# Common Law vs Married



## my2geldings (Feb 18, 2008)

Over the years I have worked in the health care field, I come accross probably 200-300 patients and patient charts a day. As you can imagine we essentially hear everything about someone's life in a matter of mins. Part of that means we also find out who the closest loved one which in most cases is a spouse or a common law partner.
I have come to realise that since I started working in the field with time, common law relationships are becoming more and more obvious vs the married couples you used to see. It seems to me it has become a lot more acceptable and that old cultural views are dying.

What are your thoughts on this? do you find one more acceptable than the other? are their reasons why you would choose one over the other? do you find the way you were brought up play a part in the way you now view your relationship(s)?

There is no wrong answer on this one, as we all come from different backgrounds, cultures and life experiences, ok, so let's keep it friendly


----------



## LauraB (Nov 11, 2008)

I guess I am not familiar enough with the laws regarding common law partnerships. Are you are to benefit from you partner's insurance, social security, and retirement if something were to happen to your partner? I wonder what some of the benefits and draw backs are. Could a common law relationship show a lack of commitment?


----------



## Moxie (May 28, 2008)

The laws regarding Common Law Marriage vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Also, it IS legally binding in some jurisdictions, whereas it is not in others.
Currently there are only 11 states that recognize Common Law Marriages within the U.S. In addition, also there are other states that have grandfathered in the recognition of Common Law Marriages (established before a certain time period).

Common Law Marriages usually are not licensed by a government official, however some states require it to be 'Common Law". Cohabitation now is not enough to be 'common law', you have to proclaim yourself as the spouse to the other. In conjunction to this, both parties must consent to 'being married' and are of legal age to enter into a contract such as marriage. Also, in many states, those who recognize Common Law Marriage, require a minimal amount of time of cohabitation before a couple can be valid as common law. 

On a side note: There is no such thing as Common Law Divorce.

My opinion is this, if you feel enough in 'love' to live together, but not get married and make it legal, then so be it. I am not one to judge. However, I, like many other people were raised with the theory that when you love someone, and want to spend the rest of your lives together, you get married. I dont see Common Law Marriage as wrong, but obviously some states' government does.


----------



## DarkChylde (Nov 13, 2008)

Marriage is an institution. (then again, so is an insane asylum.....):lol:

Course, I AM married. But when they are getting married, the divorce rate is too high, so it still comes out to the same thing. :-(


----------



## Whipple (Feb 2, 2009)

I am in a common law relationship. I have been with my "husband" for 6 years now. I don't plan on ever being with anyone else. We do plan on having a commitment ceremony, but do not plan on getting formally married. I think it may have something to do with my parents. They were married till my dad died, but they were not together. Marriage in my eyes does not mean you will stay together.
I know we will be together, others assume we are married, so I see no issue. The commitment ceremony we are planning has absolutely nothing to do with us, it's for other people.

But, with that said, in ON if you have children you are automatically common law. Without children I hear different times. From 6 months to 18 months. I think its closer to 6 months though. I'm not sure what the advantages and disadvantages are exactly, but I guess I dont care much lol


----------



## FGRanch (Feb 9, 2008)

I have been married for nearly 3 1/2 years. My husband and I bought felt that actually being married was important to both of us.


----------



## Dumas'_Grrrl (Apr 2, 2008)

My sister and her BF have been "together" (I think Ia is still a common law state) for 15 years now. No plans of marriage, no plans of splitting up. They just don't need that stamp to stay together I guess. I on the other hand have never been one to push people to marry just for the sake of marrying. I'm married and felt like after living with my hubby for 1 1/2 years that we needed to either get married or go our separate ways, He proposed so I wasn't issuing any threats or anything :lol: We just both felt like if you love 'em and want to stay with 'em you marry 'em. :wink:

I DO know that when ever I ask my sis about it she either says, "Are you going to pay for the wedding?" then laughs...or She just says "why?" I don't have a good answer for why and I'm not paying for any wedding....So I just put both of their names on the christmas card and roll with it! :lol:


----------



## claireauriga (Jun 24, 2008)

Marriage means a lot of different things to different people. For me, the important thing is not whether there is a ring on any finger but the length and commitment of relationships - if those stay high, we don't have to worry just because people aren't getting married.

I have a friend who views marriage as being very special, very sacred, and sort of 'the next step' in a serious relationship. For me, marriage serves two purposes: a symbolic statement to all and sundry (and yourselves) of a commitment that is already there, and a means of more easily getting the various legal rights you want to share with your spouse.


----------



## Spastic_Dove (Oct 4, 2007)

A lot of people think that if you live with your partner for a certain amount of time, you become common law married. This isn't true. You basically have to claim to be spouses, both consent, etc. I see a lot of people think that they don't have a choice but to end up common law with their partner. 

I have been with my boyfriend for 3 years, and have lived together most of that. We both plan on being together for the rest of our lives, and once we are old enough will probably marry. I am 19 and he is 20, and neither of us want to get married till we are 25. 

I will get married though when the time comes. Not in a church, but it will be a marriage. I don't see the point in not getting married if you are going to be with that person for the rest of your life if you go about it responsibly.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

As to the law... I'm not sure but I've opinion that over here the difference between common law marriage and marriage is that it's much easier to divorce in common law marriage. Even if you and your spouse can have separate property before and during marriage your separate properties can be divided equally if you divorce except if you've a prenup (eg. if the value of your property is 12,000 euros and his 10,000 you have to perhaps give your property him for 1,000 euros so the value of your property is equal). If you live in common law marriage you don't need a prenup or anything because you keep your properties separate when you divorce too. 

But if you get benefits like unemployment benefit or student benefit I'm not sure how our law count your common law husband and his incomes compared to your husband and his incomes. I've heard that your common law spouse's incomes can diminish your benefit. That's sometimes problematic, especially because I've understood that the law can count your roommate as your common law husband if he wasn't (if you've eg. a private rented flat wiht him).

On the other hand I know that the status of children is different in a marriage and a common law marriage, especially their legal relationship with their dad. It's clearer in a marriage. And then there are also some other little benefits in a marriage like your permission to continue living your common home if he dies. His heirs can't drive you away. In a common law marriage they can. But in a nutshell: A common law marriage is much more "permissive" than a marriage over here.

As to me, I prefer marriage. I hope that I'll get married if I find a proper partner some day. For me marriage is a crowning of a commitment. I still think that marriage is a big step and not just for fun. So I think that it's better to date/live in a common law marriage long enough before it. But if someone wants live in a common law marriage I don't see anything wrong with it. On the contrary, I think that it's great that we can choose the way that we want to live.


----------



## VACountryGirl (Jan 14, 2009)

Here in Virginia, Common Law Marriage is not recognized. I believe in most states, you have to have lived with the person for 7 years for it to be considered a Common Law Marriage, but it could have changed since I was in high school (that was almost 9 years ago!).

I am a newlywed and got married July 26, 2008. My husband and I dated 6 years before we were married and while it has been difficult at times, we've made that committment to each other and said that divorce was not an option. My parents got divorced when I was 5 and it was really tough on me.

I am certainly not against people who choose Common Law, but marriage is something I've always wanted and grew up believing it was the right thing to do. Now as an adult, I'm a very liberal person so I don't feel that that its right for everyone, but my rationale is, if you want to spend the rest of your life with some one, why not take it a step further? Marriage just makes the relationship that much more special in my eyes, which is why I did it. My husband always said he'd never get married, and he ended up being the first of his siblings to do so. Of course religion has a something to do with it also, so I wanted to be married and with some one in the eyes of God. I was married in a church, and I had a religious ceremony even though I don't consider myself highly religious. 

Its totally a personal decision, but I feel its the right thing to do, especially if you have children or what children. HOWEVER, I DO NOT feel that just because you have children with some one you should get married. I know too many people who had kids together and would NOT be good together married. They ended up breaking up which was best for everyone involved. But I feel that a marriage is better and a more stable environment for children, since I was raised in a divorced family. (Split custody) I do feel it made me cherish marriage more because of that, as well as how to communicate and not to communicate with your spouse. It definitely made me stronger!


----------



## Vidaloco (Sep 14, 2007)

Kansas is a common law state too. I don't really have to much of an opinion one way or the other marriage vs common law. They both break your heart if they end. 
I am a big believer in living together at least 6 months prior to marriage. It will save tons of money on both divorce and wedding costs if it doesn't work out and you find you actually can't stand your beloved.


----------



## DarkChylde (Nov 13, 2008)

I also beleive that living together is a good thing before getting married. I wuddn't say that marriage is better than common law, depends on the couple. 

But I see many people that are getting married are ALL focused on invitations, and flower arrangements, and guest lists- but never stop and discuss child raising, distribution of labor, finances, none of the IMPORTANT things. That is why things 'come up' later, and seem irreconcilable.

I have been with my NOW hubby for 16 years. We only got married 2 years ago. We wanted to get married for a long time, but wanted to get up the money to 'do it right'. After a decade, we figgered we'd never have that kind of money, so we just did it Justice of the Peace style. We got married on Valentines Day. It is terrible, but Berry (my hubby) has to remind ME that our anniversary is comin up......


----------



## claireauriga (Jun 24, 2008)

Oh yes, I'm definitely a live-together-before-marriage person, and would be even if I didn't see marriage as a symbol of already-present commitment. You should not jump into a big commitment like that without knowing if you're compatible as partners living and loving together - you need to know you can do the compromise and daily grind as well as the romance and fun!


----------



## my2geldings (Feb 18, 2008)

claireauriga said:


> Oh yes, I'm definitely a live-together-before-marriage person, and would be even if I didn't see marriage as a symbol of already-present commitment. You should not jump into a big commitment like that without knowing if you're compatible as partners living and loving together - you need to know you can do the compromise and daily grind as well as the romance and fun!


Now what I am about to post is not directly stabbing what you just posted ok  I think it's an excellent point you posted because I have heard this exat same thing from people around me, glad you brought it up.

I can see how that is true but having that, it also sounds like a shallow statement to make. Would someone honestly not marry someone their partner because you can't stand some of his/her habits at home? are those things not things that make the person who they are? 
Marriage is a decision that should be made based on the individual, their values and beliefs. Regardless of long you are with someone, you cannot hide who you are. At one point your true colors will come thru regardless of whether or not you live together. 
I find common law relationships as well as living together is one of those things where once you do, what is the point of getting married? why would you partner even bother because he has it all, right.


----------



## claireauriga (Jun 24, 2008)

Not taking it as a stab at all  For me it's not a case of 'not marrying because he won't do the dishes right away'. It's more sorting out those irritations and ticks before marriage, and discovering anything that _is_ going to actually stand in the way of a life together. Because marriage is a significant symbolic commitment to me, and also comes with a lot of paperwork and costs, I'd rather have that happen before the marriage than after.

I still see a point to getting married - legal aspects, plus the declaration of your commitment and love is very very special for most people.


----------



## my2geldings (Feb 18, 2008)

Thanks again for your post, really brought up some things I've actually had discussions about recently which I would have forgotten.

Anyone else?


----------



## odessablaze (Jan 8, 2009)

marriage means that you agree to stay faithfull to each otherand that you ask god to bless it ;


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

odessablaze said:


> marriage means that you agree to stay faithfull to each otherand that you ask god to bless it ;


 

Hummmmm, that brings up the question then
can atheists really get legally married, since they don't believe in God.


----------



## iridehorses (Oct 22, 2007)

Because of my age and Catholic upbringing, I was born in a different age and mentality. My wife and I will be married 40 years in September and I just can't get around the idea of common law. 

Two of my three kids are married (the youngest, age 27, is dating someone pretty steady). That is my belief and the values I instilled in them. I don't judge someone who feels married by common law, it just isn't what I believe.


----------



## iridehorses (Oct 22, 2007)

RegalCharm said:


> Hummmmm, that brings up the question then
> can atheists really get legally married, since they don't believe in God.


... and can they believe in the USA since we are "one nation under God".


----------



## claireauriga (Jun 24, 2008)

And can us atheists actually do anything that was at one time a solely church-sanctioned activity 

Marriage for me doesn't hold a spiritual aspect. But the love and people involved mean it's still really important to me. My parents will be celebrating their twenty-fifth anniversary this April!


----------



## my2geldings (Feb 18, 2008)

It seems marriage is a much lighter subject than it used to be. To me marriage causes that commitment to be stronger and a lot more official forcing a couple to try harder during difficult times than their common law counter part. Common leaves that "well we aren't married so if things don't work out, there are less legal issues to deal with".


----------



## hotreddun (Jun 27, 2008)

I am from a non-traditional albeit still Christian background...my husband was from a very traditional very Baptist background. I have no doubts that his parents truly (naively) believe we didn't have sex the entire 6 years we dated...oops...hope noone in his family happens upon this forum. We were forced to lie quite elaborately for the 2 years that we lived together before we got married. Marriage as a formal official ceremony was not important to me at all. It was somewhat important to him. It was VERY important to me to get all the benefits as far as insurance yada yada that come with marriage. So we were engaged for almost a year and a half and then we planned our wedding in less than 24 hours and got married in a park and had mexican food at a local restaurant after. I am still somewhat perturbed that the preacher announced us as Mr. and Mrs. Mans Lastname at the end of the ceremony. I kept my last name legally although I use his unofficially sometimes at stuff where I just don't want "the conversation" from his more traditional relatives.


----------



## Vidaloco (Sep 14, 2007)

I don't want to sound like a loose woman, but I've done both. I have never been common law wed but I have had long term live in relationships. Compared to marriage, theres no comparison. Marriage really is the tie that binds. I never felt that committed as a live in partner. That being said I wanted to just live with my now husband. He is a ministers son and from a small town so it was out of the question. I insisted, and thats pretty much how we got engaged :lol: He wouldn't live with me unless the date was set. 
I recommend this method to anyone. Get engaged, set the date then live together till then. Its a lot easier to plan a wedding when your in the same house too.


----------



## DarkChylde (Nov 13, 2008)

I hope I don't start some religious firestorm, but people WERE getting 'married' long before the birth of Christ, so legal unions that are approved by some religious priesthood goes back WAYYYY before 'christianity'. My ancestors, the Kelts, were not 'christian' and yet they had a binding pact made with their 'partners', and consquently, my ancestors, (unlike the Romans who formed the church originally and whom our culture was based from) had the awful idea to not have slaves and to treat women as equals. Boy, wasn't it nice of the Romans to teach them the fallacy of such barbarianisms......:wink:

Also, our country was set up by FreeMasons, who were very eclectic in thier views of God, why it doesn't say 'One Country Under YWHW' (Jewish Creator God). While it is not a prerequisite to be officially 'christian' to be a mason, you DO still hafta have SOME idea of a higher power, supreme being or whathaveyou. Technically, I have come to discover that Jefferson was closer to an atheist himself....

But atheists have as much right to marriage as anyone, as well as much right to be in this country as any religous type. WHile it might say 'One nation under God,' the Constitution says that the rights are to ALL men, not just God-fearing ones...... 

'God' has many names, ya know.


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

Now states that recognize common law marriages divorce is the same
legal nightmare as it is for regular marriages.

Remember Kunta Kinta. All him and the woman did was jump over a broom together and they were married. LOL. That was the marriage
ritual of some African tribes among the slaves in the south. According
to the movie.

but I don't think an atheist can say he/she is an atheist if they are married by a minister or in a church setting. I know people write there
own vows and such but if used in a church type setting they are in 
the house of God which they don't believe in. So how can you say 
you don't believe in God and then use his house to get married in.


----------



## claireauriga (Jun 24, 2008)

Well, it all depends on what the service says, what the minister is comfortable with doing, and so on, but for many atheists churches are beautiful buildings with a lot of history and community ... I occasionally attend church services, e.g. for carol concerts, and enjoy them without any spiritual uplift. I wouldn't choose to get married in a church, though.

For me, marriage is important, but I don't believe it has to be for everyone. That's why I'm glad to see governments recognising long-term but not formally unified relationships in their laws.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

RegalCharm said:


> So how can you say
> you don't believe in God and then use his house to get married in.


Maybe if your partner is religious (even if you aren't) and wants to be wedded in a church?


----------



## DarkChylde (Nov 13, 2008)

We didn't get married in a church, I was not happy for some time with churches cuz they wouldn't christen my kids (me and hubby weren't married.....:-( )That sorta turned me off of churches altogether for awhile, altho I DO attend a church now, an Episcipalian (?) one, but that is only cuz they are VERY tolerant of my 'heresy'. :lol: (I am a gnostic). But I didn't find _that_ church till after me and hubby were already married.


----------



## Walkamile (Dec 29, 2008)

I've been following this thread and it has brought a family memory back to me and a smile.

A few years ago, a nephew asked my father (Dad's in his late seventies and from a very strict Catholic upbringing) how long he and my mother lived together before they married.

Dad very calmly informed my nephew that back in his day if he and my nephew's grandmother had done that, they would have been run out of town AFTER stones where thrown at them! :lol:

I guess it just shows how relaxed our cultural views have become about some things.


----------



## RegalCharm (Jul 24, 2008)

Walkamile said:


> Dad very calmly informed my nephew that back in his day if he and my nephew's grandmother had done that, they would have been run out of town AFTER stones where thrown at them! :lol:
> .


 

Well they certainly would have been the talk of the town. :shock:


----------



## my2geldings (Feb 18, 2008)

Great discussion guys


----------

