marriage liciences in ontario for 1972?
357628
county register, microfilm.\nsorry, couldn't find anything on google about it.\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nmoney, http://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html\nbush & clinton http://www.philipdru.com/triplett_stream.html\nisrael http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/webb_stream.html\niran http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=131
686172
Call the Los Angeles city hall. they generally have records of such events and can send you a marriage certificate if you are one of the parties involved.
954221
Massachusetts definitely. And yes, it will be interesting to see what the rulings are when people married in MA move elsewhere.\n\nBelgium, the Netherlands, Spain (!!!), and Canada. South Africa is under court order to extend marriage rights by the end of this year (not sure where that stands just now).\n\nNew Jersey has a court ruling too, requiring the legislature to guarantee same-sex couples the same rights as hets. The legislature has six months to decide whether that will be marriage or something else.\n\nThe UK does NOT have same-sex marriage, only civil partnerships and religious ceremonies are prohibited at the registration. That distinction matters because it makes the discrimination more tolerable.\n\nSomewhat dated, so it doesn't include the NJ case, but a great concise overview of the history.\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4081999.stm
696184
A fellow poster's assertion that gay marriage is not a slippery slope doesn't hold water. Anyone who thinks for a second that further redefinitions of marriage aren't being planned and may not happen are fooling themselves.\n\nLet's look at his "no slippery slope" argument. Basically, it would be "too hard" to redefine marriage to include more than one person or people of different ages. But he said himself that existing legislation has already been changed to change references of "husband and wife" to simply "spouses"! The term "spouses" says nothing about gender, age, or quantity. So... using the poster's own argument, a new law would have to do nothing more than change the legal definition of "spouse". It's EASIER than the changes made recently in Canada and some states to allow gay marriage. More lies.\n\nAlready, liberal professors and psychiatrists have published "research" in favour of "intergenerational relationships". That's one of the new sanitized phrases for child molestation. The Democrats in the US (and Liberals and NDP in Canada) have blocked any attempts to raise the age of consent to even 16 years old, instead favouring legislation to LOWER across the board to 14 (some even proposing 12).\n\nThe depraved sexualization of our children can be seen everywhere. Racy Hallowe'en costumes, slutty outfits aimed at young teens and even pre-teens, Bratz dolls, highly sexualized high school shows, etc.\n\nSuch politically-motivated junk scientific "research" has also come out in favour of polygamy. And once you're weakened the definition to allow two members of the same gender, what basis do you have REALLY to limit it to just two people? The anti-traditional marriage activists seek to destroy the institution of marriage just as they seek to destroy the other fundamental institutions (such as Christinaity) that were responsible for giving birth (how apropos) to the prosperous and free society.\n\nWith the rash of teacher-student sex scandals, liberal supporters of lower age of consent laws, the indoctrination of our society with biased junk science by depraved researchers (the king of which was Kinsey himself), don't think that Nambla is salivating at the mouth... more than usual that is.\n\nPerhaps the biggest lie we've bought is that tolerating behaviour which we've known for eons to be immoral, is somehow a loving thing to do. If you encounter someone with a mental illnes, the loving thing to do is try to HELP them, not say "how wonderful it is that you cut yourself... self-expression is so important."
1016453
call 1800 ocanada they can answer any questions you have about the gov i have used it a couple of times its really helpfull
624787
Do a WWW search. Sure some major website will pop up. Or your best bet but it will take time would be to go to the local library, if they have the old newspapers archived on microfilm, and browse the 1985 paper in St. Clair MI. Unless you don't live there. Then maybe call the library and see if they will help you and mail the info to you or something.
279548
check out this:http://www.paintedhills.org/POTTER/OLDPOTTERCO.MARRIAGES,BIRTHS,&MISC.html
499440
Here is a link for the Catholic Rite of Marriage: http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/TextContents/Index/4/SubIndex/67/TextIndex/8\n\nThis was in 1970. I don't know if it has changed or not.\n\nWith love in Christ.
1075053
http://www.conferenciers.ca/m_juteau.htm , there's 1 here
1147501
6 fois... 1971, 1972, 1975, 1977, 1981, 1983
452315
http://family-marriage-counseling.com/directory/nevada.htm\nthis looks promising
1157345
You mean Windsor Ontario? I live there too. On the week-end it's kids from Ohio who aren't 21 yet.
984206
We got married by our borough mayoress.  She is extremely nice and friendly.  Here is her office phone number:\nAnie Samson 514 8728173\nHer borough is Villeray, Saint Michel and Parc Extension.
951923
Compentancy of the person at the time the 1972 will was created and/or a change in the legal heirs (but this is a tough fight).\n\nGood Luck!!!
279826
In case that exist in Canada, I would ask the schools you have found - I think they should know more about it.\nOr try by any police station, maybe they can help you.
245489
Try the Michigan website.
1032494
I found this site http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/ if the will was before 1901 but my understanding is they would be kept at the persons solicitor which I am sure would allow you to see it but they arent kept at the births deaths and marriages.