Talk:Common-law marriage

message: The Indian Supreme Court used this article as part of the basis for a judgement in October 2010.
See Can Wikipedia be the basis of SC ruling? in the Times of India and
Government counsel takes exception to use of word ‘keep' in judgment in  The Hindu. Lumos3 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Supreme Court 

message: I find it odd that theres no criticism, both legally and from media, of common-law marriage. Any reason or does it just not come up? 124.168.254.109 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I fixed up the history section a little bit, but there's still some apparent confusion in it. "Clandestine" marriage did not necessarily mean without a priest. In fact, most of the clandestine marriages performed in early modern England were done with clergy. Long before Trent, it was uncontroversial in Eastern and Western Europe that marriages ought to have a priest present. For the Greeks, marriage without a priest was invalid, while for the Latins it was contrary to custom but of uncertain validity. JoeFink (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clandestine vs. unsolemnized 

message: The writing in this section is quite confusing, especially coming right after the introduction. Maybe it should be called "general characteristics of common-law marriage", because the article is not distinguishing common law marriage from other forms of marriage. Most problematic is the insertion of the Saskatchewan exception in every sentence, without explaining how Saskatchewan's common law marriage law actually differs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.157.63 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Essential Distinctions" 

message: In the Essential distinctions from statutory marriage there are a number of points which say "except for Saskatchewan", including the requirement "Both parties must freely consent to the marriage". Surely some more explanation is needed here! LukeSurl t c 23:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saskatchewan 

message: There are some studies that show couples (married or defacto) have greater life expectancy than single (incl. divorced and widowed) individuals. Does anyone have any sources to suggest for information on the health consequences of de facto relationships specifically (that is, as contrasted to de jure and otherwise sanctioned marriages)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  health effects 

message: The Essential distinctions from statutory marriage section does not cite sources when it compares the two types of marriages and also appears to deal mostly with the US.188.25.26.38 (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential distinctions from statutory marriage - unsourced 

message: OK, after reading this article I've realized that it needs a major rewrite. It appears to conflate true common law marriage (that can still be found in some US states) with what Canada & Australia have (common law status and de facto relationship respectively) - although these offer many of the rights, benefits and obligations of a marriage, they are not marriages. The only way a person can legally be considered married in Canada and Australia is by a statutory marriage (ie. a marriage license).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.26.38 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to rewrite the article and to clarify misconceptions.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:50C:DCF5 (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shortened the section on the United States because I provided a link to the main article Common-law marriage in the United States.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:BC19:9FED (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to rewrite the article 

message: There is a need to split the article and create Common-law relationships in Canada - the section on Canada is currently very long. Please note however that Canada does not have true common law marriage like some US states have. Couples in common law status/common law relationships are not legally considered to be married (despite the fact that they have rights, benefits, responsibilities etc).188.25.27.137 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Split is not required, neither the article nor the section is very long. Op47 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the split would be a good idea, the current lack in size I think is more due to the information being minimized to fit the space rather than it being the sum of information on the topic. The passing mention some of the provinces get, for example. It's already slightly larger than the UK one and only focuses on two provinces. This is an especially valid conversation point due to how automatic common-law marriages in Canada appear to not even require both parties' consent. Ranze (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada doesn't have "common law marriage" like the US; it has "common law status" with automatic rights & responsibilities in some provinces; but these are not "marriages". The word "marriage" is incorrectly used here.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1ADD (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article and create [[Common-law relationships in Canada]] 

message: I've commented on some seeming contradictions between this and a couple of other articles here.  Input welcome on how best to reconcile these.  84.203.32.187 (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "misinterpretation" of common-law marriage 

message: This article presently seems to require clarification (and more citations!) from people in various jurisdictions that have legislation regarding marriage-like relationships without a formal marriage ceremony.  One difficulty is that the term "common-law marriage" is widely used informally in various  jurisdictions that have such legislation, but this particular phrase has a legal definition in only some of these jurisdictions.  Some of the former lede (now in "Terminology") and especially the section "Essential distinctions..." seem to address only the latter, using the phrase "true common-law marriage".  Does "true" mean "common-law marriage legally defined as such"?  Can such a legal relationship be dissolved only by a legal divorce?  If so, this would help to distinguish it in the article from legally defined marriage-like relationships in other jurisdictions that end whenever the partners separate (although financial responsibilities may continue).  I suggest that we try to generalize the "Essential distinctions..." section to contrast all of the various "flavors".  Either that, or abandon the attempt, and split the article into the various jurisdictions, leaving only a lede followed by a short set of wikilinks.  Layzeeboi (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently a mess because it is inaccurate. If a couple's relation is recognized as a common law marriage, then their relation is legally recognized as a marriage for all purposes and is no different than a registered marriage. But a common law marriage, which can be contracted only in a limited numbers of jurisdictions around the world, is not the same thing as a cohabiting couple, regardless of whether such a couple is legally recognized or not (eg. de facto relations in Australia, although legally recognized, are not common law marriages), and neither is it the same with a registered partnership or civil union. I will try to fix the article.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AF36 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: Is it practical to continue the present attempt to address the various jurisdictions in one article?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Common-law marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061118040836/http://www.cic.gc.ca:80/english/sponsor/familymembers.html to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/sponsor/familymembers.html#common
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see that The Economist, usually a very reliable source, which ran an article on common-law marriage on 16 January 2016 (pp 63-64), claimed "common-law marriage has not legally existed in England since the 16th century".  And I see that the article here says "In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognized as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband" and "England abolished clandestine or common law marriages in the Marriage Act 1753" and "All other European jurisdictions having long abolished "marriage by habit and repute",[citation needed] Scotland became the last to do so in 2006.", implying that all or most European jurisdictions used in the past to have common-law marriage, including England.   
It is not consistent that the article also says "It is sometimes mistakenly claimed[28] that before the Marriage Act 1753 cohabiting couples would enjoy the protection of a "common law marriage". In fact, neither the name nor the concept of "common law marriage" was known at this time.".  
It is also claimed (in the section on Scotland!) that ""Common law marriage" is an American term."
This needs to be sorted out.
Deipnosophista (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  16th century 

message: FYI - The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution has never been used in or by any state to validate an out-of-state marriage.  Neither does the clause apply to common law marriage by its own terms.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause explicitly applies to a state or territorial government's "public acts, records and judicial proceedings."  "Public acts" means the statutes, resolutions, ordinances, general laws, and other legislative acts of state governments.  "Judicial proceeding" means a court judgment.
No type of marriage is a public act or a judicial proceeding, obviously.  And whereas statutory marriages are authorised by statute, common law marriage is an oral convention.  There are no statutes that authorise it.
Statutory marriages are attested by marriage certificates, which *are* public records.  But common law marriages are, by definition, undocumented; so there is no public record.
Because common law marriages involve no public act, no public record and no judicial proceeding, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.218.153 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Full Faith and Credit Clause 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Common-law marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221143638/http://www.canlii.org:80/on/laws/sta/f-3/20070614/whole.html to http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/f-3/20070614/whole.html#BK32
*Added  tag to http://canlii.ca/t/ftj4k
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616165141/http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/BCs_new_law_erases_line_between_marriage_and_commonlaw-13162.aspx to http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/BCs_new_law_erases_line_between_marriage_and_commonlaw-13162.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017044950/http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2002-c-a-4.5/latest/sa-2002-c-a-4.5.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/sa-2002-c-a-4.5/latest/sa-2002-c-a-4.5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725062056/http://www.unmarried.org/common.html to http://www.unmarried.org/common.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Common-law marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101063517/http://www.legislation.gov.uk:80/asp/2006/2/section/3 to http://legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/2/section/3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140723025230/http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-a.htm to http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-a.htm#free
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Conjugal" is used in introduction, and under Canada, and where it includes: "A conjugal relationship exists when there is a significant degree of commitment between two people."
Not correct.  That defines the relationship between parent and child (living under the same roof) as conjugal (yikes).   Conjugal includes sexual intercourse.  Disagree?  Well the definition is under "Immigration Canada".  You just try to claim married status with them and then telling them you've never had sex with your partner.
The problem the courts (and politicians) have, with applying this definition, is elderly couples, who have been married over half a century, but haven't had sex in the past 12 months.  It would be embrassing, and stupid to say they weren't married. Antifesto (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjugal - dubious definition 

message: If the article is titled common law marriage, than it has to address the legal concept of common-law marriage, not other forms of unmarried cohabitation  (registered or unregistered). 
Common law marriage exists as a legal concept if all of the following are true:
*we are talking about a common law country
*the relation has not been registered and instead it was formed merely by "repute" (ie, by living together as a couple, presenting as such to society etc)
*the couple are legally recognized as married and treated legally the same as a couple in a statutory marriage, without any distinction at all.
Neither Canada, nor Australia have "common law marriage"; I suggest the Canada section be split to an article of its own about recognition of unmarried intimate relations in Canada (lots to put in such an article, as the law differs by province/territory). Although unmarried couples can obtain various rights and responsibilities simply by living together for a period of time in these jurisdictions, they are never considered married in law.
The section on the Netherlands has absolutely nothing to do with common-law marriage; it's about  notarised cohabitation agreements.
The "Common-law marriage vs. cohabitation" section already explains the misconceptions about common-law marriage; and the article should be clear in its scope. There are many articles about family law pertaining to unmarried couples; there's no need to fill an article called "common law marriage" with material that is not actually about common-law marriage. 2A02:2F0F:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C03B (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody objects, I will cut the section on Australia short (just a paragraph or two) and add a link to Australian_family_law#De_facto_couples,  because Australia does not have common-law marriage. De facto couples have rights, but these are not common-law marriages. The legal concept of common-law marriage is explained in the article, and there is already public confusion on what a common-law marriage actually is, and this article should not continue to foster this confusion. 2A02:2F0F:B2FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CABA (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I removed the Netherlands, since what is described has nothing to do with  common-law marriage (see above first post).2A02:2F0F:B2FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CABA (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained the situation in Australia and provided a link to the relevant article.2A02:2F0F:B2FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:C850 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of this article 

message: Would it be appropriate for someone to create a section on criticisms or advocacy for common law marriage? I see these in other articles, and at least the United States page writes that many states used to have common law marriage, but no longer do, and so an explanation would be helpful. Captchacatcher (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro/Cons 

message: I removed the section on Sweden which read: "Cohabitation is very common in Sweden, and the couple has rights, but not to the same extent as a married couple.[39] Cohabitation was written into the law in 1973.[40]"
Please note that this article is about common-law marriage (which Sweden does not have), not about other types of non-marital relations. See the discussions above. There is already a lot of confusion about this topic. 2A02:2F0F:B111:6400:D4DC:4B50:3C32:8508 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text not belonging here