Executive Order Allows Couples in New York To Get Married via Video Conference (cbsnews.com) 51
New Yorkers looking to tie the knot while the state is under lockdown now have the option of getting married via video conference. From a report: During his daily coronavirus briefing, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced Saturday he is issuing an executive order that will allow clerks to perform marriage services over video conferencing software. Cuomo also stated couples in the state will now be able to obtain marriage licenses remotely. As CBS New York reports, the executive order temporarily suspends a provision of the law that requires in-person visits. The announcement was met with considerable push back, however. "The action that has caused me the most amount of grief is what I said about marriages," Cuomo said during his Sunday presser. "I said yesterday no one has any excuses anymore."
EO on Marriage via VC (Score:2)
Re: EO on Marriage via VC (Score:1)
Marriage is a wonderful institution. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Future headline (Score:3)
Waiting on salty jokes regarding the wedding night (Score:2)
Paper (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does there need to be anything more than a notarized piece of paper saying you are married? Who cares how you are married? Why does anyone even need permission to do a video marriage?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are all the legal privileges and obligations inherent in marriage. Like taxes. And permission to visit in hospitals. And make life and death decisions for people in hospitals (yes, my mother can make decisions in on behalf of my father if he's in hospital and non-responsive).
Re: (Score:2)
Why does there need to be anything more than a notarized piece of paper saying you are married? Who cares how you are married? Why does anyone even need permission to do a video marriage?
Because there are laws that give special treatment to marriages done properly as required by law?
You and anyone are free to just say you two are married, and tell anyone about it when asked, as long as you don't care for any laws related to married couples. I.e. if you are fine with NOT being able to file taxes as a married couple, and fine with being treated as just an unrelated friend if your partner died (unless you both had made a will to prepare for that), etc.
Doing that also have the advantage of sav
Re: (Score:2)
Not every country has different taxes for singles and couples, for example, Australia doesn't (unless your spouse was born before, I think, 1955 or something, and likely some other obscure issues).
Also if you're defactor for more than 2 years (or 2 or more, not sure) then you're effectively married in Australia and treated as such by the government. And by the family law court...
Re: (Score:2)
Defactor should, of course, be defacto... I corrected one spelling mistake but missed that one! :(
Re: (Score:3)
There doesn't, but in order to notarize the person signing it has to witness the two people getting married confirming that they wish to. It's often jazzed up with a ceremony but it's entirely optional, mine was a pretty dry administrative affair.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does there need to be anything more than a notarized piece of paper saying you are married? Who cares how you are married? Why does anyone even need permission to do a video marriage?
You're obviously not a lawyer. I'm not either but I have several friends who are. We've talked about this subject before. We used to have the exact situation you propose in a lot of the USA. It is called Common Law Marriage. Some states that allowed it in the past got rid of it because it created a legal nightmare. Couples would split up and one would try to take the other to divorce court only to find the other party would claim there was no marriage. It turned into a "He said, she said" kind o
Consummtion? (Score:1)
Marriage Should be Private (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically the case now isn't it? People hold marriage ceremonies and then at the same time fill out a form so they're legally married. The ceremony isn't needed for the bureaucratic side and the form isn't needed for the ceremonial side
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It should be up to a person whether they consider themselves married.
Surely there should be some sort of agreement between people involved before you can consider it a marriage. It is a dangerous idea to say that one party can dictate whether there is a marriage.
If someone else doesn't consider you married you're not in their eyes. The government should only handle the bureaucratic civil union side and has no business promulgating a certain morality elsewhere.
How exactly is the government dictating any morality here? Surely all it is doing is removing the uncertainty that allows for other people to consider you not to be married. I fail to see who exactly is disadvantaged by any of this to give rise to a rant about the government (other than stalkers who deludedly think t
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's marriage for you personally, but as to whether you're a legally considered married in the eyes of the law at which point very different laws start applying to you, well that's up for the *government* to decide.
Your big problem is years of religious people have run governments, so the government doesn't differentiate the concept of marriage from law and marriage as you understand the original religious concept.
Back when gay marriage debates were a thing, I sided with the church. They wanted marri
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage is basically a standard contract that the government provides. You could do your own and pick and choose what you want, or write an addendum called a pre-nup, but many people just opt for the default because it saves them having to pay a lawyer now or when something happens that can't be resolved through centuries of precedent surrounding the government's version.
It's a good idea. People know where they stand with marriage, it gives them confidence to commit to things and is low cost compared to th
Re: (Score:2)
Well, OK, that's fine as long as we also remove every part of the tax code that refers to marriage. And laws like guardianship rights. And power of attorney. And a host of other things.
Just say 'NO' (Score:1, Flamebait)
Men are introducing by-proxy state control into their lives and handing that over to a partner too easily. Even if you share a house with a partner for over a year they will have access to half your assets even if they contribute *nothing* to the relationship. Introducing the possibility of this control via a teleconference is a disturbing development that will likely end in divorce once the pandemic is over.
Selection of a partner in modern times is extremely difficult as finding a high quality woman is
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of incel nonsense is this? Thinking like that is why women would want to divorce you
Re: (Score:2)
My g/f is working from home and so am I. I've been treating her like and calling her my wife for years.
We've been together well over a decade. We had planned to get married this year but that may or may not happen now. She makes more than I do.
His post lets you know he's thinking with his dick (i.e. beautiful women are everywhere being literally his only qualifier other than "don't take my shit"), which invariably ends poorly.
I mean he could just ask for a prenuptial if he's that scared. But if you are,
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention that I agree with the first part about the state being invited in to your private life. That has always been a sticking point for me, and not something agree with, nor with the many religions that claim dominion in this area.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention that I agree with the first part about the state being invited in to your private life.
So you agree with me, yet you decide to criticize me, O K.
That has always been a sticking point for me, and not something agree with, nor with the many religions that claim dominion in this area.
His post lets you know he's thinking with his dick (i.e. beautiful women are everywhere being literally his only qualifier other than "don't take my shit"), which invariably ends poorly.
Did you miss the part where I said: Spend some time learning about female psychology, learn how to stand your ground and say 'NO' as this is your biggest test for how you will be treated by this person over time. Ultimately this will be the thing that will most make any woman you include in your life happy and respect you. or take your time, develop wisdom and observe how they act when you tell them 'NO'
Beautiful women are everywhere, that's wh
Re: (Score:2)
My g/f is working from home and so am I. I've been treating her like and calling her my wife for years.
We've been together well over a decade. We had planned to get married this year but that may or may not happen now. She makes more than I do.
His post lets you know he's thinking with his dick (i.e. beautiful women are everywhere being literally his only qualifier other than "don't take my shit"), which invariably ends poorly.
I mean he could just ask for a prenuptial if he's that scared. But if you are, why marry?
I once thought like you. Things change, and the girl who divorces you will not be the same as the girl you married. She will be a stranger you don't recognize. Your mind will play tricks on you because you will not believe the person you knew for so long could pull such crazy shit on you. You may think, hey, we've been together so long,weathered the ups and downs, still going strong, etc, divorce won't happen. Well, look up "grey divorce" and think about what divorce in your high 50's would do to you fin
Re: (Score:2)
What sort of incel nonsense is this?
Straight to shaming, gotta keep that slave mentality going.
Thinking like that is why women would want to divorce you
Coupled with a fear and scarcity based mentality.
I don't know your gender however what I do know is thinking the way you do will mean you will end up being a cuck. I don't think like a woman and getting married via teleconference is about the most submissive thing I can think of for a man to do.
If that's your thing, be my guest.
Re: (Score:2)
cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuckcuck cuck
Are you some sort of chicken?
Re: (Score:2)
cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuckcuck cuck
You mean am I a cuckservative? Have you come to pull me back onto the plantation?
If you must know I saw one of my mates cucked by a woman whose poor choices landed him with a severely brain damaged child that he was legally obligated to care for when it was she who cheated on him. Or another one of my friends who's wife was cheating on him and intended to take his children, house and income from his business until I found out what was going on and we destroyed her conniving plans. Or the woman I knew who
Re: (Score:2)
You mean am I a cuckservative?
No a chicken because you're clucking like a hen.
cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuckcuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuckcuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuck cuckcuck cuck
See?
I've been talking to you for over a decade, have I ever come across as stupid, even when you disagree with me?
I recognize your username, and I never set the "foe" flag which I use to remember which users are raging idiots so I can ignore their replies. So I guess not until now at which point yo
Re: (Score:2)
It appears from your italic laden comment you appear to be so emotionally triggered you've lost the use of your neocortex.
No a chicken because you're clucking like a hen.
Are you unable to read? I already told you, cock mate, I'm clucking like a great big huge cock. I'm a cock. Hear me Craaaw!!!
Notice how I don't get personal with you, just flip your ineffectual insults back onto you.
at which point your language is peppered with silly terms like "cuck", "simp", "beta" and whatnot and
And where in my original post [slashdot.org] do you find those terms? The only place you find them is in response to the people who use them so they know I can speak their language,
Re: (Score:2)
It appears from your italic laden comment you appear to be so emotionally triggered you've lost the use of your neocortex.
Well, if your barrier for "triggered" is "screwing up a closing tag", then eh whatever. i would try to trigger you again by messing up a tag, but I find it irritating when I personally make that particular screwup, so I won't.
I'm a cock.
That is becoming abundantly clear.
Notice how I don't get personal with you, just flip your ineffectual insults back onto you.
Funny that me responding t
Re: (Score:2)
i would try to trigger you again by messing up a tag, but I find it irritating when I personally make that particular screwup, so I won't.
You would again fail because you are so triggered.
I'm a cock.
That is becoming abundantly clear.
It's what you want. It's what all feminists want but can't get.
Funny that me responding to the words you write counts as "personal". I mean I guess it is, but it would be a pretty bland conversation if didn't.
You guys like you always start personal, look like a fool, then attempt to appear rational to disguise their humiliation at not being able to control the emotions triggered within them.
Projection: Slashdot is not a safe space.
I've written three books on the psychology of personality disorders that employ projection. It's how I know why you started the conversation with the term cuck and got upset when I responded to people using terms
Re: (Score:2)
I've written three books on the psychology of personality disorders that employ projection.
Sure thing, buddy! That seems extremely likely and plausible and I certainly believe you.
It's how I know why you started the conversation with the term cuck
An you're one of those people who believe that if you assert something long enough it becomes the truth. You keep on that my man! Perhaps you'll hit a database bug in slashdot and your original post at the head of the thread will disappear and you'll sound less
Re: (Score:2)
Not published yet, I'm being encouraged to. ~180,000 words, 650 pages. My schtick isn't gender politics, it's mental health. Even if I was, I'm not going to dox myself to prove a point.
Which is the opposite of if y
Re: (Score:2)
Men are introducing by-proxy state control into their lives and handing that over to a partner too easily.
I take it you gave up after your 4th wife?
Re: (Score:2)
Men are introducing by-proxy state control into their lives and handing that over to a partner too easily.
I take it you gave up after your 4th wife?
No. [slashdot.org]
Marry anyone without them knowing... (Score:1)
Time for a mash-up (Score:2)
If you mix this story with the recent one about Programmer's Real-Time Deepfake Lets Him Impersonate Elon Musk on Zoom [slashdot.org] then you can end up marrying anyone you want! Even better, you can marry them when you want. There are a few actresses that I liked when I was younger, but who definitely look a bit past it now. You can now marry the younger version of them.
Personally, I am going to marry a young, hairy-butted Daryl Hannah [slashdot.org] from the 80s.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage hackers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Postpone (Score:1)
I know a couple that was supposed to be married in May. They moved it to September.
Maybe everything will be ok then.