Reluctant LIW

[ladykemma]

be careful, if you are married, even if just on paper, the student debt or any debt he incurs is yours.

 

[Tigerbear]

Are you sure that US immigration law only cares that you are legally married? I have had friends who have had to go through quite a process (including separate interviews) to prove the marriage was not only legal but real.

 

[Maria D]

I was wondering the same thing as Tigerbear. Although it''s probably the faux marriages where there is marriage on paper only and the couples aren''t even living together that immigration tries to uncover. At any rate, you will probably have to be careful around whom you make it a point not to be "husband and wife" to. And make sure there''s no link to the real "you" and little miss Galateia! (wouldn''t want US immigration to find these posts

)

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/25/2006 4:56:49 PM
Author: Tigerbear
Are you sure that US immigration law only cares that you are legally married? I have had friends who have had to go through quite a process (including separate interviews) to prove the marriage was not only legal but real.

Because we are taking the fiancee visa route, we have to prove our ''relationship'' is real (it is) that we are in love (we are) and plan on marrying once I arrive in the US (also true).

Ladykemma, his parents have decided (FF isn''t happy about this) to use FF''s share of his late grandfather''s legacy to clear off FF''s student debt. Then we only have mine to worry about, which is a PITA because I can''t get interest-free relief anymore if I''m in the US. And the interest rate is high enough to rack up 1.5k of interest ever 6 months.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 10/25/2006 5:10:35 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 10/25/2006 4:56:49 PM
Author: Tigerbear
Are you sure that US immigration law only cares that you are legally married? I have had friends who have had to go through quite a process (including separate interviews) to prove the marriage was not only legal but real.

Because we are taking the fiancee visa route, we have to prove our ''relationship'' is real (it is) that we are in love (we are) and plan on marrying once I arrive in the US (also true).

Ladykemma, his parents have decided (FF isn''t happy about this) to use FF''s share of his late grandfather''s legacy to clear off FF''s student debt. Then we only have mine to worry about, which is a PITA because I can''t get interest-free relief anymore if I''m in the US. And the interest rate is high enough to rack up 1.5k of interest ever 6 months.

So I think it will be that you are in a real relationship, only legally married, but not truly married in the sense of the word because you have not proclaimed it to each other, right?

Should be no problem to the govt that the marriage is real...because as you said, the relationship is real. As long as you can point out those secret birthmarks, you''re golden!!!

 

[FireGoddess]

I''m lost here - what''s this ''legally married on paper'' stuff...are you talking about a civil ceremony in a courthouse? Because there ARE vows and legal things you MUST say to each other in order to be married. Even when I presided over the marriage of my best friend and her husband, the state of California gave me a paper with a specific script of the things that HAD to be said.

Are we talking something else here? I''ve never heard of a marriage where you sign papers but vow nothing.

 

[galeteia]

It must be very different from up here. Up here, when you sign the marriage license in front of the officiant and the witness signs it, you are married, regardless of what you say or don''t say to one another; at least that''s my understanding of it.

Does this vary from state to state? A friend of mine got married at the courthouse (between criminals being booked) and the impression I had from her was that there was paper pushed around, IDs produced and confirmed, things signed, and then they went on their way. She complained that they were planning on doing a ''real'' wedding later with vows, rings, etc, later but she got pregnant and that all went out the window, so she ''missed out'' on the ''real'' stuff.

 

[TravelingGal]

Galateia, you may want to check in the state of Texas because Fire Goddess is right. Here in the state of California, all you need is the certificate and to AGREE/CONSENT to marry the other person. This means you have to effectively say "I do." From what I understand, there is no "in sickness and in health" business, but I could be wrong, as I have never officiated a marriage. However, when I went to get my license, this is what I was told. We needed the paper, one witness, and agree to become man and wife.

I would imagine that the stuff that would need to be said is more civil stuff about abiding by the rules of marriage in that state, i.e. monogamy (note, I said monogamy, not fidelity). I''m only guessing though.

 

[onedrop]

Gala:

I can''t speak from personal experience about the *after* of the "paper marriage." But I can offer this about the fiance visa, as my BF and I are nearing the end of this process. When you file the petition for the K-1 visa all the reviewer is looking for is enough proof to show that you actually met in person in the last 2 years. They are not so much worried if you have a real relationship at the time of filing. At the interview for the visa after the petition is granted they will be asking more questions (or not...depends on the embassy and the interviewer) about the validity of your relationship. For you, that will not be a problem I am sure. It''s at the interview after the marriage when you adjust your status, where the issues and stepped up questioning can start. They will ask if you have bank accounts together, other bills together, have you changed your name? I have heard recently of a couple having to put the process "on hold" until more information was provided that they were living as a married couple (which they were), and they HAD plenty of evidence in my eyes. Maybe not enough in the reviewer''s estimation. I say all of that to say, although in your eyes it''s a paper marriage, you need to be prepared to still proceed as a married couple in the technical sense of the word, in order to successfully adjust your status.

I really like your idea of the paper marriage mostly because you seem so at peace with it. However you should also consider what will be necessary for you stay here and work and have freedom of movement for two years during your "trial period."

 

[galeteia]

Hmm, sounds like we need to do some digging about the marriage laws of Texas. TG, what you described is what I was imagining, but if TX has different laws, that could make me uneasy.

Onedrop, that''s exactly what my impression of our hurdles were. Luckily, by the time the interview rolls around we will have the extra ''proof'' thanks to the plane trips to visit, etc, and we''ve tried to provide sufficient documentation to ''paint a picture'' of the time we''ve spent together this year. Hopefully that will be enough...

Well, we''ll find out and take it from there. I think it should be me who flies down there to see him, rather than the other way around, both so I can check out the place myself, and also to remind one of his colleagues that his ''long-distance fiancee'' is a real live woman who he''s serious about.

Ooo, is that milk?! *zoom*

 

[hlmr]

Date: 10/25/2006 7:42:25 PM
Author: Galateia
It must be very different from up here. Up here, when you sign the marriage license in front of the officiant and the witness signs it, you are married, regardless of what you say or don''t say to one another; at least that''s my understanding of it.

Does this vary from state to state? A friend of mine got married at the courthouse (between criminals being booked) and the impression I had from her was that there was paper pushed around, IDs produced and confirmed, things signed, and then they went on their way. She complained that they were planning on doing a ''real'' wedding later with vows, rings, etc, later but she got pregnant and that all went out the window, so she ''missed out'' on the ''real'' stuff.

Really Gala?! I had always thought you needed to say the "I do" vows as well. I could be wrong, but that''s what I presumed. Definitely worth checking into further.

 

[ladykemma]

in texas, 2 step process. you get the marriage license, then someone (a judge, priest, pastor, rabbi) officiates, yes, there are vows.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/26/2006 5:56:20 AM
Author: ladykemma
in texas, 2 step process. you get the marriage license, then someone (a judge, priest, pastor, rabbi) officiates, yes, there are vows.

Bleh! Really? That''s horrible. *tries not to panic*

I wonder if we could get married in another state? I do NOT want to make vows before I am ready to mean them.

 

[ladykemma]

this is how it works.

3 days before the marriage ceremony you go to get the marriage license. You have a 72 hour waiting period.
at that time you make an appointment with the judge of your choice. the license is good for 30 days.

3 days later, the judge will marry you and sign the license. He/She mails it to the county clerk. you are fully married. there is no civil union here.

which means, that you will have to get a divorce, if you end your "trial marriage".

good luck!

here are the statutes
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm

 

[Tigerbear]

We just got married by a Justice of the Peace in March in West Texas. We were married in a museum, not the courthouse, but we definitely said vows (ones chosen by the JOP although I did specifically request that I did not want the word "obey" in our vows).

When we first met with the JOP he told us he planned to mention "Jesus Christ". AWK! That is why we wanted a civil service in the first place (my DH is Hindu and I was raised Christian). We were floored that a goverment official would introduce religion into a civil marriage ceremony. He did respect our wishes but we could tell he was not happy with it. It was quite an introduction to West Texas! I moved from Houston and I know that wouldn''t have happened there.

 

[ladykemma]

well i went back and reread the whole thread and here it is:

you are playing with a man's heart. you are already planning your divorce. you are already planning to leave him for two years.

I don't think you understand or are ready for marriage and i think you are making a huge social, emotional, legal, and spiritual complicated mistake. marriage is about thick and thin, hanging in there, Til death do us part. Marriage is watching your husband near death in intensive care, not b*tching about how you can't get sushi in lubbock, or worse, leaving him or the marriage just because golly gee, it doesn't suit me.

why can't you just come for six month visits? leave for two weeks and then come back.
or decide to be be married in the truest sense.

edited to add sentences.

 

[janinegirly]

i gotta say i agree with some of ladykemma''s sentiment (but was too scared to say). Love should be simple. If you love him, marry him, heart and soul. The paper, symbolic ceremony, ring are all just superficial. The parsing of terminology and marrying on paper but not in heart or convincing oneself that it isn''t "really" marriage is really weird to me. But that''s me. Your bf seems ok with it all, so maybe it''s a match made in heavan.

 

[galeteia]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I feel that such a black-and-white approach is easy for those who have the luxury of marrying on their own terms. We do not have the luxury, and we are trying to make the best of it.

If FF and I have reached an agreement about how the progression of our relationship is to happen, I do not understand how it is 'playing with his heart'. Yes, he is eager to marry me. Eventually. Why? Because he too thinks I am 'The One'. He is just as scared to 'jump the gun' as I am.

Also, I disagree with casting judgment on a decision that both parties are happy with. This relationship is not one-sided, and as the person who is making the 'sacrifice', I do not think it unreasonable to have fears and reservations. As my friends and family have said, they would be worried if I didn't have any doubts.

And janine, while I choose to believe you meant well, not everyone who 'truly loves someone' chooses the path of marriage. It is not the only way that a couple can commit to one another. I would ask that you not judge me based on your own preferences.

I love him enough to commit to living with him, even though he is more than a thousand miles away. We are doing what is necessary to make that happen. I love him enough to fly in the face of naysayers, PS and otherwise, and to flout customs for his sake.

And Ladykemma, I am not deliberately planning on a divorce. If I was, I wouldn't be bothering to go down there. I am giving us the option, rather than just walking away because I was afraid things might not work out. I choose to be motivated by happiness, not fear.

ETA: I am not independently wealthy. I cannot afford to 'vacation' for 6 months at a time. Nor can he afford to support me.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 10/26/2006 6:35:45 PM
Author: ladykemma
...marriage is about thick and thin, hanging in there, Til death do us part....

...why can''t you just come for six month visits? leave for two weeks and then come back....

I agree with ladykemma''s basic definition of marriage and I have a hunch that Galateia does too. I think that''s why she doesn''t want to marry; she''s not ready to commit to hanging in there through thick or thin, til death or divorce do part.

Why can''t she just go for extended visits? (I think) because she wants to be legally employable. If her boyfriend was in Fort McMurray, Alberta, they could do what apparently is considered de rigueur in today''s society. They would live together first and then decide if marriage was in their future. That''s what Galateia wants to do, and that''s all she''s ready to do. Unfortunately she has to cross national boundaries to do it and hence the problem. Or at least, in her mind that''s the problem.

To my mind the problem is this whole notion that living together is necessary, that living together really tells you anything about whether or not you''re ready for marriage. I would go even further than Ladykemma''s sentiment that "marriage is about hanging in there." It''s about the *decision to commit* to hang in there. You don''t suddenly "feel ready;" you just commit to do it. An analogy would be having children: does anybody get to try it out for 6 months before taking the plunge? And yet that is far more life changing than obtaining a spouse -- with no escape valve like divorce to speak of!

Galateia, in my opinion what you and your boyfriend are getting ready to do is make the same mistake that too many of the people in LIW are in. One or both is not ready to commit but the couple goes ahead with the "trial marriage" anyway. (Except in your case the trial is legally actual marriage.) There''s no such thing as a "trial" in marriage because marriage isn''t about living under the same roof; it''s about deciding to commit and honoring that decision.

 

[Mandarine]

I think because this is such a special situation it is hard to understand the ifs and whats.

I think the main issue here is the fact that in order to be together, she has to move...or he has to move. He can't move because he just started his program, so she has to move. In order for her to move, they need to get married. I think Gala understands that a civil union means that they're in fact legally married. Exchaging vows and actually considering that they are "married" is something she doesn't feel ready for and if she went through with anything other than a legal union (which we all understand is a marriage in simple terms) then she wouldn't be being true to herself or her FF. In my mind is kind of like once she comes here and they get married (legal union) this will become sort of their engagement. They just don't have the ability to have a "normal" engagement like most of us do.

I think as long as this works for them then that's what matters. I applaude her for being honest with her BF and it's wondeful that he supports her approach.

M~


ETA: visiting 6 months and leaving for two weeks would be great if it was financially possible....I think this is out of the question though. She wouldn't be able to work and from some of her other posts she has a career that she loves.

 

[poptart]

Alright I didn''t want to say anything, but here''s what I think... it''s short and simple. If you wouldn''t be marrying him if you were closer together, then you shouldn''t be marrying now because it really sounds like you just aren''t ready, which is fine. But marriage shouldn''t be a trial period, and if the vows scare you as much as they seem to be, then you shouldn''t be making them. Just my thoughts. I hope you figure something out that works!

Marisa

 

[Maria D]

>>I love him enough to commit to living with him, even though he is more than a thousand miles away. We are doing what is necessary to make that happen.<<

When I read this, I project on to my own personality and my own personal experience and just ask why? Why do you two love each other enough to commit to living together but not to marrying when it's all so complicated? He doesn't love you enough to do his PhD somewhere where the relationship could have progressed at a natural pace. You don't love him enough to say, fine, I'll be here four or five years from now ready to pick up where we left off because this relationship is maybe "the one."

So why do you love him enough to commit to living with him in Lubbock Texas where, even if you didn't actually have to say "I do" you *are* going to be legally married before you are emotionally and spiritually ready? If the two of you can't say, hey, even-though-we're-not-one hundred-percent-sure let's make a go of this, then why do it at all? Why not just have a clean break and invest your energies into finding the one you *can* wholeheartedly commit to?

 

[mia15]

I actually see this as a fairly complex problem, one to which there''s no one simple solution. It would be nice to go all the way, to commit or else, but since Galateia doesn''t mind cohabitating before marriage, I don''t see why she would be making a mistake to do this, even if it does end in divorce. People routinely divorce without the kind of effort these two will make, and in my opinion, they seem to be doing the best that they can. They are also not involving children or putting careers on the line.

I wish you much luck. In my mind, the issue is the fact that you have to say vows, and basically be in a state in which you''re semi-married. I understand that at once end, you''d like a paper marriage which will be replaced with a "real one" and at the other end, you will in fact be married. It''s a large grey area to be in, but if circumstances demand it and you feel comfortable, why not? It''s not ideal, but neither is giving up someone you love, and a relationship that''s flourishing.

What I can''t necessarily agree with is that living with someone doesn''t teach you anything about whether you''re ready to get married or not. It may not signify your readiness for marriage itself, but it could clarify your readiness to marry that person. Just because the situation gets abused sometimes or loses a certain momentum it doesn''t mean that it can''t work out well sometimes for two equally enthusiastic people. It takes time to get to know someone...

 

[Maria D]

Date: 10/26/2006 9:58:28 PM
Author: emeraldlover
...but since Galateia doesn''t mind cohabitating before marriage, I don''t see why she would be making a mistake to do this..

Because cohabitating before marriage isn''t an option for Galateia. They''ve got to get married before marriage! And Galateia is very serious about the semantics and vows. It doesn''t sit right with her to be pronounced married yet that is what she would have to do -- not cohabitate but get married.

 

[galeteia]

Well, after a good cry (these aren't small issues, and it's TTOTM) and a long talk with FF, I feel much better. (Of course, I come back and there all these posts to catch up on.) I'm grateful all over again to have someone as suited to me as he is.

First off, Mandarine, you were right on the money in saying that this 'paper' marriage (if y'all prefer, we can call it the 'ringless, dressless, and buffalo wingless' marriage, since that's more accurate. But it's a mouthful) will be our 'engagement' because that is exactly how we see it. We talk about it that way; even my mother refers to it as our 'engagement' period.

Back to the matter at hand. Saying whatever vows the government requires of us doesn't phase FF at all, whereas I am a little more anxious about it. To quote him, "words are just words". It's what you put behind them that matters. When we stand up in front of our loved ones and announce our commitment to one another, with full intent, that's what will 'marry' us regardless of what hoops were jumped through beforehand.

I understand that to most people, this distinction would be artificial. That's fine. It isn't for us.

I should also like to point out that we've already lived together, so this move is not a 'let's live together and see how it goes' but rather 'I think you are The One... let's intend to get married'. Maria, I understand that 'living together' is not necessary for you, but it is what we want to do. We're in love. We want to be together. It is simple.

And I would recall attention to the fact that we were always interested in getting 'really married' eventually.** This is a matter of RIGHT person WRONG time. Why would I want to make a 'clean break' from the only person who I would have any interest in 'wholeheartedly committing to'?

And Maria, I struggle not to be offended when you say he 'doesn't love me enough to do his PhD somewhere else' as if he has choice in where he gets a placement. Are you suggesting he drop of out school and give up on his career just to be with me? What if our situations were reversed? Would it be fair to ask me to give up academic and professional career to follow the man I love? I would think that would trigger a storm of protest.

And Emeraldlover thank you for your thoughtful post. We too see no issue in giving our relationship every chance it needs. If our relationship ends, it won't be for lack of trying! What we are trying to do here is resolve the timing issue. It's not even as simple as 'waiting for five years' since without face-to-face contact, the development of our relationship will be 'frozen' in place and we will be no closer in 5 years than we are now.

In the end, it comes down to what is best for each individual couple.


** ETA: We didn't anticipate that he would end up going to school so far away. When it was either accept the offer or give up on a PhD, he reluctantly accepted. We agreed at that time that we were going to 'find a way', and we have.

 

[aljdewey]

I think it's great you've found a possible workable solution.

Just please do consider that it IS a legal arrangement you are entering, and it has ramifications. Examples are: each can be held legally liable for the other's debt; some financial arrangements will require consent of both partners; some health decisions may require consent of both partners.

Also please consider that no one begins a marriage thinking things will sour, but they can.....and if they do, what you intended as a simple, no-mess divorce could wind up being something else.

As long as you're both aware of these conditions going into it, if it's still the right choice for you, then it is.

Best of luck to you both.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/27/2006 12:10:22 AM
Author: aljdewey
I think it's great you've found a possible workable solution.


Just please do consider that it IS a legal arrangement you are entering, and it has ramifications. Examples are: each can be held legally liable for the other's debt; some financial arrangements will require consent of both partners; some health decisions may require consent of both partners.


Also please consider that no one begins a marriage thinking things will sour, but they can.....and if they do, what you intended as a simple, no-mess divorce could wind up being something else.


As long as you're both aware of these conditions going into it, if it's still the right choice for you, then it is.


Best of luck to you both.

Thank you.

Yes, we are aware that we will be married in the eyes of the state. Taxes, insurance (including health), debts, bank accounts; we understand that all these things will be done as 'married'. That seems to be a non-issue with us. We will have to write wills. We've always been very matter-of-fact about things like that, whether it is who is able to make the move (me) or who is going to wash the dishes (him). (Not that the two are equal!) Neither of us are bringing any serious assets into the marriage; the lion's share of my income will be going towards paying off my student loans, and we are in agreement with that.

Just like we are in agreement over just about everything... except perhaps over his ancient t-shirts.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/27/2006 12:28:42 AM
Author: Galateia

Yes, we are aware that we will be married in the eyes of the state. Taxes, insurance (including health), debts, bank accounts; we understand that all these things will be done as ''married''. That seems to be a non-issue with us. We will have to write wills. We''ve always been very matter-of-fact about things like that, whether it is who is able to make the move (me) or who is going to wash the dishes (him). (Not that the two are equal!) Neither of us are bringing any serious assets into the marriage; the lion''s share of my income will be going towards paying off my student loans, and we are in agreement with that.

Just like we are in agreement over just about everything... except perhaps over his ancient t-shirts.

G, my cautionary comment above has more to do with what *could* happen if the day rolls around where you aren''t in agreement any longer.

You may agree up front that your income will pay off your student loans, but if things go awry, Texas laws about supporting each other may trump your previous ''agreement'' when you no longer agree (if that happens, and I sincerely hope it doesn''t).

It''s fine to make plans for what happens when everything is running smoothly; I''m cautioning you to also look at what could happen if things don''t run smoothly and what the law can mean then.

For example....wills. You can both agree today that you, G, will leave your estate to your siblings. However, the law trumps that "agreement" you made; your spouse in Texas has a legal claim to half of your estate. You can make that agreement today, sure....but it doesn''t mean such an agreement cannot be contested down the line.

The courts are full of folks who ''agreed'' at one point.....until they didn''t any more.

I''m not saying this as a deterrrent to your arrangement; I''m simply saying ''make sure you''re aware of all those ramifications before entering into civil marriage, which is a *legal* contract''.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/27/2006 12:48:57 AM
Author: aljdewey
G, my cautionary comment above has more to do with what *could* happen if the day rolls around where you aren't in agreement any longer.

You may agree up front that your income will pay off your student loans, but if things go awry, Texas laws about supporting each other may trump your previous 'agreement' when you no longer agree (if that happens, and I sincerely hope it doesn't).

It's fine to make plans for what happens when everything is running smoothly; I'm cautioning you to also look at what could happen if things don't run smoothly and what the law can mean then.

For example....wills. You can both agree today that you, G, will leave your estate to your siblings. However, the law trumps that 'agreement' you made; your spouse in Texas has a legal claim to half of your estate. You can make that agreement today, sure....but it doesn't mean such an agreement cannot be contested down the line.

The courts are full of folks who 'agreed' at one point.....until they didn't any more.

I'm not saying this as a deterrent to your arrangement; I'm simply saying 'make sure you're aware of all those ramifications before entering into civil marriage, which is a *legal* contract'.

Interesting. I wonder if that remains true if I am not an American Citizen? Which laws apply, the laws of the State I married in or the laws of the country that still holds my citizenship?

I agree with your words of caution, especially since it's easy enough to say 'everything is peachy now' (famous last words) but unless one or the other of us undergoes a total and complete change of character, it's very unlikely we'll run into difficulty when it comes to these sorts of issues. Aside from that, we have approximately a year at least to unearth all these details and plan how to deal with them.

I think it would be worthwhile for me to look into whether or not we can get married in another state entirely. Marriages made in a state other than the one you reside in are still legally binding, are they not?

And speaking of, this may all be moot; our k-1 petition may be rejected for lack of airplane tickets (I kid you not) and in that case, we will be getting married in Canada (we did check into this) and then applying for a Spousal visa instead of a Fiancee visa.

 

[mia15]

Date: 10/26/2006 10:51:41 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 10/26/2006 9:58:28 PM

Author: emeraldlover

...but since Galateia doesn''t mind cohabitating before marriage, I don''t see why she would be making a mistake to do this..

Because cohabitating before marriage isn''t an option for Galateia. They''ve got to get married before marriage! And Galateia is very serious about the semantics and vows. It doesn''t sit right with her to be pronounced married yet that is what she would have to do -- not cohabitate but get married.

Hi Maria,

Agh, sorry if I was confusing, it''s hard to explain with the married/yet not married thing. What I meant was, since Galateia is not against cohabitation before marriage per se, and their court marriage would be like an engagement period for them, the cohabitation itself is not the major issue.
Because of the extreme situation, some of the challenging elements of cohabitation without marriage would not apply, though they will have additional challenges outside of that.

The part about the semantics and the vows is something she''ll have to work out for her own comfort level.