T
tuffsmurf
Guest
So sometimes eastern catholics view the couple as the ministers of the sacrament?
- Status
T
TomH1
Guest
I’m surprised it was covered at all especially in a different jurisdiction. The post where you’d said it had existed made it sound as if it were relatively recent. I don’t know what you think of the Wikipedia article as a whole but that does say that the term ‘common law marriage’ didn’t exist when the English law abolishing it came into force.
I agree most, if not all, common law jurisdictions base their legal system on the English one. However, I know you have laws in the USA we don’t have here. So, whilst common law is a name given to a legal system as compared to the civil law systems there remains three separate areas of jurisprudence in the UK. Scottish Law is also quite influenced by European civil law systems.
I agree most, if not all, common law jurisdictions base their legal system on the English one. However, I know you have laws in the USA we don’t have here. So, whilst common law is a name given to a legal system as compared to the civil law systems there remains three separate areas of jurisprudence in the UK. Scottish Law is also quite influenced by European civil law systems.
V
Vico
Guest
Ministers of the sacrament is not a term I have heard used in the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Byzantine rite of Betrothal and of Crowning were combined into one Ritual of Marriage in the seventeenth century by Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. The betrothal includes a ring ceremony and a priestly blessing. Metropolitan Mohyla inserted an explicit public exchange of the marital vows, which before the ancient rite of joining the hands on the Gospel Book and is followed by the crowning ceremony. The Gospel Book represents Christ. The crowning that follows symbolizes the “glory and honor” of Christian marriage. The marriage becomes officially recognized by the Church in the crowning. Some portion of these three may be missing without a priest.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
Byzantine =/= eastern. My experience is with syriac catholics.
V
Vico
Guest
The canons (CCEO) call eastern (oriental), all five traditions: Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Constantinopolitan.
Last edited:
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
The byzantine are eastern, but not all eastern are byzantine. Hence the =/= mark.
V
Vico
Guest
I understand. I am only commenting because I posted canon laws from the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches and they apply to Byzantine (Constantinople tradition) as well as Syriac (Antiochene tradition).
T
twf
Guest
This is an interesting concept. In Canada, we have common law spouses, but its a distinct category from marriage. Any couple who live together for a certain period (the period may vary by province, but I think its generally 6 months to a year) are automatically considered “common law spouses” and enjoy the benefits of marriage, but without the legal status of marriage…if they go their separate ways, they cease to be common law spouses without any need for paperwork or a divorce. Growing up as an Evangelical Protestant, we never considered “common law couples” to be married…we, frankly, considered them fornicators. As a Catholic, its never occurred to me to investigate whether the Church’s position may be different.
If you’re sponsoring a spouse for immigration purposes, both a common law spouse or an actual husband/wife are valid categories, but they are two distinct categories and you must select the correct one in the paperwork.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
In the US jurisdictions where common law marriage can be contracted, the couple is actually married. To marry someone else, they would have to get a divorce.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
This is usually how mormon fundamentalists get charged with polygamy. They don’t seek multiple marriage certificate and only have private ceremonies, but they are still considered legally married since they present themselves as married.
K
kapp19
Guest
It seems that the minimal requirement would be that there is some kind of actual consent/exchange of vows, even if privately - or else there is no marriage even by nature, regardless of civil law (which law could even allow coercion).
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Do understand that each US state inherited the Common Law as it stood in 1789, until modified by that state (and similarly for other English speaking countries). It does matter.
I went through the earlier parts of the article, which seemed reasonably accurate, but not the entire thing.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. The term wouldn’t make a lot of sense before it was distinguishing such marriages.
Again, it’s “the Common Law of England”, not of the UK or Britain. It unified the widely divergent laws of England back then–not suddenly, but bit by bit, as more and more could be brought into the King’s courts instead of baronial courts (which really helped when it was your There used baron who had wronged you . . .)
Even after England consolidated to a single kingdom, law was all over the place. There were at least ten kingdoms at one point, and I don’t know if that included anything north of Hadrian’s wall or not.
T
TomH1
Guest
In this case I talking about common law as a form of legal system rather than the common law of a single sovereign state. I do believe I did draw attention to the fact that there is not a single law or legal system for the entire UK.
The number of kingdoms varied depending on who had won the latest battle. Of course, after England was united as single kingdom there were of course no more separate kingdoms. That wouldn’t have included north of Hadrian’s Wall because that would put you in Scotland, a separate country.
I’m not saying it doesn’t matter at all. It’s history and can provide the background to current law. What I meant was I’d have thought things would have focused more on the law in force, the law as a lawyer you’d be using, and not older, possibly obsolete, laws.
1
1ke
Guest
Since common law marriage is available in 8 states and DC, it makes total sense that it would be studied in law school. US federal law requires the other 42 states to recognize the marriages of those 8, so a common law married couple in Texas who move to Wisconsin are still married.
T
TomH1
Guest
Yes, I agree it would make great sense for an American law student to study the state laws of the US states in a US law school. However, it was not US federal or state laws to which I referred. I was talking about being taught about obsolete laws of England. I would be much obliged if you would respond to things I have actually written.
D
dochawk
Guest
But we do use it on a daily basis.
For example, AFAIK all jurisdictions still ue the common law definitions of negligence
with its four elements, which are defined by several hundred years of caselaw, and except for special cases, simply are referred to, rather than define, when codified.
Or consider states such as Nevada, who by statute define criminal penalties for most crimes, but simply name the crimes, retaining the Common Law definitions.
The CL remains in full force and effect in the US except as repealed in that jurisdiction. In some, such as NY and CA, there is heavy codification, while in others, such as NV and NM, it is minimal.
A few years ago, I found myself citing an 1825 USSC case (which referred to “the Rule”, while we were discussing the bankruptcy version of the federal codified version of it).
I’d be shocked and stunned if England (or even any of Britain or the UK) is completely separate from the Common Law of England.
And, again, the Common Law is very much not obsolete or archaic; it is very much the bulk of the law in most (all?) English speaking countries to this day.
(and, as a practical matter, was a dominant factor in England’s rise to commercial power and economic dominance [which in turn let it afford the fleets to rule the sea], and in the relative success today of her former possessions as compared to those of the other colonial powers).
[in particular, the Common Law is pro-commerce, while Roman Law was anti-corporate and against the elite engaging in commerce]
Last edited:
- Status