should living together be equal to a marraige?

[srican69]

A court in India has ruled that living together is equal to being married .. and everything else ( license, wedding ceremony etc) is incidental to "living together' and that living together alone confers rights of alimony and need for divorce before one of parties marries someone else ...


I think the judge has a point ... A marriage is not the paperwork or the ceremony .. its the sharing of your life with the person you love.

On edit: By Living together - the court means a full relationship that includes a sex life.

[el_bryanto]

1. on the other hand it strikes me that would make a lot of couples that do live together uncomfortable

I could be wrong.

Bryant

[NYC_SKP]

5. How about making it an opt-in opt-out arrangement, voluntary?

The point being that couples have the option of having the same rights and privileges without the ceremony.

Or may chose not to be recognized that way.

[MattBaggins]

33. America at least has that

Civil marriages. Just send the paperwork to the clerk.

[WovenGems]

2. Yep

Welcome to common law. Common law = if it looks like a duck and quacks then it is a duck.

[MNBrewer]

4. Common Law marriages are recognized in fewer states than recognize Same-Sex marriages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

[WovenGems]

8. I agree!!

We have the most universities in the world yet are the least logical people on the planet. We are the worst because we have the least reason to be so.

[srican69]

10. I think it should be the law of the land ..it will provide the benefits of

marriage ( monetary, legal etc) to the couple .

[GreenStormCloud]

32. It also provides the complications, which many couples seek to avoid.

The entire idea of living together without formal marriage is to avoid all the legal hassle.

[MattBaggins]

34. Which is all just make believe

After 15 years, when they split up with 3 kids, two cars and a house, the resulting battles will be just as bad and in some cases worse.

[SheilaT]

30. Thanks for the link.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about common-law marriage, the main one being that it actually exists in very many places. I have more than once heard someone say something to the effect of: We've been together long enough that it's a common-law marriage. To which I'll tell them, Probably not. You need to look up the common law marriage thing in your state.

If people want the protections of marriage, they need to get married. Which is why same-sex marriage needs to be allowed everywhere.

Another thing I've heard people say is: It's just a piece of paper; we love each other and we don't need it. Wrong. Without being legally married there are all sorts of protections missing. Now if you really don't want or need those protections, that's fine, but you should understand what you're foregoing.

[dixiegrrrrl]

31. Legally, there ARE protections that unwed couples can have.

They are called wills, and powers of attorney, and benificary declarations.

[MattBaggins]

35. You need hours of time with a lawyer and 100s on pages of documents

to equal two pages at city hall or the county clerks office.

[dixiegrrrrl]

37. Not true.

I got everything I needed in one hour from my lawyer, and well under 50 pages of documents including duplicate copies.

As did my friends, who are gay and cannot marry in this state.

[MattBaggins]

41. Yes true

Your 50 pages of documents may not be recognized in every state and may be challenged if family members decide they don't want to honor them.

[dixiegrrrrl]

43. I see what you did there...

First you say getting a will and powers of attorney takes "hours of time with a lawyer and 100s on pages of documents"
and when I refute that out of my own experience ( and the experience of friends over the years)
you then reply "True"
but bring up an entirely different argument.

EOM.

[MattBaggins]

45. If you only want to be a jerk I'm sorry

but as for the 100s of pages that is what financial experts such as Suze Ohrman have said.

I will go with them over your one anecdote that may not be all the paperwork you actually need.

[SheilaT]

47. I keep on hearing stories of

same sex partners being kept from visiting in the hospital. And of course, social security and most (maybe all?) pensions cannot be passed over to the unmarried partner.

Of course we should all have wills, married, single, gay, straight, whatever. I have one, but I was astonished to learn, after my sister's husband died unexpectedly about six weeks ago, that they did not have wills. And this was a second marriage for both of them, and they're both over 60. I forget what the percentages are, but the vast majority of people don't bother with those legal documents.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

3. Absolutely so.

I never bothered to get married. I considered it when I was young because it was expected of young men, but I didn't let lack of formal marriage act as a barrier to a fulfilling life with a woman.

[KittyWampus]

6. but that piece of paper is a legally binding contract. So while marriage is "more than the paper",

that paper can be extremely important.

Hence, the push for allowing gay couples to sign that legal contract.

[JustAnotherGen]

12. +1

Expand marriage (the contract) to ALL Americans.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. and between two participants

that would end the stupid calls for making polygamy legal, which is usually teabagger attempts to marginalize the issue of marriage equality as it pertains to homosexuals who at present are largely denied the benefit of marriage as it is presently extended to heterosexual couples comprised of two willing participants.

[uppityperson]

28. Exactly. Legal marriage is a legal contract which both parties enter into. A social or religious

marriage is a different thing but legally? If both parties agree, enter into it, sign it, it should be opened up to any 2 adults who are not otherwise legally married to someone else. Doesn't matter their age, sexual orientation or whether or not they are having sex. It is just a legal document providing legal protections for property and children (if any).

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Marriage is a contract about property.

In that sense, living together is absolutely not equal. A roommate isn't entitled to half the house.

[dixiegrrrrl]

44. Really?

Did you know that unmarried people can and do buy houses together?
and businesses?

[oldhippie]

46. Yes. And did you know that .......

... upon the death of one of the parties, that the passing and the basis of the interest in the property is handled quite differently depending on whether the couple was (legally) married or not? It can make a big financial difference.

[bike man]

9. No.

". . .everything else ( license, wedding ceremony etc) is incidental to "living together' and that living together alone confers rights of alimony and need for divorce before one of parties marries someone else. . ."

If there is no license, legal stuff, etc., why would there be a need for divorce before marrying someone else. Just stop living together and the whole thing is undone.

[JustAnotherGen]

11. No

Some people simply don't believe in the certificate, the vows, the etc. etc.

Some people have lived in long term relationships (myself) and simply do not those relationships in the same league as their 'now' marriage. . . . In my case - confirmed bachelorette got 'caught' and he - and only he has ever been my 'husband'.

Putting some guys I shacked up with in my 20's as 'back dated' husbands is absolutely insulting to me and does not honor the man that is my husband. They weren't good enough to have that title. Only he did.


I'd much rather see marriage (from a Federal Tax break perspective) be expanded so that ALL who wish to marry in the US can.

We were in tears on February 2, 2013 at 6:30 a.m. when we saw what happens to your Federal tax return when you get married. They were happy tears. I don't see why our friends Tim and Gareth don't get to cry those same happy tears.

So - the answer in the US is not making live in temp 'good for now' relationships marriages - it's to expand marriage.


I'm thinking just from a legal perspective - folks who want to test run a relationship prior to marriage . . . Yikes! I mean - we are talking pre-live documents up the yin yang wazoo. As a high earning woman there is no way I would have put my neck and finances on the line for some guy who may or may not be there in 5 years.


But after my second live in? I said never again. Not unless it was sociallly acceptable that one 'had to' live with someone else.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. No

In the case where we may want it to be, merely living together and having that count as legal marriage could actually create more problems for the participants than fix it. It is why marriage equality is so important.

[1-Old-Man]

14. Sure, why not? As long as it applies to same sex people living together as well

Let's say that a couple of guys share an apartment, or a couple of girls. Well, then they are married - right?

Or is it just people who live together and want to say they are married that count? And seeing as how in the eyes of the state marriage is a legal contract devoid of religious meaning what do we do about divorce for our live-togethers, or can an old roommate forever sign contracts in your name?

[srican69]

22. see edit ...has to be full relationship ... roomies dont count

[jwirr]

16. Years ago Common Law marriage after a certain number of years allowed for legal recognition. We had

friends who were wed that way. I do not know how this effected things like Social Security etc.

[SheilaT]

48. Common Law marriages like that were far, far less common than most people think.

Many states never had them, many other states specifically ended any Common Law marriage.

[dumbcat]

17. Sure, as long as the government does away with the laws

that pertain to property, heredity, probate, taxes, community property, alimony, child support, and some other minor details.

And when I say "government", that is all governments, Federal, State and local.

Other than that, what's the problem?

[HappyMe]

18. No.

Whether you are together 5 months or 5 years, sometimes people don't want all the legal garbage to deal with when they break up.

This kind of craps all over marriage equality.

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Not as simple as it seems....

2 people live together, love each other, but for various reasons do not have a sexual relationship.
Are they considered "married"?

Same scenario..... but what if they are of same sex?

or this:

2 people get married at courthouse.
They live together, love each other, but do not have a sexual component to their relationship.

Are they any more ...or less ..."married" than the couples, above?

[hughee99]

23. 2 people live together, love each other, and do not have a sexual relationship?

For some people, that is the very definition of married.

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. Interestingly, consummation is the key definition of common law marriage.

in most of the states that recognize common law marriage.
Which creates this interesting conundrum:
2 people get legally married at the courthouse, but no have sexual relationship afterward, yet are seen as married.
but 2 other people live together, no courthouse marriage, no sexual relationship, yet are seen as unmarried.

REally is time to take another look at the various laws which define committed relationships between 2 adults.

[sibelian]

20. I think both parties have to explicitly consent to the contract.

Not clear to me if India has said that's unnecessary?

[dlwickham]

21. No

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. So if Sex = Marriage, then Cheating = Polygamy

The implications of that could be significant.
Does a one night stand entitle someone to alimony? What about a weekend or vacation together?
How does this work if three or more Polyamorous people get together?

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Living together confers the need for divorce before one of parties marries someone else?

You think that's good?

No. If you start living together without any paperwork, then you should be able to stop living together without any paperwork.

[FarCenter]

27. It would be a step backwards -- written contracts are a better idea than verbal or common law

The marriage license makes the consent of the parties to the contract clear and public, and it is "notarized", witnessed, and put in the public records so it can be proved in court as required for family law cases.

Expanding common law is likey to result in many more billable lawyers hours.

[srican69]

39. No it is not .. I am not asking to do away with written contracts - but to put some

'implied' contractual rights and obligations on parties that choose to have a live in arrangement, that mirror an express agreement

[FarCenter]

40. What evidence would you use to establish that a "marriage" began at some point in time?

For example, Alice has a child, Eve. Alice and Bob move in together. Alice dies intestate.

Does Bob get custody of Eve? Does Bob inherit half of Alice's estate? Does Bob become the trustee of the other half of Alice's estate held in trust for Eve's benefit?

[Sheldon Cooper]

29. Absolutely not.

If I wanted to get married, I'd get married. (Of course I'm hetero and I realize that marriage equality is still an issue. Many GLBT would love to be able to officially tie the knot. If and when it becomes the law of the land, my opinion on living together will stiil be the same.)

[IdaBriggs]

36. No - many widows/widowers would lose benefits if they became defacto "married"

in later life, and more problems would ensue with their estates.

Picture it: your 92 year old mother suddenly gets a "special friend" for two weeks, who is now her husband and legally entitled to *everything* she owns after she passes. Or that "special friend" for two months now wants half her assets if they move out and are in a state where "everything" is divided 50/50 -- talk about a nightmare!

[eissa]

38. Ridiculous

If a couple wanted to marry, they would. There's a reason couples choose to live together rather than marry, be it personal preference, finances, or whatever. My brother has lived with his girlfriend and her kids for a number of years. He does not want to make it legal for a variety of reasons. If he wanted to make it legal, they would have done so long ago.

I can see social conservatives pushing an idea like this in order to complicate the idea of living together "in sin." If it's the same as marriage, with the same ramifications if separation occurs, most people would probably opt out of it the way they do marriage itself.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. Common law marriage has nothing to do with time limits.

I remember a guy's parents who called me up and said "Oh no, if you live together for six months, you'll wake up married."

I knew this was wrong, my father was a lawyer and I typed a lot of documents for him. They were just snotty and thought they knew everything. I told these people, "Please show me in the Texas Family Code where it says there is a time factor in common-law marriage."

They were not lawyers and couldn't show me anything, because it's not there. IDIOTS.

I also went to the courthouse to register a common law marriage with this guy back in 1979. The county clerk refused to let us register because I didn't change my name. This guy tore up three forms in the process. I said, "Please show me in the Texas Family Code where it says the woman has to change her name." He couldn't, of course. He committed a misdemeanor in failing to discharge his official duties.

Common law marriage has several elements, the most important of which is intent. Also, you have to have no prior impediments. Like being previously married and not divorced yet, or being under aged or not of sound mind.

The common law marriage states are mostly in the West. Women in those states have always had more property rights than in the Eastern states. This is because of the Spanish law influence from Mexico.

Community property laws are related but not the same as common-law marriage.

If you remember the Marvin v. Marvin case, the woman abandoned her career to take care of Lee Marvin. California has community property. If they had been in Texas she would have had a common law marriage and been entitled to basically half his earnings.