What do you guys think of ‘common law marriage’?

Frankly the concept seems to be weird to me borderline insane especially in countries where the government decides for you if you are married. From what I’ve read common law marriage basically developed because back in the day there were often in some areas no priest available to marry a couple, so the couple would just live together as husband and wife, officiating their marriage in eyes of the law later.

This article about the cons of common law marriage pretty much sums up my belief on it:

SALT LAKE CITY — It was created to help people become legally married; today, it mostly exists to help couples separate.

But common-law marriage, the centuries-old means by which a couple who live together can be pronounced married without having said “I do,” is disappearing across the U.S. — except in Utah and a handful of other states. South Carolina is the most recent state to abolish common-law marriage, with a ruling from the state Supreme Court that calls the institution outdated and paternalistic.

“We have concluded the institution’s foundations have eroded with the passage of time, and the outcomes it produces are unpredictable and often convoluted,” Justice Kaye Hearn wrote in an opinion issued July 24. Historically, common-law marriage conveyed legitimacy to a union when two people wanted to be married but had no access to a minister or courthouse. Over time, the goal for some couples became more practical: for example, to reap the financial benefits of marriage, such as a lower tax bracket, health care benefits or an inheritance.

But today it’s often sought only when couples are separating or one partner dies, and defenders of common-law marriage say it provides much-needed protection for the growing number of couples who live together without getting married.

“There are realities in human life created by people living together for a period of time and having their financial affairs knitted together and then having them separated. There are perceived unfairnesses, sometimes, when that separation happens,” said Mary Corporon, a Salt Lake City attorney. “Having a common-law provision, or a nonsolemnized marriage, creates some possibility for redress of what people think is unfair about the situation,” she said.

But others say that when states recognize common-law marriage, a court can declare a person married retroactively, even if the person never wanted to be married.

“I see it as a bit of a nightmare,” said Doug Anderson, practice manager for Cordell & Cordell in Clearfield, Utah, adding, “The reasons behind it (existing), in my mind, have all disappeared.”

With South Carolina’s highest court pronouncing common-law marriage a relic, legislators in Utah and and other states where the institution still exists could face pressure to do the same. But they’ll also be asked to consider laws that could replace it.

A group of legal scholars from across the U.S. is working on a legal framework that all states could adopt to govern the dissolution of nonmarital, long-term relationships. It’s needed, they say, as the number of American couples who are living together increases, especially among the youngest adults.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2018, more Americans between the ages of 18-24 lived with an unmarried partner (9%) than lived with a spouse (7%). And just 30% of today’s young adults (ages 18-34) are married, compared to 59% in 1978, the Census Bureau says.

Officially, Utah says it doesn’t recognize common-law marriage but instead recognizes “marriage not solemnized,” which is essentially the same thing to anyone without a law degree.

Under the statute, couples of legal age to be married, who live together, “mutually assume marital rights, duties and obligations,” and “hold themselves out as” husband and wife are said to be in a nonsolemnized marriage.

But that language is rarely used when cases come before the court, as when the girlfriend of the late Salt Lake County Recorder Gary Ott asked for recognition of their relationship as a marriage after Ott’s death.

Corporon, who has been involved in multiple common-law marriage cases, including the Ott case, said this is typical, and that people don’t usually seek legal recognition of their relationship as a marriage because they want to finally have a wedding or celebrate a milestone anniversary.

“If you think it through, whatever possible reason is there to declare a marriage, other than to get money or property?” Corporon said.

That was the motivation of the South Carolina man whose petition for a common-law marriage led to the recent Supreme Court ruling there.

In that case, the couple had lived together for about 20 years and had two children together but never married. After the couple broke up over an affair, the man sought to have their relationship declared a common-law marriage so that their assets could be “equitably” divided. In a trial that lasted more than a week, attorneys presented evidence that showed the couple had joint accounts and owned property that was titled in both of their names. The man also testified that they had introduced themselves as husband and wife on occasion.

The woman, however, had witnesses who testified that she had said she would never get married again, and tax records showed that both had filed as single.

A family court judge ruled that a common-law marriage had been in effect since 1989, when the couple first moved in together. Appeals eventually took the case before the state Supreme Court, which not only reversed the family court’s decision and awards, but abolished common-law marriage altogether, noting that the South Carolina Legislature had repeatedly considered this, as far back as 1989.

In her opinion, Hearn wrote that a major problem with common-law marriage is that the concept is so ambiguous that most people cannot define what exactly it is. Moreover, even people who seek a common-law marriage sometimes admit that they have presented themselves as married over the years if marriage offered them an economic advantage.

“What is truly astonishing is not that parties take inconsistent positions to gain advantage, but that they seem to see nothing particularly inappropriate in their chameleon-like behavior. We must conclude that this court can no longer place its imprimatur on a rule which seems to be a breeding ground for such conduct and its attendant disrespect for the law itself,” Hearn wrote.

The universal ambiguity about what constitutes a common-law marriage is a key argument of opponents of the doctrine. Anderson, a Utah attorney who works for Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide firm specializing in men’s cases, said the Utah law is maddeningly vague.

I’ve looked how different countries do common law marriage, to get a better understanding of how it works. In the US common law marriage or some variation of it is legal only in Utah, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, Oklahoma and Texas. The DC and New Hampshire only provide option for common law marriage to be recognized after the death of a spouse. Several states have abolished common law marriage recently such as South Carolina and Alabama due to legal murkiness of the law.

I’ve looked up the legal standards for common law marriage in Texas, and it basically says if a couple wants to treated as married in eyes of the law without officially getting a marriage certificate they need to:

1) You had to agree/consent to be married. 2) You had to live together as husband and wife. 3) You had to represent to others that you were married.

This criteria seems to be pretty straightforward but I could understand how it can become vague in a contested he said she said context.

I’ve looked up common law marriage in other countries too. In Canada it’s legal with the exception of Quebec, common law marriage or common law partners as they define it are entitled to get the same legal rights as married couples if they:

1. the couple has been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;

2. the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption; or one of the couple has custody and control of the other partner's

3. child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

In the some provinces like Ontario for example common law spouses can be entitled to things like spousal support after a breakup if they have lived together for at least 3 years continuously or if they have a child together.

In Australia and New Zealand I found that common law marriages are treated as defectors relationships. This means that couples that live together and assume certain domestic qualities that resemble a married couple can be treated as a married couple under the discernment of a family court judge.

Common law marriage or some form of it also exists in other countries like Norway, the Netherlands, India, some South American countries, England, Scotland, Israel etc, however most European countries or countries the world don’t have any laws pertaining to common law marriage, that at least I could find.

So I’m curious what do you guys think of this law? Does your country or state have common law marriage? What are the criteria and requirements? Do you think it’s fair or outdated?