Secret Marriage

[Matthew_Holford]

You mention it was a joint publication by the Canonists in those countries, so was it specifically trying to address Canon Law as applied in the UK/Great Britain?

I don’t know. I hadn’t considered it in that light. It doesn’t say in the Preface that they slant their views in a British context. Mind you, their third example of a place where the state forbids religious marriage wouldn’t apply in the UK. So, no may be they aren’t looking at it from a British perspective.

 

[laszlo]

The one that I clearly outline in Post #1.

To conceal a change in one’s status in order to continue receiving a financial benefit one is no longer entitled to is criminal fraud.

These people exchange some vows in the presence of a priest and witnesses, but they do not want married status accepted by the state, which would result in loss of their benefits. They do not want automatic inheritance, automatic right to decide about the health issues of their unconscious partner, do not want to fill tax return as married filling jointly etc, etc

The state does not accepts their status as being married, that would require to be registered at the state, and get marriage license. (this is certainly true in Illionois and Hungary, over there since 1892)

What status, accepted by the state, is criminally concealed

The basic question is: **does the state have the right to control one’s conscience, **or only the actions with legal consequences?

 

[runningdude]

The state does not accepts their status as being married, that would require to be registered at the state, and get marriage license. (this is certainly true in Illionois and Hungary, over there since 1892)

What status, accepted by the state, is criminally concealed

The basic question is: **does the state have the right to control one’s conscience, **or only the actions with legal consequences?

I could become a problem in states (in the USA) with common law marriage, depending on the exact wording of the statute. Even though the marriage is “secret”, if they represent themselves to the public as in a marriage, then they may find themselves marriage recognized by the state (or at least the pension company might argue as much in court ).

These people exchange some vows in the presence of a priest and witnesses, but they do not want married status accepted by the state, which would result in loss of their benefits. They do not want automatic inheritance, automatic right to decide about the health issues of their unconscious partner, do not want to fill tax return as married filling jointly etc, etc

Even without common law marriage, they could still run afoul if they were not careful and acted as though they were married by assuming some of these benefits you list. I’m not married so I have no first hand experience here, but would companies require proof of marriage to be put on insurance policies etc? If they enjoy the legal benefits of marriage (such as these) without the consequences (loosing the pension), then they could face fraud charges.

There is a legal tradition I’ve heard about where if two people honestly think they are married, but due to technically screw the paperwork didn’t get processed/lost, the state would still consider them married despite the flaw. That principle might come into play as well.

I’m not trying to argue with your point that in theory, a the private celebration of a sacrament is no business of the state. However, I do think there are a few confounding issues that may come into play that you’d might like to chew on . This is, after all, an intellectual exorcise. (Anyone honestly trying to get marriage advice here would be banging their head!).

 

[Matthew_Holford]

These people exchange some vows in the presence of a priest and witnesses, but they do not want married status accepted by the state, which would result in loss of their benefits. They do not want automatic inheritance, automatic right to decide about the health issues of their unconscious partner, do not want to fill tax return as married filling jointly etc, etc

The state does not accepts their status as being married, that would require to be registered at the state, and get marriage license. (this is certainly true in Illionois and Hungary, over there since 1892)

What status, accepted by the state, is criminally concealed

The basic question is: **does the state have the right to control one’s conscience, **or only the actions with legal consequences?

Continuing to claim a state benefit from the state to which you are no longer entitled is a crime. It’s not a matter of the state being in control of your conscience. It’s theft, plain and simple!

 

[Secret_Square]

*These people exchange some vows in the presence of a priest and witnesses, but they do not want married status accepted by the state, which would result in loss of their benefits. They do not want automatic inheritance, automatic right to decide about the health issues of their unconscious partner, do not want to fill tax return as married filling jointly etc, etc

The state does not accepts their status as being married, that would require to be registered at the state, and get marriage license. (this is certainly true in Illionois and Hungary, over there since 1892)*

Well, that may be about to change, in some respects, at least as far as Illinois is concerned. You have probably heard about the new civil union law. These unions are open to both same- and opposite-sex couples. It wasn’t just “gay marriage” proponents that were in favor of civil unions – there were some senior citizens who believed civil unions could provide a solution of sorts to the dilemma of losing benefits.

You see, the federal government does not currently recognize civil unions. If a couple entered a civil union in Illinois, they would have all the state rights of a married couple (inheritance, healthcare decision making, etc.) but it would not change their status with the federal government as far as income taxes, Social Security, veteran’s or other benefits. (At least that’s what the common legal interpretation is right now.)

So if a widow with a gentleman friend didn’t want to lose her late husband’s Social Security, for example, she could enter a civil union with him and be married (sort of) in the eyes of the State of Illinois, but in the eyes of the federal government she would still not be married. Theoretically, I suppose, she could also go through a Church wedding with him and be married in the eyes of the Church. I say “theoretically” because no one has actually tried this yet and no one knows for sure what will happen when they do.