Pa. court abolishes common law marriage

[Newsjock]

This also strikes me as a nasty way for courts to close a loophole that could potentially allow recognition of same-sex marriages.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-09182003-162121.html

By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press
 
PHILADELPHIA - Tossing aside centuries of tradition, a Pennsylvania appeals court has issued a landmark ruling abolishing common law marriage, saying it is no longer practical for couples to wed without a state license.

By a split vote, the Commonwealth Court said the state's practice of recognizing unions sealed by a simple private vow has created an impossible situation for third parties trying to determine whether a person is married or single.

"Many sound reasons exist to abandon a system that allows the determination of important rights to rest on evidence fraught with inconsistencies, ambiguities and vagaries," Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter wrote in a decision filed Wednesday.

She added that the circumstances that created a need for common law marriage - namely, the potential unavailability of a preacher in Colonial times and the dependence of women on men for support - have dissipated.

more

[Mithras61]

1. Looks to me like too many people are not giving the state their fee

for a marriage license. Most states recognize common law marriages under very specific sets of circumstances that are reasonably easy to determine (cohabitation for a predefined time frame, representing yourself as married a specific number of times, etc.), so the "inconsistencies, ambiguiuties and vagaries" sounds like BS to me. As to the circumstances that created it, common law marriage became popular again in the late 60s & early 70s, IIRC, so the "potential unavailability" thing is also BS. The primary reasons for the issuance of marriage licenses is to aquire control over who can marry whom, and to levy a tax for getting hitched.

[Jack The Tab]

2. Why do I think this is a set-up of some sort to undermine gay marriage?

The way our pols are working now, I somehow think this is a step in disallowing gay marriage. Or maybe I'm just too conspiratorial.

[BiggJawn]

3. Big Deal. Indiana did that in 1958.

"Common law marriages entered into after Jannuary 1, 1958, are considered void."

There are only about 6 states that even recognize Common-Law marriages anymore.

[Yavin4]

4. We Have A Common Law President

He tells everyone that he won in 2000, without really doing so, and everyone believes him.

[demdave]

5. This is a common law at across the US

:) Most states no longer have this law.

[amazona]

6. common law marriage a thing of the past in most states

I don't see anything sinister here. Couples who are not married and don't wish to be legally responsible for each other's debts (or lose their Social Security) are aware that in most states there has not been common law marriage for years or decades. There are many advantages to remaining unmarried, especially if you're older, since asset protection is the biggie. A rich older woman might want to enjoy her gigolo but not have her entire family cut out of the inheritance by marrying him so that he can receive the estate when he dies. (ANd don't tell me about pre-nups. I've seen enough to know that they are useless!)

[LawDem]

7. Nope. Common law marriage is simply archaic

Nope. They did away with common law marriages, I'm sure, because they're archaic. Few states recognize them anymore and where they do exist they simply cause nasty and unnecessary litigation (eg. Daddy dies leaving everything to the kiddies, but girlfriend claims, "Oh, didn't you know? We had a common law marriage, so the will's invalid." Two years and 100 K in legal expenses later, the case is resolved to no ones satisfaction leaving a trail of bitterness.)

Nope. It's a dumb law. If you want to get married, get married. If you want to live together, live together. But don't make the rest of us guess which one it was later.

By the way, "legal capacity" is one of the requirements for a common law marriage. People of the same sex do not, at this point, have that legal capacity to marry. There is no way a court could recognize gay "common law" marriages without also recognizing gay "regular" marriages. There was no anti-gay agenda at work here.

[Selwynn]

8. Screw the state sanction of my "marriage"

I think when I get "married" I will refese to get a state liscence. I will have the cerimony, say my vows, love my wife for the rest of my life, but fuck the state.

I don't want to participate in a system that is hatful and exclusive, biases against gay and lesbian. The whole debate over the "traditonal defintion of marriage" makes me want to vomit. At the same time, I take the idea of joining my life to one person and the vows associated with that very seriously, and more personally than a lot of people probably do in this casual day and age.

I think I'll let me commitment to my wife stand before God, and I don't need the state's discriminated marriage system to have that. I really don't give a fuck if my marriage is recongnized under the "law" when the "law" goes against my heart. Until the day when gays and lesbians are no longer treated like second class citizens, I'm not inclinde to particulate in the states system of reconognizing some marriages as "official."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. The advantage of your approach

is that if you split up, you don't have the hassle of a legal divorce. You just split up like girlfriend and boyfriend. Of course, the downside is you miss out on the rights granted by marriage - the same rights gay and lesbian couples are fighting for.

[readmylips]

10. To marry in church, must have state license first or...

the church will not marry you. The church must certify the license, mail it back to the state for registration. The state mails it back to you. The church gives you a marriage certificate of the wedding. If you just get a state marriage license (legal document), you don't have to have a church wedding. The document is what binds you as legally married. (legally in a partnership)

States should issue 'partnership licenses' and not marriage licenses. Marriage is a religious act. Partnership license is a legal document.

[Selwynn]

11. My father is a minister...

He'll happily perform my vows, whether they are "legally" binding or not.

And by the way, there is no unified "church." Plenty of churches will happily undertake a cerimony to celibrate your union which takes the shape of a wedding without having any legal significance. How do I know this? Becuase I actually asked around hehe. :)

[Gman]

12. "Asked to comment on the ruling, PNC Bank

spokesman Brian Goerke said the company "maintains no corporate position on whether common law marriage should be abolished," he said. "This was a legal argument that was raised specifically for this case."

So the translation is, "We said it, but we reserve the right to say whatever we need to say in order to get what we want including arguing the complete opposite if that will get us what we want. After all, we paid good money for these judges."

Sounds to me like this court is an activist legislating court that the right wing despises unless it works to their advantage, then it's abolishing something that's outlived it's usefulness because it could cause some to get something for nothing at the expense of some filthy rich corporation.

I don't like living in Bizarro World. I want to go home. Soon. Now.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. This will only hurt women

who enter into a verbal contract with a man once he decides to rescind his end of the bargain. This cannot hurt men and that's why they chose to do this in the extremely rare case when it was a man seeking compensation from the loss of benefits from a female commonlaw spouse.