Is Web Wed legal? My question is very simple: are marriages arranged through Web Wed legal? Specifically: Are such marriages fully recognized in the United States? With the apostille service, are such licences fully recognized in all countries? For this part of the question, I am particularly interested in the case where neither spouse is a United States resident or citizen. If there are some countries that are known to or expected o not recognize Web Wed marriages, I would appreciate the clarification. EDIT: I am aware of the new laws (sometimes temporary) put in place because of Covid-19 restrictions, but I am not asking about that. Web Wed claims that they have been arranging weddings since 2015, so apparently their legal framework has nothing to do with the temporary Covid-19 provisions. My question is about if Web Wed as a specific company provides legally recognized services (with or without Covid-19 allowances). Web Wed explicitly claims that their arrangements are NOT proxy marriages, so my question is about the legality of the alternative approach that they take. I am hoping for answers more specific than generic &quot;this is not possible&quot; responses without knowing Web Wed's specific approach (such as the answers offered to Quora's question on the same topic, not posted by me).
According to an article in Bride's &quot;Zoom Weddings Are Now Legal!&quot; dated April 2021,several states including California, New York, Ohio, and Colorado have made temporary arrangements to make it legal for weddings to take place over video conference in response to the pandemic. Several also permit remote applications for marriage licenses. According to the June 2021 article &quot;Is it legal to have a virtual wedding?&quot; from Wedfuly states permitting such weddings include New York, California, and Illinois. However, in Florida, Hawaii, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas the article says that both parties to the wedding, and the officiant must all be physically present in the same place, although the wedding may be displayed on video for people at other locations. According to the New York Times article &quot;Why Virtual Weddings Are No Longer Legal in New York&quot; dated July 16, 2021, on June 25, 2021 Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo ended the executive order he originally issued in April 2020 allowing couples to be married online. According to that NYT article new legislation would be required for such weddings to be legal in New York again. Other states might cancel or change their temporary rules allowing &quot;virtual&quot; weddings at any time. The New York decision apparently came as a surprise, causing a number of scheduled weddings to be canceled or changed to in-person events. One planning such a wedding would do well to check current rules in the state involved. Citizenship or permanent residence should not matter to the validity of such weddings, as it does not matter for in-person weddings. However, it seems that both parties and the officiant must all be physically present within the same US state or other jurisdiction for the marriage to be valid. Not all countries recognize the validity of such &quot;virtual&quot; marriages. It is specifically mentioned that the UK does not. Also, it seems that while such weddings were lawful in New York, the temporary rules required that both members of the couple, and the officiant, be physically within the state of New York for the wedding to be legal. Other states seem to have similar rules. If the members of the couple are not in the same state, it seems that the wedding becomes a &quot;proxy wedding&quot;. This is a process where one person is not present at all, but is represented by a &quot;proxy&quot;. Proxy weddings have been lawful far back in history, at least as far as the middle ages in Europe, and perhaps farther. They are currently lawful in only a few US states. According to the Wikipedia article linked above these are: Texas, Colorado, Kansas, and Montana. Such weddings are invalid in all other states. Some of those states limit proxy marriages to active members of the US Military on deployment. The service Web Wed seems to claim that members of a couple may be located anywhere or the virtual wedding, but this appears incorrect. They also claim a patent on some forms of this process, and seem to say that they are the only legitimate provider of virtual weddings, but the articles linked above quote various officiants and services that have performed hundreds of such marriages. Under the &quot;full faith and credit&quot; clause of the US Constitution, marriages that are legal under the laws of any US state must be recognized by all other US states. Other countries may or may not recognize such marriages, depending on their own laws. I do not find any court case in which such a wedding was challenged and a court ruled on its validity, one way or the other. Additional info An answer by user Roberto says that Web Wed does this by having an officiant in Utah County, Utah. The Utah County Clerk's office page on Web Ceremonies does say that the counter permits weddings by video conference as long as the &quot;host location&quot; is in the state of Utah. However, it does not mention WebWed specifically, and some of the information does not match. WebWed's site says: Once you have the license, there is no rush to perform the ceremony. Once issued thru the courts the marriage licenses never expire, so once you have it you can get legally married whenever you wish. However, please note that each state expiration is different. You must adhere to that specific state policy. In most states, you have 30 days to get married after the license is issued. Utah marriage licenses are valid for only 30 days and are not issued by a court, so that does not seem to be what WebWed is talking about. The public pages of their site do not seem to mention Utah specifically. The WebWed site also says: A state issued marriage license is required to use this service. Please note that it is the registers/users responsibility to verify and abide by state, county, and armed forces marriage laws prior to using this service. WebWed's site advises government officials to reject any online marriage not preformed through their service. If such marriages are lawful and valid, they will be available to anyone that follows the proper rules. US states do not grant exclusive rights to specific commercial services in such cases. US Federal Law 8 U.S. Code § 1101 which is the Definitions section for CHAPTER 12— IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY, says that: (a) As used in this chapter— ... (a) (35) The term “spouse”, “wife”, or “husband” do not include a spouse, wife, or husband by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting parties thereto are not physically present in the presence of each other, unless the marriage shall have been consummated. &quot;consummated&quot; is not defined in this section, and so presumably has its normal meaning in regard to marriage, that is, that the parties have had sexual relations at least once after the marriage occurred. This section would apply to proxy marriages as well as to &quot;virtual&quot; marriages, but applies only in the context of immigration law. Normally US Federal law leaves the issue of marriages to the states, except where there is a claim that Federal constitutional rights are being infringed, such as in the cases of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) which forbade states to prohibit interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) which forbade states to prohibit same-sex marriage. Utah Law Section 30-1-6 of the Utah Code provides that: 30-1-7. Marriage licenses -- Use within state -- Expiration. (1) No marriage may be solemnized in this state without a license issued by the county clerk of any county of this state. (2) A license issued within this state by a county clerk may only be used within this state. (3) A license that is not used within 32 days after the day on which the licensed is issued is void. Note that 30-1-6(2) says that any such marriage shall take place &quot;within the state&quot;. Nothing in this section, or any other section of chapter 30, specifically authorizes a marriage by video conference where one or both parties are not within the state when the marriage occurs. It is not clear on what basis the Utah County clerk's office considers such marriages valid. Section 30-1-8 of the Utah Code provides that: (b) Each applicant and if an applicant is a minor, the minor's consenting parent or legal guardian, shall appear in person before the clerk and provide legal documentation to establish the following information ... However that may be relevant only when one or both parties to the marriage is a minor. I can find no other provisions of the Utah code which control applications for a license by web, or specifies where a marriage may or may not be held, or who is or is not required to be physically present at a valid marriage ceremony.
Yes One could certainly put up a site whose only content was a link to another domain. And I can't find any law which this would violate. If the link is a &quot;deep link&quot;, and if it bypasses a log-in page, while the other site is so designed that all access is intended to go through the login, I believe (but cannot at the moment verify) that the owner of the other site could claim that this violates their copyright. In any case it is not a good idea.But a link to an appropriate page should have no problem, nor should pointing your domain at an appropriate entry page. Therefor, since simply re-pointing a domain should have the same effect as simply linking, in those cases where it works at all, it should be legal. Doing it with an iframe, which would truly open another site within your site, may not be if the other site forbids such use, as in the ToS. The case law on that is not settled, but many sites object to it, as the answer by @BlueDogRanch points out. I don't see a good reason why one would want to do this, but that isn't the question. Copying the HTML of another site and modifying the URLs while keeping the content the same would pretty clearly be a copyright infringement, besides being a lot of work to little obvious point. It also isn't what the question asked about. Building a one-page site that has only a simple link or a redirect would clearly be legal, and would serve the purpose of causing your domain to lead a user to another site, but it isn't, strictly speaking, what was asked about either.
No, it is not legal. Regardless of their location, the only legal options for companies serving to EU residents are to either deny access altogether or to make consent truly optional1 Recital 42 states (emphasis mine): Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s agreement[...] Recital 43 states: Consent is presumed not to be freely given [...] or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance. 1 Of course, remember that consent is only one of several means that allow them to process data. For example, if you were getting a trial account for a limited time, it would be considered a legitimate business need to ensure that you are not just opening new trial accounts when the old ones expire. So, if they wanted some data from you to ensure that you are not a previous user and you refused to provide it, then they could deny giving you that trial account without breaking the GDPR.
I suspect that US voting records would fall under Article 2(2)(a): Article 2 Material Scope ... This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: (a) in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law; I doubt it would be possible to argue successfully that a foreign election is anything other than &quot;an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law.&quot; Even the territorial scope could be questioned. This is set forth in the next article, on &quot;territorial scope,&quot; the second item of which says: This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. It is probably arguable whether processing absentee ballots from EU residents constitutes &quot;offering services to data subjects in the Union,&quot; but in this case it's likely to be more difficult to resolve that question than to determine whether the activity falls outside the scope of Union law.
General Answer I have not found any law or regulation that specifically says that an immigration applicant or the applicant's sponsor (spouse) must disclose a prenuptial agreement if one exists. But immigration officials have broad discretion in interviews, and might well ask about such agreements. If asked, it is very unwise to lie or evade the question. There is no law forbidding a prenuptial agreement in such a case, or making a would-be immigrant who has signed such an agreement ineligible. However, if the immigration officers believe that the marriage is a &quot;sham&quot; designed largely to evade immigration laws, they might declare the marriage invalid for immigration purposes. This is likely to significantly hinder the application, if not end it. If the agreement makes it appear that the parties contemplate that the marriage will be short-lived, and that an end to the marriage will occur in the near future, that makes it look like a sham marriage. If it appears that the prime reason for the marriage was financial, and particularly if the US party has apparently been paid or subsidized for entering into the marriage, that also makes the marriage look like a sham. If the terms of the agreement support either of these assumptions, that may cause a problem. It will be helpful if the agreement is carefully drafted to make it clear that the marriage is one of affection or love, and is intended to be lasting, with the agreement only present to help deal with issues in the possible case of the marriage not lasting. Affirmation of Support (I-864) Also, it is often requires that the sponsor/spouse sign an Affirmation of Support (I-864). This is an agreement by which the sponsor promises to support the applicant at at least 125% of the US Federal poverty level. The sponsor also shows resources sufficient to provide such support. The obligation under this agreement last6s until the applicant has become a US citizen, or has been credited with 40 quarters (10 years) of Social Security earnings credit. Under federal law and case law, a prenup cannot waive or reduce the obligations under an I-864 agreement. A prenup that purports to do so would probably be a significant negative indication for an immigration official. Parties must Understand a Prenup Also if it appears that the non-US spouse (the applicant) does not understand the nature and effect of a prenup, that might also be a negative indication. This is one reason why it is often a good idea that each party should be represented by a separate lawyer in the drafting of a prenup. Such a lawyer should be able to draft the prenup agreement in such a way as not to raise suspicions with an immigration officer. Disclosing a Prenup We here at Law.SE cannot advise whether an applicant should disclose the existence of a prenup at an immigration interview. Such agreements are not normally registered with any government agency, nor are they normally searchable on any web site. But an applicant should probably assume that a question about such an agreement might be asked at an interview, and be prepared with an answer. Sources and Quotes The page &quot;Can a nuptial (prenup) agreement waive rights under the Form I-864?&quot; states: [F]ederal courts have squarely held that a pre- or post-nuptial agreement cannot waive rights under the Form I-864. Even if a sponsored immigrant has signed a document saying that she forfeits all rights under the I-864, that agreement is meaningless in federal court. It is very common for sponsored immigrants to sign a nuptial agreement. Often this happens before the person completes the immigration process. For example, someone might come to the U.S. on a K-1 visa, then be forced to sign a prenuptial agreement before getting married. Usually these nuptial agreements will contain broad language that the immigrant waives all right to “alimony” or spousal maintenance. But sometimes the agreements will also specifically cross-reference the Form I-864. Federal courts see two main problems with nuptial waivers. First, these agreements undermine the purpose of the I-864. Or at least they try to. Congress created the Form I-864 so that immigrants would be guaranteed basic financial support of they need it. More specifically, the I-864 ensures that a sponsor rather than American taxpayers provides the immigrant with support. If nuptial agreements could waive support, it basically leads to the following situation: the sponsor promises the U.S. government that it will provide support, then turns around and creates a document with the immigrant that says, “but I’m not actually going to provide the support.” It would be a bit crazy if a federal statute could be undermined in that way. Here is how one court in the District of Utah put it: To permit a sponsor to unilaterally terminate the Form I-864’s financial support obligation through a separate agreement with the immigrant would ignore the interests of the U.S. Government and the benefits of taxpayers and charitable donors. It would also defeat the Form I-864’s purpose of preventing admission of an immigrant that is likely to become a public charge at any time. Therefore, nuptial agreements will not terminate a Form I-864’s financial support obligation. The second reason that courts disregard nuptial agreements is the text of the I-864 itself. The I-864 contract lists five “terminating events” that ends a sponsor’s support obligation. These include the immigrant becoming a citizen or being credited 40 quarters of work. (You could count the sponsor’s death as a sixth terminating event). But those terminating events are the only thing that ends a sponsor’s obligation. Signing a private nuptial agreement isn’t on the list of terminating events, so that simply isn’t a thing that can end a sponsor’s obligation. The page &quot;Can a prenup protect me when marrying a non citizen?&quot; from Joleena Louis Law reads: One of the most obvious concerns for people marrying non-citizens is how having a prenup will look to immigration officials. You don’t want to give the impression that the marriage is happening for financial reasons and it does help to show co-mingling of assets. However, legitimate marriages have prenups, and a well-drafted agreement that is fair to both parties and makes sense for the situation won’t necessarily give a bad impression. Another thing to keep in mind is that you may need to sign an Affirmation of Support for your spouse, which in which you are acknowledging that you have the means to financially support your spouse at a minimum level of 125% of the federal poverty threshold and accept legal responsibility for their financial support. A prenup cannot absolve you of this obligation and you are not released from this obligation until your spouse becomes a United States citizen, permanently departs the country, or is credited with forty quarters of coverage via the Social Security Act. The page &quot;Do Prenuptial Agreements Affect Spousal Immigration? from Family Law San Diego reads: Federal immigration law provides for a U.S. citizen to sponsor the immigration of their foreign spouse. The married couple must apply for a family-based immigrant visa allowing a spouse from a foreign country to enter the United States and obtain Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status—also known as a “green card” holder. Among the various immigration forms that are required to obtain a visa for an immigrant spouse is an Affidavit of Support (Form I-864). By signing and submitting an Affidavit of Support, the U.S. citizen spouse enters into a contractual agreement with the United States acknowledging that they have the means to financially support their spouse at a minimum level of 125% of the federal poverty threshold and accepting legal responsibility for their financial support until their spouse becomes a U.S. citizen or earns credit for 40 [quarters] of work. Importantly, getting a divorce does not relieve the citizen spouse of their obligation to provide the required amount of spousal support to their spouse. Furthermore, the affiant [sponsor] is responsible for reimbursing government agencies for the cost of any “means-tested public benefits” that the immigrant spouse receives. Spouses who have been married for less than two (2) years will receive what is known as “conditional permanent resident” status. This means that the couple must prove that they did not get married for the purpose of avoiding federal immigration laws. If USCIS concludes that a couple entered into the marriage to evade federal immigration laws, their marriage will be deemed invalid for immigration purposes. As a result, the spouse seeking to immigrant to the United States will be denied entry or removed from the United States. The citizen spouse may also be subject to civil or criminal penalties. A prenuptial agreement is a contract into which prospective newlyweds enter, governing their rights and responsibilities as married spouses concerning matters such as spousal support and the distribution of marital assets at the end of their marriage, whether due to divorce or death. The provisions of a prenuptial agreement go into effect when the couple gets married. Although there are few legal requirements to form a valid premarital agreement, the judicial enforcement of its provisions may be questionable depending on the circumstances of each case. Generally, a prenuptial agreement is not enforceable if it was not the product of mutual voluntary assent to its terms. As a result, circumstances that suggest that party did not understand the contract, or would not have reasonably agreed to its terms if they had a meaningful choice, call the enforceability of the agreement into question. Spouses with conditional permanent resident status should be careful about the potential effect of a prenuptial agreement. Evidence indicating that a party did not understand the terms of a contract may endanger the enforcement prospects of its provisions, especially if English is not their first language. Additionally, terms that reduce the immigrant spouse’s property rights may suggest that the couple had a deal to have the citizen spouse sponsor the foreign spouse’s immigration into the U.S. Importantly, provisions purporting to govern the couple’s rights and responsibilities regarding spousal support are effectively superseded by the terms of an Affidavit of Support. This is because a prenuptial agreement is a contract between the spouses, whereas an Affidavit of Support is a contract between the citizen spouse and the U.S. government. The Page &quot;Why Should You Get a Prenuptial Agreement with a Foreign National?&quot; from DiPietro Law Group reads: If your new spouse does not intend to work in the United States, you may need to sign an Affidavit of Support. This contract requires you to maintain a standard of living for your new spouse exceeding 125 percent of the poverty level. You are not released from this obligation until your spouse becomes a United States citizen, permanently departs the country, or is credited with forty quarters of coverage via the Social Security Act. Your prenuptial contract does not automatically absolve you of this support. In a notable 2014 case, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland indicated that prenuptial contracts could not waive Affidavits of Support. Prenuptial contracts can occasionally backfire in green card cases. Immigration officials look for signs that a marriage occurred for financial or citizenship reasons, and not for love. Officers often seek evidence of commingled assets, which may not be available among couples with prenuptial agreements. The pager &quot;How do Prenuptial Agreements Affect Immigration?&quot; by Jared Leung from JCL Immigration Attorneys, reads: A prenuptial agreement is a legal contract that outlines how assets will be divided in the event a marriage ends in divorce. These agreements also discuss the obligations of a spouse to provide financial support for the other party in the event of a divorce. In general, both parties must fully understand all of the terms of a prenuptial agreement in order for the contract to be binding. If a court finds that one party was unaware of what he or she was signing, or if the agreement is so one-sided as to be deemed unfair, the provisions held within can be invalidated. How do prenuptial agreements impact immigration? When a United States citizen sponsors the immigration application of a foreign spouse, the couple needs to file for a family-based immigrant visa, often called a “green card.” Part of this process involves filing an Affidavit of Support, a document that demonstrates that the citizen has the ability to support the other party at a level at least above 125% of the poverty threshold until the applicant becomes a United States citizen. This obligation remains in place in the event of divorce. The provisions of a prenuptial agreement should not give the appearance of a “deal” between parties for the purpose of circumnavigating immigration rules. There can also be challenges if the foreign spouse does not speak English well enough to understand the details of the agreement. However, having a prenuptial agreement does not necessarily casts doubt to the truthfulness of the marriage. Individuals with decent net worth or prior debt may use prenuptial agreements to protect oneself and/or the spouse-to-be. The existence of a prenuptial agreement should be considered with other factors in the marriage to determine whether it would cause problems in an immigration application Case Citations Cases in which Federal courts have held that a prenup does not void an I-864 agreement: [Erler v. Erler 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016). Golipour v. Moghaddam No. 4:19-cv-00035-DN-PK (D. Utah Feb. 7, 2020) (granting and denying in part cross-motions for summary judgment). Anderson v. United States, No. C17-0891RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2019) (dicta). Toure-Davis v. Davis, No. WGC-13-916 (D. Md. March 28, 2014) (memo. op.). Shah v. Shah, 4:12-cv-4648, (RBK/KMW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4596 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2014) (memo. op.) Cyrousi v. Kashyap, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (holding that waiver is not an affirmative defense available to sponsors) Liu v. Kell, 299 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (same).
If an F-1 student in the US, gets married with a US citizen, how can he protect his money if a divorce happened in the future? Specifically if he has a plan to establish a company and run a business after he graduated, how can he keep all the rights and money/stuck/profit he will earn from his company and won't share it after a probable divorce? Should they wright something like &quot;we promise we won't have any claims about each other's money after the divorce&quot; before they get married? A prenuptial agreement is possible, and only an idiot or fool would draft one himself. An agreement drafted without legal representation would be highly likely to be invalidated in an effort to enforce it in the event of a divorce. Generally, both parties should have separate counsel. This must be accompanied by full financial disclosure by both parties, at least an opportunity to confer with legal counsel providing full informed consent regarding the rights given up in the agreement, and no undue pressure to sign it on the eve of a wedding. It cannot impact child support or child custody. It must also not be unconscionable to either spouse, either at the time it is executed or at the time of a divorce. If the company makes millions of dollars over the course of a ten year marriage, a court would not enforce the agreement according to those terms. In the case of an immigrant marrying a U.S. citizen, having a prenuptial agreement is usually a significant barrier to obtaining a spousal visa, which may be the only visa available after the marriage, on the grounds that this is considered a &quot;yellow flag&quot; that the marriage may actually be a sham for citizenship purposes only. A typical immigration officer who would read a post like this one or hearing an explanation for its purpose in an interview in those words would seriously consider denying a spousal visa or U.S. citizenship on the ground that the marriage is a fraud. The notion of a &quot;probable divorce&quot; in particular would almost certainly doom visa approval or a citizenship application, and would also, at the margins, make it less likely that it would be enforced at all. This is particularly true in the event of the very one-sided agreement proposed when you have a young couple that doesn't have established assets and children from prior marriages, or a pre-existing substantial amount of inherited wealth. Why else would a spouse agree to it?
Article 41.3.3 of the 1937 Irish Constitution said: No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved. Until this section was changed by the 2019 amendment. I can find no source to show how &quot;but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law&quot; was interpreted, but it seems that a person divorced in or prior to 1940 under US law would not have been permitted to marry in Ireland after 1937 until 2019 under this provision. It should be noted that although Finnegans Wake by James Joyce was published in full in 1939, much of it had been written and published in sections by 1926. It is not at all clear just when it is set. In the 1920s, the constitutional provision quoted above was not yet in effect.
The specific venue requirement is ORC 3101.05 which says that Each of the persons seeking a marriage license shall personally appear in the probate court within the county where either resides, or, if neither is a resident of this state, where the marriage is expected to be solemnized. If neither party is a resident of this state, the marriage may be solemnized only in the county where the license is obtained. To possibly make things worse, An applicant for a marriage license who knowingly makes a false statement in an application or affidavit prescribed by this section is guilty of falsification under section 2921.13 of the Revised Code. If they lied on the application regarding the venue, that's a large problem. Otherwise, violating 3101.05 is a minor misdemeanor, which could be a fine up to $150. There is no provision that would invalidate the marriage, other than specified prohibited marriages (not nearer of kin than second cousin, already married).