Pope Denounces Cohabitation as Equal to Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No wonder so many people love this man. May God protect him as he leads his flock.
 
I’m not surprised JPII would say this, but I still am glad he did:thumbsup:.

In the wild, rebellious days of my college years and thereafter, I committed a lot of sins but cohabitation wasn’t one of them. Even a scumbag like me saw that it is problematic. I feel sorry for couples who live together as a precursor to marriage, using the “test drive” reasoning.

The problems with cohabitation are probably self-evident to most on this forum, so I won’t try to explain unless someone has specific questions or objections or is looking for arguments against cohabitation.

Thank you for the article link.

Alan
 
Makes sense that he would do so. Good for him.

But that raises the question about our country then…don’t heterosexual couples, living together but not married, get civil ‘rights’? Aren’t there many states where if you live together for x many of years you are entitled to the legal benefits of being married in terms of property, etc? Isn’t that what the gay couples are seeking now? Not necessarily ‘marriage’ but the same legal benefits accorded to heterosexual non-married couples? And in that context, is what they’re asking for really that outlandish?
 
Some states have what is called “common law” marriage, but for that to occur they have to show proof from witnesses that they refered to each other as husband and wife and thought of themselves as married.

They just can’t share a lease and a joint bank account for a few years and get that type of recognition.

People living together get really upset that I have no problem stating that our marriage is held to a different standard even though they might be living together longer then I’ve been married to my husband.

If they want to be seen as married, nothing is stopping them from marriage. It isn’t my problem they refuse to make a promise to each other.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
But that raises the question about our country then…don’t heterosexual couples, living together but not married, get civil ‘rights’? Aren’t there many states where if you live together for x many of years you are entitled to the legal benefits of being married in terms of property, etc? Isn’t that what the gay couples are seeking now? Not necessarily ‘marriage’ but the same legal benefits accorded to heterosexual non-married couples? And in that context, is what they’re asking for really that outlandish?
Click to expand...
Dear YinYangMom,
Code: 
 I agree.  What they're asking doesn't seem much worse than what we have here.
I think you are referring to common law marriages, which can be entered into in Alabama, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Other states have recognized them in the past but don’t now.

Laws vary by states, but usually: 1) the parties must have the legal capacity to marry (for example, heterosexual, of age, not already married etc) 2) they must have intent to marry, in that they intend to be husband and wife and commnunicate that intent to each other, 3) they must live together as husband and wife, and 4) they must publicly present themselves as husband and wife.
Code: 
 Contrary to popular belief, there is no set time limit as long as the above conditions are met.
I am a part-time tax preparer, and if a Kansas couple comes in and tells me they meet those four conditions and wish to file a joint tax return, then I can file them the return and then as far as the government is concerned they are legally married. Technically if they are common law married I cannot file a return for them as single, but I pretty much have to take their word for their living arrangements and what they tell me. There is no such thing as a common law divorce. Once couples enter into this arrangement – joint tax return or not – if they wish to become single they have to get a legal divorce.

BTW, sometimes it isn’t advantageous, at least from a tax perspective, to be married. One couple came in who were living together and had one child together and two children by another man and would not admit to meeting the common law marriage conditions. If they were married I could have gotten them about a $200 tax refund, but by filing each of them a return as unmarried they walked out with a couple thousand dollars. How? One’s income was around $10,000 and the other’s about 13,000 or 16,000 (I can’t remember the exact numers), putting them in the “sweet spot” for Earned Income Credit. By assigning the children differently as dependents as for EIC (which have different criteria) and filing one as Head of Household and the other Single, we were able to maximally reduce their taxable income and increase their Earned Income Credit. Voila! This totally blew away my previous imagination as to how bad the “marriage penalty” can be.
Alan
 
Any sexual activity outside the parameters of Holy Matrimony is gravely sinful. It cheapens the serious and self-giving commitment that is found in a valid marriage. It also is in a sense selfish in that the respective partners are necessarily not giving fully of themselves. In addition, the chances of a future successful marriage (assuming the live-in partners eventually marry) is significantly diminished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top