Common-law marriage, the Church and Hope

  • Thread starter Thread starter jollybird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL…yes, Sanation…auto correct on overtime! Healing at the root.
 
He is a she and courtroom proceedings are binding. I’m not sure what you are talking about but it appears that you are simply being snarky for no particular reason.
 
I did not say marriage laws are unjust. I was talking about how people have gotten themselves into messes by creating common-law marriages and then wanting to return to communion with the church. I have no problem with obeying just laws and if the state requires a license to form a marriage in that state then that is fine. Not arguing any of that.
 
The benefits of marriage are from your spouse, not the government. Marriage and the benefits of marriages existed long before the state ever did meaning a person’s right to be married within certain conditions, is a human right, not one granted by the government.

Convalidation is pretty easy in the circumstance you mention; no living spouse, but what if there is? What if it is common-law which contrary to what people in this thread believe, is more common than you think? That is a legally recognized marriage. What if one spouse refuses consolidation? Is Radical Sanation automatic? No, it can be a long and often disheartening process. What if one spouse refuses children? Convalidation does not always occur so easily.
 
Last edited:
I imagine people such as I described might never imagine meeting a person like you and yet here you are.
 
Are you really a lawyer?

“the law allowing “common law marriage” is basically marriage law.” I don’t follow. Is there actually a law allowing common law?
 
While common law marriage can no longer be created in many states it is accepted by every state because of the Full Faith and Credit clause. The federal government via IRS and SSA both have directives for all of those in common-law marriages and in fact much of the case law surrounding the subject is from federal rulings. There have been legal divorce proceedings in all 50 states which end the legal status of common-law marriages created in other states. There is equal protection under the law and marriage contracted in any state is legal in any other state. There have been attempts to make exceptions but marriage, regardless of how formed, by civil law or by common law, is presumed valid until the state proves otherwise.
 
H
“jollybird said:
Are you really a lawyer?

“the law allowing “common law marriage” is basically marriage law.” I don’t follow. Is there actually a law allowing common law?
Click to expand...

First—rude.

Second—as you’ve noted, common law marriage is only allowed to be created in a few states. That act of allowing is part of marriage law. In most states, it’s prohibited.

If someone has no desire to participate in “state-defined” marriage, no one is requiring them to. But the state also defines benefits that accrue to marriage, including those related to inheritance.

The Church also defines marriage—and the problem with common-law marriage is that it is established by a period of time living together in what the Church considers sinful circumstances.
 
Perhaps I misunderstood your reason.

Let me see if I can put skin on it.

Joe and Sally want to enter the Catholic Church. Both were validly baptized in the United Methodist Church (in order to eliminate that side track).

This was Joe’s first marriage, his marriage at 1st UMC to Sally.

Sally, however, was married for a year when she was 17 years old to Bill.

After that, Sally lived with Peter for 10 years. They broke up, she met Joe and they have been married now for 20 years.

Are you concerned that their advocate has not dug in enough about that cohabitation?

Asking what state(s) they lived in? If they did spend a year in Atlanta in 95, making sure they never referred to one another as “husband and wife” or filed joint tax returns just in case they might have been accidentally common law married?
 
You have a nice day as well. If it was not a topic of interest to you, there was no need to join in the first place.
 
It was not meant to be rude although I see how it was and I apologize. However, there is no statute (law) in any state nor has there ever been one which “allows” common-law marriage. I would think a lawyer would understand that. That is the nature of common-law. SCOTUS ruled that license laws for marriage are directory in nature and therefore cannot be enforced unless or until common-law marriage is outlawed.

I don’t understand why people think I am taking a position on that sort of marriage when what I was offering is hope to people who have gotten themselves into messes because of common-law marriage and then want to return to the church. People attacked the post and poster as being unnecessary and it all snowballed from there. Frankly, I did find their comments to be rude in telling me that the post was not anything they have read about so it should not have been posted. Who are they to determine that? I found that odd.

I understand the problems with that form of marriage and also know that there does not have to be a prescribed period of time of cohabitation (although there may be one) in order to be married by common-law. People who have married themselves using proper wording(form) have been married without benefit of a license and do not do not cohabitant prior to marriage but it does happen.

The canonical lawyers of various marriage tribunals including the Vatican had long wondered how they would handle the request of a consolidation or radical sanation of a couple married by common-law. They now have grappled with the issue and decided to the benefit of the married couple. That is a good thing when the church welcomes people back into the fold, at least in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
jollybird said:
. People who have married themselves using proper wording(form) have been married without benefit of a license and do not do not cohabitant prior to marriage but it does happen.
Click to expand...
This is so rare that it’s virtually never going to be something a Tribunal will deal with. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but the vast majority of common law marriages result from a period of cohabitation.
 
First of all LittleLady, I appreciate your attempt at understanding the issue. I don’t understand why people belittle the issue when there are real people who have made mistakes and are trying to get help.

No. Sally wants to RETURN to full communion with the Catholic Church; Joe sees no value in the church. Both are validly baptized Catholics. Neither had ever been married before and were in no way related by blood. There were no impediments to a the two being legally married by law or by church.

Joe and Sally, for whatever their reasons, decided to marry themselves with out obtaining a license from the state which in their state is still legal to do; no license required. No judge involved and no clergy involved. They signed a marriage certificate and from that day forward, in all of life, held themselves out as husband and wife.

Joe and Sally raised children together and after 20+ years of family life, during which time I might add, not one person ever questioned their marriage, Sally wanted to return to the church. How could that happen? Sally was told that she should divorce her husband in a court of law and break up an otherwise happy family. Sally was told to get a license and convallidate but Sally’s home state(where the marriage was created and can still be created) and all surrounding jurisdictions (all of which have statutorily outlawed the creation of common-law marriage within their state lines) refused to grant Sally a marriage license because she was in fact already married to Joe. So you see, even the states where you cannot create a CL marriage recognize them as being married and refused to issue a license. They file joint taxes, own several properties, helped each other at the hospital when they were sick - docs don’t even ask about the status of marriage.

Sally’s pastor had no idea what to do although a canon lawyer himself. Sally did her own research with both canon law and civil law and went back a year later with stacks of case law and a familiarity with canon law and was referred to the marriage tribune where all was settled by the Vatican

The point is that I have read on here stories of people in great duress over the situation of their irregular marriage have been almost hopeless. I don’t want them to feel that and want them to know there may be hope for their situation.

I don’t understand why people would make the comments as they did - not a real problem, why post this? not gonna argue…(actually the best idea), OP must be one of those who dose not thing court rulings are binding and some crap about fringe on a flag…huh?
 
Well, it has been dealt with by the Vatican. And yes, the marrying yourself by common-law in such a way that you can pin-point time and place is rare in common-law but not as rare as you think. But just as cohabitation with sexual relations before marriage is sinful but forgivable, so is cohabitation in a common-law marriage forgivable. The question is how the marriage be made valid in the eyes of God and the church through canon law. A radical sanation heals at the root meaning the defect was removed retroactively while a consolidation starts the clock on the marriage.

There are states which actually allow you “register” you informal marriage which occurred without form/words etc.

My entire point is that the church DOES deal with this and for those I have worked with and those who have posted over the years feeling such guilt and stress, there is hope.

Having people on here who I presume are fellow Catholics complain that the post should not exist because they don’t see it as a real problem startles me. I would think that if even one fell Catholic were troubled and trying tofind help, that people would hold their snarkiness in and offer assistance OR better yet, just move along to something of interest.
 
Yes common-law marriages are defined by law. State law in the US, provincial law in Canada.

In British Columbia, since 2013, a couple that has lived together 2 years or more is considered married common-law. They have the same rights as married couples when it comes to spousal support, property and inheritance rights.

In Alberta it’s known as an Adult Interdependent relationship and is governed by the ADULT INTERDEPENDENT RELATIONSHIPS ACT.
it’s three years or more or you have a child. No property rights but they have inheritance rights.

Saskatchewan has 2 years as the milestone and you have the same rights upon dissolution of the relationship as you would have if you’d gone through a ceremony.

Manitoba, 3 years, fewer if you have a child. You can register your common-law union with Vital Statistics. If you do and you break up you must register the dissolution of the union with V.S. or you can’t get married again. Same property rights as married.

Ontario, 3 years, fewer if you have a child and have cohabited with some permanence. No inheritance or property rights, they take out of the relationship what they brought into it or what they jointly acquired.

Quebec doesn’t recognize common-law relationships. No rights whatsoever.

New Brunswick, 3 years, 1 if you have a child. Rights to child and spousal support but no property or inheritance rights.

Nova Scotia 2 years together gives you the right to spousal support. No property or inheritance rights. BUT, register your common-law marriage as a domestic partnership with Vital Statistics and you acquire the same rights as a married couple.

Prince Edward Island, 3 years together or have a child. Spousal support but no inheritance or property rights.

Newfoundland and Labrador, 2 years. Spousal support but no inheritance or property rights.
 
One thing, The fact that Sally and Joe were baptized Catholic is an impedement to a legal marriage outside the Church, so, they did have one.

These people went out of their way to establish a Common Law marriage. I am sure they would have said at the first meeting about returninig to the Church “we are in a common law marriage”.
Because of the prior baptism, it would need to be convalidated or radically sanated.

It is sad that your friends experienced a priest who was not aware of CL marriages, it was part of my Tribunal Advocate training, I also had prior knowledge as one of my extended family lived in a CL marriage.

Maybe you could offer to train at the next Advocate training in your Diocese.
 
Thank you, Little Lady, for the well thought out and compassionate response. Yes, all of what you said is true about that couple and it was sanated and later Joe returned to the church as well.

It is a problem that others suffer and sadly, because of some people’s irritable responses and occasionally snarky remarks, many just stay away from finding help. That is why I posted in the first place…to help those few who have gotten themselves into a mess with this sort of marriage.

I appreciate your kindness as do I am sure some others who have tried to wade through this stream.
 
Phemie, I don’t know anything about the laws of any country except the US where common-law is not defined in state law. Common law is just that, common and is based on case law and old English common law. The only states which define the parameters of marriage are those 40+ states which have created a statute specifically outlawing the creation of common-law marriage. If the state did not eliminate marriage by common law with a specific statute then it is still legal in that state to create a CL marriage - all this according to our Supreme Court.

Many people do not understand the difference between a common law and a civil law and there is a big difference…one was created by statute and one was created by common practice. Those created by common practice were not written down but ruled upon in courts as being commonly accepted.

For instance. It has never been legal to rape someone and that was commonly accepted. However, if someone consented to sex, it was not rape. But what about children? Could a child of any age consent to sex? Finally at some point in history of the US, society said, no, they could not and created a statute that says that any child under a certain age (determined by each state) could under no circumstances, consent to sex. Hence we have what is referred to as statutory rape meaning the child was under the legal age of consent.

That has nothing to do with marriage but I reference it as a way to show the difference between common law and civil/criminal law which has been codified. Common law marriage has never been codified or it would not be common-law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top