Talk:Proxy marriage

Astronaut

what about that astronant who married by webcam and and his wife had a cardboard cut-out? April_I_R_Fooled 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that but I found a reference and have added it to the article. --W.marsh 17:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incorret fact about Israel

the phrase "where only people belonging to the same recognised religious community may marry" should be rephrased as it is inccorect: A person could belong to a "recognized religious community" for example a reform Judaism but no orthodox court will allow their marriage (the [Who_is_a_Jew%3F|who is a Jewish] person debate). If a person is born outside the country and he claims to be Jewish he must provide proof of more then reasonable doubt that he is a Jewish person (Judaism proof for marriage is different from Judaism prof for migration) examples:

[1]
[2]

A person could be christian but he must belong for a specific church otherwise he cannot marry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.54.190 (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legality United States

Is it right, that "are provided ... in California, Colorado, _Montana_, and Texas", but "are illegal in all United States states except Colorado, _Missouri_, Texas, and California"? I think, Missouri is confused with Montana. --MiLuZi (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition in other states.

Current edit reads: "Not all states fully recognize proxy marriages, but legal precedent dictates that states recognize proxy marriage as at least a common-law marriage." What does "fully recognize" mean? States either allow proxy marriage in their state or they don't. if the don't then they do or do not recognize those contracted elsewhere. The claim that "legal precedent dictates that states recognize proxy marriage as at least a common-law marriage" is made in conflict with the citation made to support it. That citation is to an article that itself merely quotes the U.S. District Court's opinion in Ex parte Suzanna, 295 F. 713 (D.C. Mass. 1924). In fact, the Suzanna court simply mentions, at 717, that "[i]n an article in the Harvard Law Review for the year 1919 (32 Harv.L.Rev. 473) Professor Lorenzen recites the history of proxy marriages, and comes to the conclusion that such a marriage is valid in any state of the Union where common-law marriages are recognized." This is apparently Prof. Ernest Gustav Lorenzen (b. 1876 Russee Kiel, Germany) a noted commentator on conflicts of laws. In any case, it is Lorenzen's opinion, not the opinion of the District Court. Thus, the claim that "legal precedent dictates" this is not justified by the citation since the court does not adopt the reasoning related to common law marriage. (Lorenzen himself reached the conclusion that states that didn't recognize common law marriage would still recognize proxy marriage, making the reference rather pointless.)

This whole sentence should be deleted until some does some actual research on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Soldiers" vs "Military personnel"

"In California, proxy marriage is only available to deployed soldiers", so deployed seamen, airmen, and marines can't be married by proxy? Or is this meant to say "deployed military personnel"? --Khajidha (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Proxy marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]