Implications of Common Law Marriage

[Thinkingstuff]

It seems to me that according to common law there is a period of time before which you're consider "married" Ie 10 years, 7 years, etc... that the Law Dosen't recognise a couple as married. Therefore they are not married by statute or law and are not married. They must therefore be living in sin until such a point where the law recognises the couple as married.

 

[annsni]

It seems to me that according to common law there is a period of time before which you're consider "married" Ie 10 years, 7 years, etc... that the Law Dosen't recognise a couple as married. Therefore they are not married by statute or law and are not married. They must therefore be living in sin until such a point where the law recognises the couple as married.

OK atleast ONE other person gets it!

 

[Jerome]

Sigh....

"Contrary to popular myth, common-law marriages did not require a specific number of years to go into effect, but could be established instantly" ---Families and Law

"there is not a specific length of time that the couple needs to be together to establish a common-law marriage" ---Elder Law Journal (1999) pp. 394-395

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sigh....

"Contrary to popular myth, common-law marriages did not require a specific number of years to go into effect, but could be established instantly" ---Families and Law

"there is not a specific length of time that the couple needs to be together to establish a common-law marriage" ---Elder Law Journal (1999) pp. 394-395

You're actually correct. My bad. By law this must be met in order to be common law marriage:

In order to have a valid common law marriage, the couple must do all of the following:

live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and intend to be married.
When a common law marriage exists, the spouses receive the same legal treatment given to formally married couples, including the requirement that they go through a legal divorce to end the marriage.

But keep in mind the other requirements must be met. How many people living together say they are married or file jointly on a tax return or intend to get married? The fact is this is not the case. Generally speaking because if people intended to get married they would. So if you're living together with someone that you don't call your wife or husband, or file a joint tax return with or INTEND to be married your sining.

 

[Aaron]

But keep in mind the other requirements must be met. How many people living together say they are married or file jointly on a tax return or intend to get married? The fact is this is not the case. Generally speaking because if people intended to get married they would. So if you're living together with someone that you don't call your wife or husband, or file a joint tax return with or INTEND to be married your sining.

You need to stop looking to the statutes in your state to define Common Law or its requirements. Common Law is not statutory law, and does not derive its authority or force from any legislative body.

A man and woman who are married at Common Law are married the very moment they make the vows, regardless of when the state says it will recognize it.

Common Law exists, and is the "law of the land."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You need to stop looking to the statutes in your state to define Common Law or its requirements. Common Law is not statutory law, and does not derive its authority or force from any legislative body.

A man and woman who are married at Common Law are married the very moment they make the vows, regardless of when the state says it will recognize it.

Common Law exists, and is the "law of the land."

Common Law is based on precedent. The more a similar ruling passes the strong that ruling is. If that ruling is based on a set principle then that principle is a bases for future rulings ie common law. So those three things are the principle by which common law is made.

 

[Marcia]

A man and woman who are married at Common Law are married the very moment they make the vows, regardless of when the state says it will recognize it.

Acc. to whom or what?

Common Law exists, and is the "law of the land"

Only in 11 states.

Besides, the theoretical couple that believes that legal marriage is corrupt is then just following the law anyway if they have common marriage in one of these states.

 

[canadyjd]

Besides, the theoretical couple that believes that legal marriage is corrupt is then just following the law anyway if they have common marriage in one of these states.

The difference is the theoretical couple are not going to the state to validate their marriage. Their marriage is validated by scripture and by God.

If the state chooses to recognize what God has already validated, then that is something out of the theoretical couple's control.

Their primary concern is to be faithful to God and follow scripture on the matter.

BTW, the theoretical couple do not concede your description of their view as "legal marriage is corrupt". They view state sponsored marriage to be corrupt.

Although the marriages may be "legal" from the state's view, they may not be valid in God's view.

peace to youraying:

 

[JustChristian]

You need to stop looking to the statutes in your state to define Common Law or its requirements. Common Law is not statutory law, and does not derive its authority or force from any legislative body.

A man and woman who are married at Common Law are married the very moment they make the vows, regardless of when the state says it will recognize it.

Common Law exists, and is the "law of the land."

What land? Not America. We are held to the constitution and laws passed by our legislative bodies.

 

[Marcia]

The difference is the theoretical couple are not going to the state to validate their marriage. Their marriage is validated by scripture and by God.

If the state chooses to recognize what God has already validated, then that is something out of the theoretical couple's control.

Their primary concern is to be faithful to God and follow scripture on the matter.

BTW, the theoretical couple do not concede your description of their view as "legal marriage is corrupt". They view state sponsored marriage to be corrupt.

Although the marriages may be "legal" from the state's view, they may not be valid in God's view.

peace to youraying:

What is the difference between a state sponsored marriage and a legal marriage?

 

[canadyjd]

What is the difference between a state sponsored marriage and a legal marriage?

The theoretical couple view state sponsored marriage as corrupt. By state sponsored they mean the couple goes to the state to validate the marriage instead of God.

They, however, do not seek state validation of their marriage, even though the state may view their marriage as "legal" under common law statutes.

Therefore, some marriages are "legal" even though they are not state sponsored.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

The theoretical couple view state sponsored marriage as corrupt. By state sponsored they mean the couple goes to the state to validate the marriage instead of God.

They, however, do not seek state validation of their marriage, even though the state may view their marriage as "legal" under common law statutes.

Therefore, some marriages are "legal" even though they are not state sponsored.

peace to youraying:

Legal by virture of what? Legal means recognized by the law.

 

[Aaron]

Common Law is based on precedent.

Legal precedent is only part of Common Law. In fact, Common Law demands equity in judgment, which is why judges are bound to consider prior judgments in similar cases. Common Law defines and rules precedent, not vice versa.

Another name for Common Law is Natural Law. Does a man and a woman have the unalienable right to marry? Yes. Where does that right come from? Nature (i.e. nature's God). That's what the "law of the land" means. It's a law of nature. The Gentiles show the law of God in their hearts doing by nature, the things contained in the law of God, Rom. 2:14.

Anyway, it doesn't appear that any in this thread are willing to study the issue. They still think that Common Law was created by a legislative act, and so they go to their Statutes to define it and try to understand how it operates.

They also don't understand what a license is. A license is special permission from the state to do something that without such permission is illegal. That means there is a defacto prohibition on marriage. I'm told somewhere that is a doctrine of devils.

In fact, donnA has the entire concept of common law and statutory marriage reversed. She's saying that common law allows gays to call themselves married, when in fact they are the only ones that should have to apply for a license—them and polygamists.

Anyway, you all go ahead and argue. I know those who've married by common law even though my state is not one that will recognize a common law marriage, and I consider them better people than I am.

 

[canadyjd]

Legal by virture of what? Legal means recognized by the law.

Two couples are married. One goes to the state for a license, the other goes before God and what they see as scriptural examples.

The state views the marriages as "legal" whether or not the couple seek such recognition.

The difference is that one couple actively seeks state recognition while the other couple does not.

Therefore, your contention that our theoretical couple view "legal marriage as corrupt" but are "following the law anyway" isn't accurate. They are not seeking to follow the laws of men, but the commandments of God found in scripture. If the laws of men coincide with God's commandments, that is beyond their control.

peace to youraying:

 

[annsni]

The state views the marriages as "legal" whether or not the couple seek such recognition.

This is untrue. One cannot just state they're married and expect the state to recognize it. If it's a legal marriage, the state recognizes it. If it's not, the state does not recognize it. [/QUOTE]

 

[Jerome]

My state does not have common law marriage, even if you were considered married by common law in another state you would not be here.

From the link in the OP:
"The United States Constitution requires every state to accord "Full Faith and Credit" to the laws of its sister states. Thus, a common-law marriage that is validly contracted in a state where such marriages are legal will be valid even in states where such marriages cannot be contracted and may be contrary to public policy."

 

[canadyjd]

One cannot just state they're married and expect the state to recognize it. If it's a legal marriage, the state recognizes it. If it's not, the state does not recognize it.

The hypothethical couple do not care whether the state recognizes their marriage or not.

They are concerned that they conform their lives to what God has revealed in His Word. Nothing more or less.

peace to youraying:

 

[JustChristian]

Two couples are married. One goes to the state for a license, the other goes before God and what they see as scriptural examples.

The state views the marriages as "legal" whether or not the couple seek such recognition.

The difference is that one couple actively seeks state recognition while the other couple does not.

Therefore, your contention that our theoretical couple view "legal marriage as corrupt" but are "following the law anyway" isn't accurate. They are not seeking to follow the laws of men, but the commandments of God found in scripture. If the laws of men coincide with God's commandments, that is beyond their control.

peace to youraying:

A marriage license is primarily for the state to recognize two people for purposes such as taxation. This is rendering unto Caesar. For two believers, a marriage is validated by God. I don't see how obtaining a marriage license to meet the requirements of Caesar while believing that the real validation comes from God is not the Biblical perspective.

 

[Marcia]

Two couples are married. One goes to the state for a license, the other goes before God and what they see as scriptural examples.

The state views the marriages as "legal" whether or not the couple seek such recognition.

The difference is that one couple actively seeks state recognition while the other couple does not.

Therefore, your contention that our theoretical couple view "legal marriage as corrupt" but are "following the law anyway" isn't accurate. They are not seeking to follow the laws of men, but the commandments of God found in scripture. If the laws of men coincide with God's commandments, that is beyond their control.

peace to youraying:

Please elucidate these "commandments of God" regarding marriage.

And who declares them to be married, and how?

 

[canadyjd]

Please elucidate these "commandments of God" regarding marriage.

Off the top of my head.....

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
Don't commit adultry.
Cling to the wife of your youth.
Submit to your husband.
Love your wife as Christ loved the church.
God hates divorce
What God has joined together, let no man tear asunder.
A man cannot serve two masters (this refutes polygamy:smilewinkgrin

And who declares them to be married, and how?

They declare themselves to be married by vowing to be married to each other before Almighty God and revealing their intention to married to family and friends.

Can you show them from scripture that they are wrong? Of course not. You just keep repeating the same argument that they are to submit to the government, even though it has been shown over and over that there is no prohibition from the government to do exactly what they have done.

peace to youraying: