Common Law Marriage: Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down?

[AlohaDawg]

I agree with Wombat and also if the end result is achievable while maintaining the status quo, no harm for now. You can get married a lot easier than you can get unmarried.

Which begs the question: how does common property work in a common-law marriage? Can you get spousal support if you would have merited it under a 'legal' marriage? If you just break up after five years, is that it or is there paperwork?

I don't like the whole common-law thing; it just seems like another way of eroding institutions that began as important parts of life lived within a faith.

[CortJstr]

Dang it, I just want to use my Flex Spending account to pay for my SO's birth control. I don't need no invisible man in the sky butting his nose in. Especially because he apparently is no good with money.

[V-Adore]

I don't like the whole common-law thing; it just seems like another way of eroding institutions that began as important parts of life lived within a faith.

I'm really confused by what you mean by that. I understand that marriage is a sacred vow, &c. -- but there's also a legal and a secular social element to marriage that goes beyond just religion. Is this inappropriate? Is there any reason why two individuals who are living as if they were married should not be treated that way, even in some watered-down form? (Should I be reading up on Catholicism so I can convert if the SO proposes?)

[AlohaDawg]

Well, looking at that long thread should be a better answer to that question than starting that long thread again. Suffice it to say I have yet to understand the 'advantage' of marriage from a purely 'legal' standpoint.  Why have marriage at all if you need only spend enough time with the same person to be able to call yourself married? Why have a state called 'married' that is different from "living together' or 'having hung out together for a long time' if all three cases basically result in the same thing?

[Mite]

This is why I wish we'd go towards having two separate institutions, with "marriage" only meaning something for those folks who need a member of the clergy to sanctify their union, and some sort of domestic partnership (or whatever you wanna call it) for those of us who just want the legal bennies.

My SO and I have been living in sin for about 6 months now, an arrangement that will continue indefinately, but we have no desire to get hitched unless we need the health care or other such benefits. We just don't want to mess with the religious aspect (and since we're heathen and my dad's a preacher, that will be a big deal). I guess we could just waltz down to the courthouse if we needed to, but since everybody makes such a big deal out of the big M word, that seems insufficient somehow. I agree it's all a big mess.

Maybe someday we'll suck it up, fill out the requisite paperwork, and throw a big party for our family, but it just seems like a hassle.

(Trying hard to continually de-lurk)

[CortJstr]

The only reasons I see to get married are for the gifts and so that I can pay for the SO's expenses with my Flex Spending account since her office doesn't offer that.

[AugustWest]

Why have marriage at all if you need only spend enough time with the same person to be able to call yourself married? Why have a state called 'married' that is different from "living together' or 'having hung out together for a long time' if all three cases basically result in the same thing?

Because they don't basically result in the same thing.  Common-law marriage does not exist in all states -- it doesn't exist in mine, for instance.  Marriage is a legal status, along with being a religious or moral status.  Married people have rights to each others property and common children that unmarried people do not.  Married people have different tax status.  Married people can visit each other in the hospital and make healthcare decisions for each other.

I don't want to get into the whole gay marriage debate, but there are plainly legal as well as religious aspects to marriage.  The question I have is how do we justify denying someone their legal rights based upon religious beliefs that they may not share, especially since our constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion?

[St_Zartan]

Dang it, I just want to use my Flex Spending account to pay for my SO's birth control. I don't need no invisible man in the sky butting his nose in.

Yeah, fuckin' Hal Jordan can keep his free rubbers.

[AlohaDawg]

Why have marriage at all if you need only spend enough time with the same person to be able to call yourself married? Why have a state called 'married' that is different from "living together' or 'having hung out together for a long time' if all three cases basically result in the same thing?

Because they don't basically result in the same thing.  Common-law marriage does not exist in all states -- it doesn't exist in mine, for instance.  Marriage is a legal status, along with being a religious or moral status.  Married people have rights to each others property and common children that unmarried people do not.  Married people have different tax status.  Married people can visit each other in the hospital and make healthcare decisions for each other.

I don't want to get into the whole gay marriage debate, but there are plainly legal as well as religious aspects to marriage.  The question I have is how do we justify denying someone their legal rights based upon religious beliefs that they may not share, especially since our constitution prohibits establishment of a state religion?

We justify it with the will of the people. Regardless of what the Constitution is explicit about, if you give the populace the option of adopting Constitutionally allowable legislation that basically addresses a core values issue for the community as a whole, they make a decision. This also lets people with different views understand that if they want something that falls beyond the values of the people, that they may want to consider moving to a place where their values are more in line with the general values of the community. You can't really say you are denying anyone a 'legal' right if that right isn't defined, spelled out, or assumed by the majority. The issue requires clarification and that can be accomplished by activist judges, by rogue mayors, or by polling the people. And the most democratically sound method, I think, is by polling the poeple.

[Bozack]

Hey, why don't we all take this discussion to PM. We can PM to multiple people at once, right? That way, we don't poop all over side_show's new house.

[AugustWest]

I don't see any need to create a quote pyramid, but this is in response to AD's last post.

So, if 51% of the people voted to make Christianity illegal, you'd be OK with that?  The whole point of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is protection of individual rights.  We try to limit the "tyranny of the majority" so that certain defined rights of minorities are not usurped.

Being a "free" nation means that people must be free to do some things that the majority doesn't like.  Otherwise, what is the meaning of freedom?

The will of the people used to approve of slavery, racial and sexual discrimination and the extermination of Native Americans.  What about the will of the German people in the '30s and '40s?  (GODWIN'D!)

You suggest that there could be Constitutionally allowable laws that would prevent same-sex marriage.  Without reference to religion or morality, please articulate what the state's interest is in preventing two people of the same sex from visiting each other in the hospital, hold property as tenants in the entirety or holding dower/curtesy rights?

[side_show]

Hey, why don't we all take this discussion to PM. We can PM to multiple people at once, right? That way, we don't poop all over side_show's new house.

Thanks Bozak.

I feel like, in my situation anyway, there is a clear distinction in my mind between being common law and being married.  Being common law is something that just happens to couples after three years of cohabitation
(in my provence the "common law" rules are enforced whether you want them to be or not, there was a huge contraversy over this when it passed, but that's the way it is here now), where as marriage is a choice you make to build a life with another person, to build a sense of family (even if it's just the two of you, or you and your 13 kids) - the idea that as a partnership the couple is comitted to a future together.

[Nabubrush]

We just wanted to be able to say to other people that we are married. We're non-religious, but we still just wanted that title. Thankfully, fanatics cannot at this point deny us that.

This is not precisely the truth, but there are benefits at my place of employment that are either not possible without marriage or are hella difficult without marriage. I think they shouldn't tie all that stuff to marriage, or they should make it just as easy to get it without marriage, or everyone should be allowed to be married.

[CortJstr]

We just wanted to be able to say to other people that we are married. We're non-religious, but we still just wanted that title. Thankfully, fanatics cannot at this point deny us that.

This is not precisely the truth, but there are benefits at my place of employment that are either not possible without marriage or are hella difficult without marriage. I think they shouldn't tie all that stuff to marriage, or they should make it just as easy to get it without marriage, or everyone should be allowed to be married.

Exactly. My SO and I will marry because when we say "my partner" people assume we're gay. And so I can use my company's insurance and flex spending for her and vice versa. We couldn't care less about some silly ceremony/cake/dress/invisible man so we'll avoid those if at all possible.

[Nabubrush]

Donut Shop!!! We didn't even invite anyone, other than our witnesses. Giant, multi-thousand dollar wedding? No thanks, just want the paper.