PDA

View Full Version : Monday Morning Test

Count Iblis
Mar24-09, 12:36 PM
Monday Morning Test (http://www.risingstarkaraoke.com/monday_test.html)
regor60
Mar25-09, 01:17 PM
missed the Ark question
jimmysnyder
Mar25-09, 02:46 PM
I got the legal in California answer wrong even though I got the joke. I don't agree that something which is impossible is illegal. For something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it. I doubt that such a law exists.
DaveC426913
Mar25-09, 03:13 PM
11/11 Gee, me and two other people got this.

I got the legal in California answer wrong even though I got the joke. I don't agree that something which is impossible is illegal. For something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it. I doubt that such a law exists.

It would be illegal for her to be a widow if you were still alive.
jimmysnyder
Mar25-09, 05:51 PM
11/11 Gee, me and two other people got this.



It would be illegal for her to be a widow if you were still alive.
That's irrelevant and immaterial - Ham Burger.
davee123
Mar25-09, 07:57 PM
That's irrelevant and immaterial - Ham Burger.

I think generally you have to establish that both parties are mutually consenting in order to marry, and you can't establish the consent of a dead person. Although, hmmm... it strikes me as not impossible that they might perform posthumous marriages for things like soldiers who died in battle. So... maybe?

DaveE
regor60
Mar26-09, 09:27 AM
I think generally you have to establish that both parties are mutually consenting in order to marry, and you can't establish the consent of a dead person. Although, hmmm... it strikes me as not impossible that they might perform posthumous marriages for things like soldiers who died in battle. So... maybe?

DaveE

Could have made this stipulation before his demise ? Think it would hold up ?
davee123
Mar26-09, 01:54 PM
Could have made this stipulation before his demise ? Think it would hold up ?

Yeah, I'm not sure-- I can imagine it being iffy. There might be disputes in those cases where a potential "wife" would by default be able to lay claim to the deceased's value (property, money, etc). I can easily imagine that this has come up before and that there's some sort of legal precedent that's been established. I'm just too lazy to go verify it.

DaveE