Talk:Common-law marriage

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This has been mentioned by a media organization: J. Venkatesan (October 22, 2010). "Government Counsel Takes Exception to Use of Word 'Keep' in Judgment". The Hindu Newspaper, India. Retrieved October 25, 2010.

Archives: 2003 to 2007

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)[reply]

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) Sutter Cane[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Split is not required, neither the article nor the section is very long. Op47 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The institue describe by me seems to be the same. If you think it is not, than by all means please say WHY this is not the right wiki page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I tried to fix the article; hope it's in a much better state now. It is very important that the reader understands that:

• 1. just because a couple cohabits and has automatic legal rights and obligations based on the length and nature of their relation (like in Canada) it does not mean that the couple is in a common law marriage: this quote is relevant[1]: "There is no such thing as common law marriage in Canada. No matter how long you live together, the law will not consider you married."
• 2. common law marriages can be contracted only in a very small number of jurisdictions, although various other forms of legal recognition of couples exist in many more jurisdictions.
• 3. once a couple is legally recognized as having a common law marriage, they are legally considered married for all purposes. This is what a true common law marriage is; and a true common law marriage is different from other forms of legal recognitions of couples.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AF36 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Common-law marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links 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 {{dead link}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Can someone contribute some information on a common-law marriage's effect on subsequent marriage? For example, Paul Bern married (statutory) Jean Harlow while still in a common-law marriage with Dorothy Millette. I have not seen any indication of a dispute over that; the implication is that a common-law marriage does not preclude subsequent marriage.

On a similar topic, is there a means to formally dissolve a common-law marriage?

BMJ-pdx (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A common-law marriage normally is only valid if it is recognized as such by a judge, which usually happens when one or both parties to the common-law marriage apply for a divorce (the only way to formally end a common-law marriage is through a formal divorce by a judge) or in case of inheritance upon the death of a common-law spouse when the other spouse asks for legal recognition. Being married to two people at the same time, including through common-law marriage, can lead to a bigamy charge and/or the invalidation of the subsequent marriage. But such scenarios are unlikely to occur in practice because of the very nature of what a common-law marriage is (simply living together as a couple is not sufficient for the relationship to be a common-law marriage). As the article explains, the term common-law marriage has a wider informal use to denote cohabiting relations that are not recognized legally as common-law marriage - the institution of common-law marriage has been abolished in nearly all jurisdictions that had it; it only survives in a few US states. As for Paul Bern, Jean Harlow and Dorothy Millette, I don't have much information, but was the relationship of Bern and Millette recognized as a common-law marriage by any state ? (as stated above, the term common-law marriage has wider informal use) In any circumstance, the statutory marriage of Bern and Harlow was very short, just about two months, because Bern died in September, 1932, and shortly after Millette died too, so if there were irregularities more time might have been necessary for them to be addressed.

On a different note, it would be better if the article focused more on the legal concept of common-law marriage, rather than describing cohabiting relations that grant various rights and responsibilities, and are recognized for various purposes, but are not common-law marriages (most of the article talks about countries which do not have common-law marriage).2A02:2F0F:B3FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:DA31 (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]