Implications of Common Law Marriage

[canadyjd]

...Jesus had something to say about it to the woman at the well, that even the man she was living with she wasn't married to. It seems pretty clear from that passage that to be "married" requires more than just living together.

The woman was not claiming to be married. In fact, it appears she was never married at all, but was a serial adultress.

John 4: 17 "...You have said well, 'I have no husband': (18) for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband;..."

Notice Jesus doesn't say she was married and divorced five times, but that she had "had" five husbands and the one she currently "had" was not her husband.

She appears to be a serial adultress, which explains why she comes for water at a time when none of the other women would be there.

peace to youraying:

 

[LadyEagle]

The woman was not claiming to be married. In fact, it appears she was never married at all, but was a serial adultress.

John 4: 17 "...You have said well, 'I have no husband': (18) for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband;..."

Notice Jesus doesn't say she was married and divorced five times, but that she had "had" five husbands and the one she currently "had" was not her husband.

She appears to be a serial adultress, which explains why she comes for water at a time when none of the other women would be there.

peace to youraying:

Well, thanks. I'm not in the mood to argue, so we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

[canadyjd]

Well, thanks. I'm not in the mood to argue, so we will have to just agree to disagree.

:love2:

peace to youraying:

 

[annsni]

The woman was not claiming to be married. In fact, it appears she was never married at all, but was a serial adultress.

John 4: 17 "...You have said well, 'I have no husband': (18) for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband;..."

Notice Jesus doesn't say she was married and divorced five times, but that she had "had" five husbands and the one she currently "had" was not her husband.

She appears to be a serial adultress, which explains why she comes for water at a time when none of the other women would be there.

peace to youraying:

I was under the assumption that a "husband" is a man that you have married. As a matter of fact, the American Heritage Dictionary defines a husband as "A man joined to a woman in marriage; a male spouse." So of COURSE she was married 5 times. If someone was divorced and remarried 5 times would you say that - or would you say "She's had 5 husbands!". It's just a matter of how we'd say it and what was meant by what was said. "Husband" is a common term that carries a connotation to it and that's why Jesus didn't go through the full explanation of what a husband is.

 

[canadyjd]

I was under the assumption that a "husband" is a man that you have married. As a matter of fact, the American Heritage Dictionary defines a husband as "A man joined to a woman in marriage; a male spouse." So of COURSE she was married 5 times. If someone was divorced and remarried 5 times would you say that - or would you say "She's had 5 husbands!". It's just a matter of how we'd say it and what was meant by what was said. "Husband" is a common term that carries a connotation to it and that's why Jesus didn't go through the full explanation of what a husband is.

Jesus said "the one you have now". The "one" is same kind of person she "had" when He said she "had five husbands".

The "one she had now" was not her husband.

I believe she was a serial adultress.

However, the question really doesn't apply to our conversation anyway because she was not claiming to be married. She specifically said that she had no husband.

That is completely different from those who claim common law marriage because they are claiming to be married.

If she were claiming to be married and Jesus told her the man she was living with (not "had now") was not her husband then you would have a case. As it is, it just doesn't apply.

peace to youraying:

 

[annsni]

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:*
Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.

So you must have intercourse before you're married to be able to say you're married. That's fornication.

Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.

You must live together first.

Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.

Cohabitation is a prerequisite.

Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.

This one doesn't need any cohabitation - that's good. But what kind of covenant or commitment is that? "I agree to marry. Do you? Excuse me everybody. We're married." That's it. I think, by going from the view that marriage is an earthly example of what our relationship is to the King of Kings, I think it took a bit more than that for our relationship to Him.

Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.

Cohabitation before marriage is necessary.

Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.

Cohabitation again.

Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage was established if, before 1/1/2005, a man and woman exchanged words that indicated that they intended to be married at the present time and they also held themselves out to the community as married (introducing eachother as husband and wife, filing joint taxes, etc.).

Similar to Kansas.

Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.

Conduct that leads to a reasonable belief that they're married would mean cohabitation since married couples tend to live together.

South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.

Wow - great commitment.

Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.

Hmm - almost sounds like a marriage to me. Go to the clerk, sign papers, etc. But note that they must cohabitate to be declared married. Cohabitate comes first.

Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.

Cohabitation again.

Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

Cohabitation again.


Back to me:
So in the vast majority of these states, one must cohabitate to be able to have a common law marriage. The cohabitation comes before the marriage. Meaning that one must appear to be sinning in order to do what a simple ceremony can do. Yeah - THAT is so much better than having a state union. *rolling eyes* LOL - I just don't understand the terror of having a state marriage over needing to do something that is against God's Word. A state marriage doesn't need to be a huge thing - just a couple of witnesses, a license if it's needed and a pastor. It's not a biggie! But it's amazing to me to see how some want to avoid that state thing and instead ..... follow the state??????? Makes NO sense to me. Does it to anyone else? If someone wishes to deny the state the right to say anything about their marriage, then they won't file for a common law marriage either. They'd just go ahead, decide they're married and live together. What a wonderful testimony to the marriage of the church of Christ to her Bridegroom.

 

[Marcia]

Incorrect. There is no minimum time specified in Colorado law.

From HERE

Factors for Determining Colorado Common Law Marriage

Though living together (cohabitation) is required, no specific duration is necessary. This means that a couple which is clearly girlfriend/boyfriend could live together for 20 years without creating a common law marriage in Colorado.

Well, then CO may be the only one. The info I saw on several sites was that in most cases, a time cohabitating is required. I posted this info.

These common law marriages are rapidly being phased out in many states btw.

 

[Marcia]

Nope. I see nothing about a minimum cohabitation period in any state where it is legal. Also, look at Kansas and particularly South Carolina below. There is nothing magic about a ceremonial marriage vs. common law, where the law permits such.

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:*
Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.
Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.
Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.
Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.
Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.
Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.
Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage was established if, before 1/1/2005, a man and woman exchanged words that indicated that they intended to be married at the present time and they also held themselves out to the community as married (introducing eachother as husband and wife, filing joint taxes, etc.).
Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.
South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.
Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.
Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.
Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

I believe it's a rule on the BB to post the source. I posted links for the info I posted and I'd like to see yours.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I believe it's a rule on the BB to post the source. I posted links for the info I posted and I'd like to see yours.

Notice that no period of cohabitaion is listed, contrary to your commonly-held belief that a time period is required. The source on this is HERE.

I really don't see the issue...if a couple are married in the law of their state, there is no need for anything else. It is all legal and tidy.

 

[annsni]

Notice that no period of cohabitaion is listed, contrary to your commonly-held belief that a time period is required. The source on this is HERE.

I really don't see the issue...if a couple are married in the law of their state, there is no need for anything else. It is all legal and tidy.

HOWEVER, the argument is that the couple feel that a "state union" (of which common law marriage is included) is an affront to God. So they would ignore even the common law rules.

 

[John Toppass]

Nope. I see nothing about a minimum cohabitation period in any state where it is legal. Also, look at Kansas and particularly South Carolina below. There is nothing magic about a ceremonial marriage vs. common law, where the law permits such.

Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.

Actually in Texas you do not have to sign a form unless you want to register the common-law marriage. A man and woman only has to present themselves as married to the public and be eligible to be married.

 

[MorganT]

Actually in Texas you do not have to sign a form unless you want to register the common-law marriage. A man and woman only has to present themselves as married to the public and be eligible to be married.

Yes, but after 10 yrs of living together and then they decide to split up, go to court and see what the judge says. He will divide those possions 50/50 just as if they had been married for 10 yrs.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Common Law marriage would be the perfect situation for, say, a widow who might greatly appreciate and covet the companionship of a new husband, yet without having the government cruelly discontinue her benefits...plunging her into poverty in her old years.


Thank God that he recognizes marriage whether the government is involved or not.


:godisgood:

 

[JustChristian]

Common Law marriage would be the perfect situation for, say, a widow who might greatly appreciate and covet the companionship of a new husband, yet without having the government cruelly discontinue her benefits...plunging her into poverty in her old years.


Thank God that he recognizes marriage whether the government is involved or not.


:godisgood:

Not the case. The government, including the IRS, considers common law marriage to be the same as the usual state supported marriage.

 

[Marcia]

Notice that no period of cohabitaion is listed, contrary to your commonly-held belief that a time period is required. The source on this is HERE.

I really don't see the issue...if a couple are married in the law of their state, there is no need for anything else. It is all legal and tidy.

That link didn't work.

I have the same point that Ann made on this. If they are offended by laws regulating marriage, then having a common law marriage according to the state's laws is still following the law. Why is that different from having a regular marriage, which they find so offensive, if the state considers both a marriage?

 

[annsni]

Common Law marriage would be the perfect situation for, say, a widow who might greatly appreciate and covet the companionship of a new husband, yet without having the government cruelly discontinue her benefits...plunging her into poverty in her old years.


Thank God that he recognizes marriage whether the government is involved or not.


:godisgood:

In other words it's a great way to deceive the government for financial gain?

And that would be supported in which Scripture?

As JustChristian said, it's still a marriage to the government and thus they are stealing from the government.

 

[canadyjd]

I have the same point that Ann made on this. If they are offended by laws regulating marriage, then having a common law marriage according to the state's laws is still following the law. Why is that different from having a regular marriage, which they find so offensive, if the state considers both a marriage?

Well, it is good to see that you and Ann finally concede that Roms. 13 doesn't apply.

The difference is that they are not going to the government to look for validation. If the government recognizes what they have done before Almighty God, independent of the government, then good for the government.

It is not something the hypothetical couple are seeking to make their marriage "official", as their marriage is already valid before God.

peace to youraying:

 

[annsni]

Well, it is good to see that you and Ann finally concede that Roms. 13 doesn't apply.

The difference is that they are not going to the government to look for validation. If the government recognizes what they have done before Almighty God, independent of the government, then good for the government.

It is not something the hypothetical couple are seeking to make their marriage "official", as their marriage is already valid before God.

peace to youraying:

Marcia and I absolutely do not say that Romans 13 does not apply. We are to marry. In this country, marriage is a matter of the law. If we decide to ignore the law, we are not married in this country. That is being disobedient to the law of God and living in sin.

 

[Marcia]

Well, it is good to see that you and Ann finally concede that Roms. 13 doesn't apply.

I never said that nor do I concede that. I was using the reasoning of the hypothetical couple.

The difference is that they are not going to the government to look for validation. If the government recognizes what they have done before Almighty God, independent of the government, then good for the government.

It is not something the hypothetical couple are seeking to make their marriage "official", as their marriage is already valid before God.

On what basis is their marriage valid before God, and how does it differ from shacking up?

 

[John Toppass]

Yes, but after 10 yrs of living together and then they decide to split up, go to court and see what the judge says. He will divide those possions 50/50 just as if they had been married for 10 yrs.

HUH??? that s kinda what I said.