortunately that specific reason is illegal. 
  Because its illegal, if you get married, its taken as a given that its for a valid legal reason. If you're married for an illegal reason only, as far as the government is concerned you lied about the reason you wanted to get married, because you can't get married legally for an illegal reason. 
  So therefore its considered fraud. Understand?