Online Marriage

[OnMyWay]

On 9/26/2023 at 12:19 PM, OnMyWay said:

As I mentioned before, if you are seriously interested in UTAH online marriage to a Filipina,  join Visa Journey, read and ask questions.  Since the pandemic, there a still a few reasons why a couple might use the Utah online marriage.

 

Several days ago I posted some questions about Utah online marriage in the Visa Journey Philippines forum.  I have been waiting for a few good answers to share here.  This is the best so far, and this guy could be considered an expert who I trust.  Copied with permission.

============

The entire controversy about the validity of Utah online marriages in the Philippines stems from a two or three month suspension of processing ROM's for them around last November, while PSA and DFA conducted a review of their validity.  The results of their review is that they ARE 100% completely valid under Philippine law.  As long as a ROM is filed they are acceptable for anything  and everything that any other Philippine marriage is.  So now that question has been formally put to rest by DFA and PSA.   The Philippine Consulate in San Francisco has resumed processing the ROM's normally and is doing so in droves.

On some FB groups there are also people giving their first hand accounts of Utah online marriages going through US Embassy Manila without the slightest question in large numbers, probably daily.  It seems clear that USEM is now very familiar with them.  With or without the ROM is fine for US Visa purposes.

==================

The second paragraph is about U.S. immigration

[Tommy T.]

On 9/24/2023 at 2:14 PM, Hestecrefter said:

contumelious

Goodness, gracious.... I had to look up that word, even though I am Canadian.....

[Hestecrefter]

3 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

Goodness, gracious.... I had to look up that word, even though I am Canadian.....

Happy that I was able to fill that lacuna in your vocabulary

[Tommy T.]

20 hours ago, Hestecrefter said:

Happy that I was able to fill that lacuna in your vocabulary

Perhaps members might understand your arguments better if, instead of using "archaic" or esoteric language, you might eschew obfuscation?

[Mike J]

1 hour ago, Tommy T. said:

Perhaps members might understand your arguments better if, instead of using "archaic" or esoteric language, you might eschew obfuscation?

Reminds me a bit of my high school days.  I was a voracious reader and decided to take a "Vocabulary Building" class as an elective in my senior year.  The  first day the teacher had everyone take a test to determine how best target the class.  At the end of the next class she ask me to stay behind as everyone left the classroom.  She said to me; "Your test scores were actually  higher than mine.  Would you like to help teach the class." 

[Hestecrefter]

2 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

Perhaps members might understand your arguments better if, instead of using "archaic" or esoteric language, you might eschew obfuscation?

Maybe.  But then, I try to resist the tide toward the dumbing down of the English language that has taken hold in recent times.  Even judges in Canada have largely lost the knowledge of such simple things as the difference between "lie" and "lay".  Eg.  "After being struck down by the defendant's motor vehicle, the plaintiff was left laying in the street."  Begs the question: What was she laying there?  An egg perhaps?

When I was in elementary school, we were taught correct use of abbreviations.  For example: the abbreviation for one pound is 1 lb.  For 10 pounds it is 10 lb.  Now, that is never seen.  It is always lbs.  It seems that today, the idea is to make an abbreviation as long as possible, stopping short of the full word.  When I was a kid, the abbreviation for "month" was mo.  Again, 10 months would be 10 mo.  Now, one month is mth. 10 months is mths.  And we see any short form, in common parlance, called an "acronym".  Few understand the difference among initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations.  There's another one.  I used the word "among" advisedly, because I was referring to more than two.  Now, even educated people will say, wrongly:  "They divided it between the three of them."  I know I am swimming upstream and rules of grammar and diction count for nothing.  An anachronism.  A throwback to another time.  And, of course, forget spelling.  If one spells sufficiently that readers get the idea, that's good enuff.  

As for people understanding my arguments, I have not come here to argue.  That said, reading through historical posts here, I see a fair amount of arguing, sniping, back-biting and barely-cloaked hostility.  Many online forums have devolved that way in the 25 years in which I have participated in online forums (or, more correctly, fora).  The only place I know of that seems to have remained free of it over many years is an online boating forum in which I participate.  When one signs up, one is advised thus:  "No rules, just be nice."  Members seem to have taken that to heart.  Most unusual.

 

 

[Jack Peterson]

[hk blues]

1 hour ago, Hestecrefter said:

Maybe.  But then, I try to resist the tide toward the dumbing down of the English language that has taken hold in recent times.  Even judges in Canada have largely lost the knowledge of such simple things as the difference between "lie" and "lay".  Eg.  "After being struck down by the defendant's motor vehicle, the plaintiff was left laying in the street."  Begs the question: What was she laying there?  An egg perhaps?

When I was in elementary school, we were taught correct use of abbreviations.  For example: the abbreviation for one pound is 1 lb.  For 10 pounds it is 10 lb.  Now, that is never seen.  It is always lbs.  It seems that today, the idea is to make an abbreviation as long as possible, stopping short of the full word.  When I was a kid, the abbreviation for "month" was mo.  Again, 10 months would be 10 mo.  Now, one month is mth. 10 months is mths.  And we see any short form, in common parlance, called an "acronym".  Few understand the difference among initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations.  There's another one.  I used the word "among" advisedly, because I was referring to more than two.  Now, even educated people will say, wrongly:  "They divided it between the three of them."  I know I am swimming upstream and rules of grammar and diction count for nothing.  An anachronism.  A throwback to another time.  And, of course, forget spelling.  If one spells sufficiently that readers get the idea, that's good enuff.  

As for people understanding my arguments, I have not come here to argue.  That said, reading through historical posts here, I see a fair amount of arguing, sniping, back-biting and barely-cloaked hostility.  Many online forums have devolved that way in the 25 years in which I have participated in online forums (or, more correctly, fora).  The only place I know of that seems to have remained free of it over many years is an online boating forum in which I participate.  When one signs up, one is advised thus:  "No rules, just be nice."  Members seem to have taken that to heart.  Most unusual.

 

 

Ach, the odd snippy post between virtual friends is harmless enough as long as it doesn't get out of hand - which it doesn't.   

[OnMyWay]

3 hours ago, Mike J said:

She said to me; "Your test scores were actually  higher than mine.  Would you like to help teach the class." 

Around that time I watched 3 stooges a lot.  I would have answered "indubitably". 

[OnMyWay]

2 hours ago, Hestecrefter said:

Maybe.  But then, I try to resist the tide toward the dumbing down of the English language that has taken hold in recent times.

I thought you were Canadian?  How do you communicate?