& also, the relative wealth of women has (I think) been increasing. If there's a "safe enough to have a kid" threshold, more single women will cross it.
But is it really a shift in rates of kids born out of wedlock that matters? Kids born to parents with resources do better than kids born to parents who do not have resources.
I don't think wedlock matters at all. I do think that there's something that's intrinsically more difficult about raising a kid without two involved, supportive parents who are really committed to caring for the kid. Obviously, there are always going to be single parents, and there should be public and societal support to make it as easy and successful as possible, but it's really innately harder, not just because people are jerks about it.
I haven't kept up on the research, but as of about a decade ago I think there was pretty definitive research that lack of financial resources was a fairly significant cause of delayed weddings/marriages. That is, if a couple doesn't have the ability to set up their own household, they won't get married.
Biology being what it is, some of them are going to wind up pregnant regardless.
Any time I read the word "wedlock" I wonder what century I'm in and where I can find something more interesting to read. Forsooth! Wedlock!
Um, that wasn't a dig at this post. Just its referent.
It's funny when you've got an odd sounding word occupying a grammatical gap. It does sound ridiculous, but I can't think of a more modern sounding word that fits 'the state of being married'.
Meanwhile, incisive commentary from Dana Loesch on earlier stages of the process.
Ah, but you said "more modern". By the archaic nature of its signifier you shall know the archaic nature of the concept.
Close, but it still sounds a little archaic, and I don't think you can substitute one for the other in any sentence.
5: We express that concept with the word "marriage" routinely. I admit in this context "outside of marriage" may sound a bit odd, but I think only because we use the word "wedlock" so much in said context. We could get used to the switch in two seconds.
Hmm. Hawaiian Punch was out of wedlock and Hokey Poker was born after you married, right? We should just wait and see which one turns out better.
5: That's probably right.
Actually, the word that's missing if we want to talk about outcomes for children is "Born to/still living with cohabiting parents."
Interesting pattern in his n-gram ("wedlock" and "out of wedlock"). Literally used with "out of" now nearly half the uses of "wedlock" where it was a small percentage two centuries ago.
Yeah I suppose what I mean is "wedlock" only occurs in the phrase "out of wedlock" and "out of wedlock" hits my ear as already this prudish, disapproving thing with lots of assumptions built in.
That would be this n-gram. But then this one ("born out of wedlock" and "out of wedlock") is intriguing as well--from perusing some of the search results my hypothesis is that "out of wedlock" began to be used as an adjectival phrase about 1920.
Mothers with out-of-wedlock children are often forgetful.
I think stormcrow just said I have dementia.
Things you learn from the internet: "The phrase living over the brush, used to describe an unmarried couple who live together, originated in the tunnel-building days of the 19th century."
The which-building days?
For some reason the Polish phrase for living together when not married translates as 'living on a cat's paw' (zycie na kociej lapie). Always found that simultaneously cute and bizarre.
I found this part interesting:
Almost all of the rise in nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the United States they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages.
It fits with my intuitions about other countries I'm familiar with (northwest European ones), but I've never seen stats on it.
It fits with my intuitions about other countries I'm familiar with
Does your intuition run to speculating why? I can't see any obvious reason why unmarried relationships should be more vulnerable in America that wouldn't also apply to marriages.
12.2 gets it right; my first thought when I saw the NYT headline yesterday was: we'll want to know how many of these outside of marriage births are to single parents as opposed to cohabiting but unmarried couples. (Or: single- versus two-parent families.)
I haven't read the article yet, but I see from 23 that they touch on this.
Does your intuition run to speculating why?
I only have the small number of people I know personally to go on, but I know a lot more people in Germany who live together in long-term, serious, committed relationships without getting married than I do in the U.S. It just seems more normalized there not to get married. But that's not really a 'why'.
...committed relationships ^with kids^ without getting married...
24: I'm not Blume, but I share her sense of the difference. I know many Germans and Swedes, for instance, who have been living together for years, buying houses and having children and considering themselves entirely settled down, with no intention of marrying: that's still pretty rare in the US. In the US, living together for a short period time, as a kind of trial for marriage, is very ordinary, but doing so with no intention of ever marriage is still considered fairly radical. (My partner and I have been living together for years, and people are always asking us why).
26: This is what I was thinking (as someone who is in that situation here in the States and I agree it's not really a "why"). It's a sort marginal, weirdo thing to do here, and a quite common, normal, middleclass thing to do in various other countries.
Ah, now that I've inadvertantly reiterated what Blume said, I should try to add a little value. The "why," I suppose, is that couples who are stable, whether emotionally or socioeconomically or whatever, are much more likely to be married in the US, which means that unmarried couples are much more likely to be precarious in various ways.
It's normalised here too. But normalised or not, I'd have thought that unmarried relationships that got as far as starting a family would be, if not as stable as marriages, then edging that way.
I mean, I could invent a load of just so stories for why couples might be under more pressure to split up in the US than Europe - different labour markets, more random social safety net, sheer size of the country making it harder to keep together - but they'd be pure guesses and they'd apply equally to married couples.
21: For some reason I want this to be, the tunnel-building days and boogie nights of the 19th century.
The construction does sound a bit odd; presumably we didn't subsequently reduce our tunneling activities by that much. However, it was new activity on such a large scale, and it certainly involved a lot more human labor. For instance, a particularly grim statistic that brought home the sheer scale of tunneling to me is that 193 people died in the construction of the Hoosac Tunnel in western Massachusetts. It also took 20 years to complete, apparently at one point Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said said he'd like to "wall up a dozen lawyers at one end of the tunnel and put a good fee at the other."
32: Not to belabor this, but that's precisely the difference. If people in a stable couple find themselves starting a family, they almost invariably get married. (See: Heebie and Jammies). So, the people with children who remain unmarried are almost by definition in unstable relationships.
It's either get married, split, or form a cult.
Blume's point is exactly what my Norwegian friends said about Norway: that people are reluctant to get married for [I forget exactly why] and end up having longterm relationships (often with kids) which accomplish everything we tag with MARRIAGE in the US.
I don't have any Norwegian friends, but I have a Danish friend. She said Norway is full people who want only duty-free liquor and someplace to vomit.
Having to hold in your vomit and your free doody is really unpleasant.
that people are reluctant to get married for [I forget exactly why]
If Norway is like Britain in this it's usually cost. For many people it's not imaginable to get married without putting yourself in debt bondage to the wedding-industrial complex, so they just do without. Cheap and cheerful weddings are a rare and very middle class phenomenon.
Random guess on the European vs. American difference - something to do with health care (though that should be dissipating somewhat as many health insurance companies recognize domestic partnerships now, right?) and tax benefits. It's way better to be married and file a joint tax return in the US, as far as I can tell. (I've no idea how that compares to the European situation.)
If you both work and don't have kids, there isn't usually a tax reason for being married in the US.
41: Ah. Well, strike that and leave the health insurance in.
Isn't the comparative rate of marriage (the percentage of the population that's married) in Europe and in the US going to be relevant here?
This is another way of getting at Mme. Merle's point in 34: if, in the US, you are much more likely to get married if you find yourself in a committed long-term relationship than you would be if you were in Europe, then all those stable couples in the "unmarried" column in Europe would be in the "married" column in the US. Couples in the US remaining in the "unmarried" column are more likely to be in unstable/uncommitted relationships.
39: Weddings are often not cheap here, though they can be.
I've seen this topic brought up several times recently, so I assume it's the right wing's attempt at an antibody for the OWS talk of inequality and social immobility.
Raw marriage rates are of course confounded by demographics, but the recent stats I could find had it at 6.8/1,000 in the US and 4.5/1,000 in Europe. Both have been trending down for decades (Europe was 7.9 in 1970).
I think part of the difference might be housing costs. In the parts of the US where marrying is most common, you can often buy a house with not much over a thousand a month on the payments. If you have a house, you may as well get married because you've decided to be boring already.
Beyond taxes there's Social Security and pension reasons to get married here. My wife and I are both on defined pension systems. Not getting married would be a huge reduction in financial security.
My wife and I are both on defined pension systems.
Nous aussi, but I could have assigned my residual to anybody in principle. It's a question of how the thing is designed, not the thing in itself.
This has some good data on the demographics of marriage in the US for ages 25-34. Quick summary, declining since the mid '60s, but with greater declines recently among non-college vs. college-educated.
High school or less: ~85% in '65, 45% in '10
College+: high 70%s in '65, low 50%s in '10
Crossed over in the early '90s.
48: The number of people who're in line for a pension at all in the US is dropping, but SS benefits are relevant.
45: I assume it's the right wing's attempt at an antibody for the OWS talk of inequality and social immobility.
I'm not following this. The topic is arising lately in part because of Charles Murray's new book (and the follow-up support from e.g. David Brooks) according to which the problem in the US -- as if there's just one -- is a decline in traditional family structure/family values, as opposed to ... income inequality ...
Oh, I see. The "antibody" metaphor threw me, since I'd just have called it a reframing. Yeah, it looks to be the right's reanimation of the those people bugaboo: those people are a mess. Those people can be statistically linked to failure in all sorts of ways.
Reframing the Overton Window with craptacular vinyl replacement windows.
It was a toss up between antibody and chaff. Expecting clear writing from me seems unduly optimistic.
I wouldn't be surprised if part of it is increased religiosity. Not that everyone getting married here is religious, but because there are a lot of religious people who do believe that that's what you do, the default idea of what a couple with children looks like is a married couple, and marriage comes with a number of legal and social benefits so why not?
To what extent might the availability of health insurance affect differences in marriage rate and longevity between Europe and the US? There are not a few married couples in the US who remain married because one party would otherwise lose his/her health insurance coverage (my own parents did this, and merely separated rather than divorce).
It comes back to the question somewhat elided in these discussions: it's not enough to point to marital statistics. How many of those married persons are married out of (legal, financial) convenience?
What is up with that increased religiosity, anyway?
I don't mean to be glib: I really don't know.
And I imagine some of it is self-reproducing (no pun intended): if you see that the norm among friends and family is to marry once things are stable, then it will seem risky or bad faith or such not to marry, if you wish to stay together. Among neurotic educated people this will cause introspection and worry. Beyond that, maybe just high levels of idealism and sentimentality among some US people? Among others, it seems riskier to marry, so there's less of an internalized norm. Friendships across the relevant class boundaries may be rare and, where they do exist, exert little peer pressure.
I wonder if that's true, and whether it could ever change.
I'd suspect that most people getting divorced are mad enough to view cutting the ex from health insurance as a feature.
41
If you both work and don't have kids, there isn't usually a tax reason for being married in the US.
It depends on how your incomes compare. If they are wildly different it is generally better (federal taxwise) to be married, if they are about the same it is generally better not to be married (the later case giving rise to talk about a marriage penalty).
(I'm off to do some other things now, but I was reminded of religiosity themes in connection with the fact that the state of Maryland has a same-sex marriage bill on the table even as we speak, and some of the discussion is over same-sex marriage versus civil unions. I recalled that one Katherine, sometime of this blog, had strong objections to Stanley's posted suggestion that all marriages be simply civil unions. I was confounded by her arguments, which were heartfelt and forcefully argued indeed. Something to do with being united before God, I think.)
My experience with colleagues in Europe and Australia is that among the MC/UMC demographic they represent, there absolutely is broader acceptance of non-married co-habitation as nothing special (with or without children). And I do think the tie-in with religion is absolutely relevant. I am at times surprised that when it comes up, the fact that my wife and I lived together for a few years (no kids) before getting married 28 years ago is in turn often surprising to people in my workplace.
How does the splitting up work in Northern Europe among long term, middle class unmarried couples? Here there is an often an enormous financial difference in post split division of assets between a married and an unmarried couple, particularly if there is any difference in income between the two spouses, so it's not at all a decision without consequences (ie an unmarried woman without kids who gave up or reduced work to have kids with a long term partner who has a good income is way worse off post divorce than a married woman would be).
In enlightened topless Europe, those two women would get the same financial settlement.
I've heard bras help with settlement issues.
What is your foundation for that belief?
Quit bouncing around in all directions, guys.
And what was that smack we saw you going on about recently on that so-called "blog" of yours? Don't even think about it girlfriend.
With that attitude, your days are definitely numbered, Buub.
OK. Do it, just go ahead and do it! We'll just see how well those lectures on the binary system work in the future.
Per "Saints and Strangers", marriage was not a religious matter among the Mayflower pilgrims. Church weddings became routine only in the late 1700s.
72. I've always liked that. But recently I've wondered how much of a difference it made. Civil marriage in a theocratic state is religious. The "civil" government routinely enforced religious rules. They didn't see marriage as sacramental. But that isn't saying much.
It really made no difference. All sex crimes were civilly punished, even with death.
I know more than one couple in the US who got married solely for benefits. One couple for student housing, two for health insurance, all three with no actual romantic relationship whatsoever. (None have or are planning to have children, so no direct relation to the OP). But marriage in the US can definitely be unrelated to its stereotypic underpinnings. I assume this kind of thing would mess up statistics if it's in any way widespread, of which claim I have no idea about the truth value.
None have or are planning to have children, so no direct relation to the OP
Heh, a fair reminder that we have been straying from the topic, haven't we? It's about unmarried mothers, not marriage rates per se.
People have seen this recent Daily Caller piece, I assume.
"The purpose of lifting the left's Potemkin skirts is not to score tits for tats."
The consonance of "skirts" and "score tits" is a nice touch.
I am sort of touchy about this whole subject because Mara legally has one mom (Lee) and yet that doesn't describe her reality at all. I'm not saying there are statistically significant numbers of partnered-but-unmarried lesbians under 30 skewing the numbers, but I'm just not able to be bothered by this the way I am by numbers of kids being born into poverty and so on.
76.last: That whole thing has me feeling rather vindicated: I met Pou/los at a conference a few years ago (he's a friend of a friend), and spent our entire lunch together thinking "Christ, what a douchebag...."
though that should be dissipating somewhat as many health insurance companies recognize domestic partnerships now, right?
I am switching jobs and my new place of employment will give benefits to spouses or same sex domestic partners. Opposite sex domestic partners still can't get benefits.
Hawaiian Punch was out of wedlock and Hokey Poker was born after you married, right? We should just wait and see which one turns out better.
Someone needs to apply for grant money asap! This could be a break for some person in academia here!
BR has great benefits and a great pension when she retires. We dont really have a need to get married, but those benefits are tempting!
Health insurance, health insurance, and health insurance. At least, that is why anyone I know personally gets married. (Or, they're gay and want to make a point.) Of course, I'm an American who only knows lesbians, grad students, hippies, and Europeans (or combinations of all four!), so what do I know about real Americans. From my facebook feed, it appears a vast majority of (U)MC people my age get married and take their husband's last names and have babies before 30, but I haven't personally interacted with anyone like that for about 10 years now.
I personally got married because my spouse was furrin' and unlike other industrialized countries, the US does not grant partner visas to non-married straight couples, so given the option of breaking up or staying together, staying together seemed better at the time. Of course, it also means I'm now under 30 and divorced, but I feel proud that I can increase the USA's broken marriage rate and stick it to our stupid puritanical immigration laws.
I am currently dating an Italian (with dual citizenship, thank god). Neither of us have any desire to be formally married nor do we get any pressure from relatives (his religious Catholic grandmother aside), though I imagine in the US I might have to, what with health insurance benefits etc. I would consider marrying my current partner (and perhaps having an anchor baby) so I can mooch of the European welfare state, but given that the way things are going Italy might get kicked out of the EU and have its populace reduced to begging before my paperwork goes through, it's probably not worth it.
Anyways, I think most people are right: if there's no compelling financial/bureaucratic reason to get married and it's not necessarily the norm, there's no good reason to do it and plenty of reasons not to. It's a pain to have to fill out lots of paperwork and pay a fee if/when you break up, and if there are other ways of sorting property/children without having to dissolve a legal marriage contract as well, it would probably be simpler.
I do wonder about Halford's question in 63 -- how do unmarried couples with assets handle it if they split up? It does seem to increase the possibility that someone gets badly screwed.
I have no idea about splitting assets, but I'm thinking that if two people have a kid and split up, not being married will not make things that much simpler if there is a dispute between the parents.
I'm assuming these not-married couples are also not having a commitment ceremony of some kind? Because that's the bulk of the hassle, I'd think.
"He went to Jared Costco and the liquor store."
85: This is certainly a question of mine as well. Are there any institutionalized mechanisms in countries where this is more common? Recent family experience (albeit in an admittedly atypical context) is that absent clear written agreements there seems to be no good starting point or roadmap beyond the absolute good faith of the individuals involved. Although presumably folks like will (the commenter not the misplaced word) get work from the the unmarried at times?
86: I'd actually think child custody/support would be six of one/half a dozen of the other. Assuming paternity's established, married or unmarried the issues are the same. Assets is what puzzles me.
90: 86 was more to 84 than 85. I was trying to say that I didn't think being married or not would matter for kid-related issues. The "if there is a dispute" was in there because I think that would be relatively simple regardless of marital status.
LTUMCs I know mostly just keep their assets basically separate, not unlike long-term roommates, except possibly real estate, which is sometimes purchased jointly (or sometimes not, if one person happens to own it before the relationship begins, in which case the non-owning partner just contributes something to the mortgage every month, not unlike paying rent, which I suppose you could consider unfair, since one partner is building equity and the other isn't, although, again, it's not unlike paying rent, so it's hardly a gross injustice). Admittedly, I don't know any LTUMCs where one partner left the workforce to have kids. That could be trickier to deal with in a separation. (Isn't the potential injustice there essentially exactly why judges originally created the idea of common law marriages?)
Could an unmarried couple contractually agree on how to handle these issues? (Not a pre-nuptial agreement, exactly--an "anti-nuptial agreement"?)
In the US, I think they still couldn't literally contract in any way that acknowledged a relationship as part of the consideration for a transfer of assets: aren't meretricious contracts still illegal? But they could jointly own stuff: put money in joint accounts and so on, they'd just have to do it piece by piece as they acquired things.
I'm not sure what a 'meretricious contract' is. I'm pretty sure that if you stayed home and raised kids while in an unwed relationship, your partner could leave you for somebody he met at Hooters and she'd get first dibs on his 401k if they were officially married.
A meretricious contract is one where any of the consideration is, or could be if you looked at it suspiciously, sex. They're categorically unenforceable. I think a contract saying "If we ever stop living together, Bill gets half of everything I own" would be unenforceable as meretricious.
Well, I don't know that much about prenuptial agreements, but if entry into marriage is valid consideration, surely you could come up with some valid parallel for unmarried cohabitants.
96: It appears that in the state of Washington it has a legal status.
I'm curious why the concept of common-law marriage seems to have been in retreat in the US in recent decades.
First, prenuptial agreements are generally to reduce the rights of a poorer spouse, aren't they? I suppose you could think of that as the poorer spouse giving up economic rights in consideration of the richer spouse's agreement to marry them, come to think so that works. But mostly, I don't think you could come up with a parallel for unmarried cohabitants, because the whole idea of the doctrine is that it's illegal and bad and wrong to make contracts that depend on unmarried sexytimes. Saying that it's unfair that married people can make that kind of contract is exactly the point -- it's supposed to be unfair to fornicators.
What about "In exchange for $500, which Bill pays me today, if we ever stop living together, other than for Cause (as defined), I'll pay Bill [a payment stream roughly equaivalent to alimony]"? Bill's just purchasing an option contract.
100: I think a court would look at that suspiciously, say "This is really because the two of you were fucking, isn't it?" and call it unenforceable as meretricious.
I think a contract saying "If we ever stop living together, Bill gets half of everything I own" would be unenforceable as meretricious.
Isn't this common-law marriage? Texas is a common-law state.
I could be decades out of date on this one, I admit: it's possible the whole 'meretricious' concept is obsolete, and courts will enforce contracts like that now.
I know in Australia de facto marriages are treated like actual marriage. A de facto straight partner can immigrate under a partner visa just like a married one, but in the US that is not the case. Also, my ex-SIL broke up with her LT boyfriend after five years and one house purchased by him, and she got $30,000 AU as a settlement because she contributed labor to remodeling it and her case was considered the same as a 5 year marriage by the Aussie judge. She did have to fight for it though, he didn't automatically have to give it to her.
99: I definitely agree that you can't condition the contract on sex, in any way. Absolutely. But, you know, an employer can agree to pay me severance if we split up. I'm not sure why a partner couldn't, too, if I demanded it as a condition for moving in with them in the first place (or for, e.g., quitting my job, which makes it even more explicitly economic).
96: What about something where you had to pay 5% of your wages into an IRA for Bill during the period of your cohabitation? Even if it wasn't legally enforceable (which is probably isn't), Bill would at least know from the statements when you were getting ready to dump him and you'd probably not be able to get the money back from Bill.
how do unmarried couples with assets handle it if they split up? It does seem to increase the possibility that someone gets badly screwed.
Partnership agreements.
Unmarried couples do them all the time. (Not enough though.)
Same sex or opposite sex couples can do them.
102: Again, I'm talking over my head, I don't do family law and Will should come in and correct me. But a common-law marriage isn't a contract with a roommate, it's a set of circumstances that renders you just as married as a couple who did it with a license. A court that recognizes a common-law marriage for the purposes of divorce and splitting up assets isn't enforcing a contract you drafted, it's first applying the law relating to common-law marriage to determine that you're married, and then applying the law relating to marriage to figure out your rights.
What you cannot contract very well for is tax status: The transfer of a retirement vehicle for divorcigg couples is done mostly tax free. (Qualified Domestic Relations Orders)
Non married people cant do that.
100: I think a court would look at that suspiciously, say "This is really because the two of you were fucking, isn't it?" and call it unenforceable as meretricious.
"No, your Honor, not at all. It's really because I wanted Bill to quit work to help raise our son, and he was worried about being left in an economically vulnerable position as a result."
Admittedly, a court's response to that may be "tough shit; to accomplish what you wanted here, you should have married". I don't know.
98: Since marriage now amounts to a group of legal rights and protections and also restrictions, I suppose people don't want to unexpectedly discover that they are married.
107: Huh, so I'm wrong. When you say partnership, you mean as in business partnership, adapted for a personal relationship (like "this house is owned by partnership X in which Joanne and Dave are general partners", so they're exactly like a law firm), or there's a separate thing which is a partnership agreement for romantic partners?
non-married couples splitting up - the worst thing ever.
The law is not very clear. The results often not good.
It is a mess.
Right, a partnership agreement is basically what I'm thinking of, although I wouldn't instinctively have reached for the term.
112:
It isnt conditioned on frequency of sex. Just finances.
ie: spelling out who pays for what and a process for selling things.
Without it, you cannot force the other person out of the home or to sell the property without a partition suit.
LB: If you google "Cohabitation Agreements" or "Domestic Partnership Agreements", a billion relevant results come up.
110.last: This is an impression from law school, and I think I was reading cases from the 40s and 50s, but I think that at least at some time, "Tough shit, from what we know about your relationship you wouldn't have entered into this contract unless you were fornicating, so it's unenforceable" would have been a likely outcome.
117: I'd like to picture the judge singing, "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it."
116: Just did. Everything I said on this point earlier should be understood to have come through a time warp from 1958.
I'd like to picture the judge singing, "If you like it then you should have put a ring on it."
If you'd like to picture it then you should have put a picture of a ring on it.
||
This should be of interest to the Austin commentariat.
|>
98: Common law marriage was originally used to permit people to inherit from their spouse or parents even if they couldn't locate the marriage license. This was especially problematic for immigrants.
In the past century record-locating has become less of a problem, and inheritance from parents doesn't depend on marital status. Also divorce has become more of a problem. The common law doctrine didn't fit the situation where the members of the couple dispute whether they were married. Many of the cases refusing to recognize common law marriage are in the divorce context. Most of the states have abolished common law marriage by decision or statute by now.
Common law marriage was originally used to permit people to inherit from their spouse or parents even if they couldn't locate the marriage license. This was especially problematic for immigrants.
Interesting! And makes sense.
This Unfunkked classic has never been less relevant.
123: Is it a datable innovation? I guess the term "common-law" made me think it was one of those things that went way back.
Wikipedia says that before the Council of Trent, it was common to get married without an official ceremony/form/whatnot.
Sorry, that should have been to 122.
127: And possible for Protestants afterward, where not barred by statute, now that I look.
The Bar voted down a recommendation that CL marriage be abolished at our annual meeting 4 or 5 yrs ago. Brought by the same gadfly who'd been trying to get us to adopt a parliamentary government for the past 35 years.
129: Or incomplete. It still makes sense for why it re-appeared in the U.S.
125: Yes, it goes way back in England, and to the colonial era in the U.S. The early cases all involved inheritance, not surprising since divorce didn't really exist outside of the aristocracy.
One of the recurrent patterns was that a man ran off to the frontier, started living with a woman, had children, and after death they were declared married to permit inheritance. Years after his death his first wife and first set of children turn up . . .
132: If wikipedia is accurate, it didn't reappear in the US, it just didn't go away until abolished piecemeal in those states that did away with it. Again, taking wiki as accurate, it looks like the history of common-law marriage in the US is continuous back to the Protestant Reformation.
The difference between a common-law marriage and a putative marriage would seem to be important here.
(insert '+ n' joke below)
133.last: Common-law bigamy!
There's a Trollope novel that turns on whether the hero is a bigamist because he was commonlaw married to an actress in Australia before he got formally married to a nice English girl, or whether he and the actress were just having sex. The big evidence is that he addressed an envelope to Mrs. [His Last Name] -- if it was sent through the mail, they were married, but if it was only handed between them, they were just having sex.
129: ??? It doesn't idscuss either inheritance or divorce.
Meirster v Moore is the only U.S case cited (form 1877) and it does involve inheritance.
A postal carrier can officiate at a marriage as long as it is performed in a Jeep with the steering wheel on the wrong side.
137: I think exception is being taken to "originally used to permit", which sounds as if common-law marriage was introduced for the purpose of allowing inheritance and divorce where the paperwork is unclear. The history looks as if it wasn't introduced for any particular purpose, it was just a valid way of getting married until barred by statute.
I guess I should say that the legal cases about common law marriage There mnvolved inheritance.
BTW, all of this is based on something I came across when I was on a law journal 20 years ago. Not my current area.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1005568.html
136 -- But did they have intertwined horseshoes on their concrete walkway?
"I'd like to intertwine horseshoes on his walkway, if you know what I mean."
98
I'm curious why the concept of common-law marriage seems to have been in retreat in the US in recent decades.
I believe for the same reason as the demise of breach of promise, the perception (at least among guys like me) that it was being abused by scheming, lying, golddigging women to seduce and extort financial settlements from rich men.
Dave Winfield some trouble with a common law marriage claim (the details and ultimate outcome of which I do not know) which according to his lawyer at least was a total joke.
The universe persists, often appearing unchanging, yet beneath the surface the minds of men are boiling with reasons not to trust women who want to touch their penises.
Anybody who wants to use that for a fortune cookie, go ahead.
I am the Lizard King
I can do anything
I can make the earth stop in its tracks
I made the blue cars common-law marriage go away
Anybody who wants to use that for a fortune cookie, go ahead.
I think it would work well as hover text.
Fucking Chinese restaurants are too good for me?
They're probably just not listening.