Marriage license - no marriage license - marriages

[joko104]

For nearly all of human history, people did not get permission or a license from the government to marry. I real terms, for economic or child custody disputes in a break up, nearly all courts draw no distinction for a couple that represented themselves as marriage with or without a marriage license. However, some people claim there is no such thing possible as being married without a marriage license and any man who would agree to this with a woman is an abusive man, even if that is what the woman wants.

It is possible to be married without a marriage license, or is that always just a man abusing a woman (for non-SMM marriages?

Personally, for legal age adults, I think marriage has nothing to do with government whatsoever and there should be no government laws or tax code based whether the couple got permission from the government and paid the permission fee. What say you?

 

[OrphanSlug]

If memory serves, history tells us the concept of a license to marriage is a 'conservative' construct.

 

[AGENT J]

To be married without legal agreements/protections/contract etc is not the smartest move and in 2021 is dangerous IMO

if it still exists anywhere in the states even "common law" is dangerous and not the smartest.
My parents were common law because it existed at the time, the moment my dad was sick with cancer every professional piece of advice he decided from HR, Life insurance, 2 lawyers etc etc all insisted even with a will that they should also be officially married just for her protection of rights, family, monetary and property issue. So my parents did a second marriage while my dad was basically on his death bed.

 

[KingLeo]

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife.
The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations.
The legal basis of a marriage license is strictly about upholding and preserving the parties legal obligations and rights.
Calling yourself 'married' without the legal connection of a marriage license does not protect either party in their rights regarding assets, children, etc. There are exceptions to this, i.e. see individual states laws regarding common law marriages.

 

[joko104]

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife.
The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations.
The legal basis of a marriage license is strictly about upholding and preserving the parties legal obligations and rights.
Calling yourself 'married' without the legal connection of a marriage license does not protect either party in their rights regarding assets, children, etc. There are exceptions to this, i.e. see individual states laws regarding common law marriages.

It is different in every state, but most family courts have no choice but to essentially treat it as a divorce, particularly about children.

Texas common law marriage laws were tough. Merely two people eligible to be married and representing themselves as married - were married. For example, if going to visit grandma or to stay at a motel saying they are married to get a room - poof, they were married and in a community property state. They didn't even have to be a dating couple.
Family courts were holding more trials over that than marriages with licenses for the obvious economic factor. Get you mom and 2 best friends to say he or she called the other wife or husband - and the other person could lose half of everything they have. So the went to having a common law marriage license, which means no ceremony and otherwise costs the same.
Florida is not a community property state, so unless married for many years reaching alimony potential, there was no economic factor - other than if married and the other one dies if the will gives the house to someone else or the children, the spouse still gets to stay there for life.
There are tax implications good and bad both ways. Many couples, particularly older or on welfare, will not get a license so not to combine. income.

 

[JasperL]

For nearly all of human history, people did not get permission or a license from the government to marry. I real terms, for economic or child custody disputes in a break up, nearly all courts draw no distinction for a couple that represented themselves as marriage with or without a marriage license. However, some people claim there is no such thing possible as being married without a marriage license and any man who would agree to this with a woman is an abusive man, even if that is what the woman wants.

It is possible to be married without a marriage license, or is that always just a man abusing a woman (for non-SMM marriages?

Personally, for legal age adults, I think marriage has nothing to do with government whatsoever and there should be no government laws or tax code based whether the couple got permission from the government and paid the permission fee. What say you?

There are thousands of laws that provide benefits or obligations if someone is "married" and the evidence of that acceptable to courts, employers, etc. is that marriage license. Those same laws don't provide benefits, etc. for someone's live in girlfriend, no matter how long they've lived together. True, there are 'common law' marriages, but those are difficult to prove, and depend on a couple holding themselves out in public as married, and are only effective in a small minority of states.

And the reason for the laws requiring a marriage license or equivalent is to bind the couple to that state of affairs. If I say I'm 'married' to my wife, but have no license, what happens if she leaves me? Is either of us entitled to alimony? Can she be held liable for debts? Who has custody of any children? Is it the wife, since she has no husband? Without licenses all those might require months or years of court time, and then the decision rests on what a single judge believes, based on lots of anecdotal evidence. So marriage licenses mean certainty, for employers, taxing authorities, creditors, hospitals, anything involving children etc. No license means uncertainty in all those areas. That's NOT a good thing for the couple or society.

 

[tshade]

For nearly all of human history, people did not get permission or a license from the government to marry. I real terms, for economic or child custody disputes in a break up, nearly all courts draw no distinction for a couple that represented themselves as marriage with or without a marriage license. However, some people claim there is no such thing possible as being married without a marriage license and any man who would agree to this with a woman is an abusive man, even if that is what the woman wants.

It is possible to be married without a marriage license, or is that always just a man abusing a woman (for non-SMM marriages?

Personally, for legal age adults, I think marriage has nothing to do with government whatsoever and there should be no government laws or tax code based whether the couple got permission from the government and paid the permission fee. What say you?

Legal protections are important. We have learned a lot since ancient times.

 

[joko104]

Legal protections are important. We have learned a lot since ancient times.

How does a marriage license offer legal protection?

A couple can address all potential relationship disputes including children by contract. Then even it if it goes to court, it is a simple contract lawsuit to enforce the contract.

So what is BEST is for people who want to part ways is to have lawyers, psychologists, court masters and mediators suck off all their money, requiring hate accusations to try to win in court and getting totally destroyed in divorce court. How does that protect anyone?

 

[ttwtt78640]

How does a marriage license offer legal protection?

A couple can address all potential relationship disputes including children by contract. Then even it if it goes to court, it is a simple contract lawsuit to enforce the contract.

So what is BEST is for people who want to part ways is to have lawyers, psychologists, court masters and mediators suck off all their money, requiring hate accusations to try to win in court and getting totally destroyed in divorce court. How does that protect anyone?

My girlfriend and I remain unmarried (after 15 years of cohabitation) for one reason. If (when?) her ex-husband (who is 9 years older than I am) dies then she would collect (inherit?) his Social Security benefits. That would increase her (our?) income by about $1K/month.

 

[HonestJoe]

For nearly all of human history, people did not get permission or a license from the government to marry.

True, though there was often some kind of involvement (including permission, if only implied) from religion, commonly acting as a pseudo-government in such times. I do suspect there was a strong distinction between the wealthy and noble compared to the common people but that was true for many civil and legal issues.

I real terms, for economic or child custody disputes in a break up, nearly all courts draw no distinction for a couple that represented themselves as marriage with or without a marriage license.

If you're now talking about the present day, I think this is very much not the case - there are plenty of legal situations where a legally recognised marriage is relevant. It is certainly true that unmarried couples are more often recognised in case law and legislation for simple practical reasons but that is far from meaning marriage is legally irrelevant.

However, some people claim there is no such thing possible as being married without a marriage license and any man who would agree to this with a woman is an abusive man, even if that is what the woman wants.

Really? I've never known of anyone suggesting any such thing. I've certainly seen people objecting to couples living together without getting married, but that is more often a religious/moral objection than a strictly legal one and I've not seen any "abusive man" angle to it.

Personally, for legal age adults, I think marriage has nothing to do with government whatsoever and there should be no government laws or tax code based whether the couple got permission from the government and paid the permission fee. What say you?

I'm not sure that is practical. The point of many of the legal recognitions of marriage is abut acknowledging the commitment and the implied rights and responsibilities. I don't think you can expect the law to treat "married" people differently to "unmarried" people without any formal way to define the difference and I don't think you'd really want to entirely eliminate all of the legal rights and responsibilities being married brings.

I think in most developed nations (certainly here in the UK), getting a marriage licence is largely a formality, part of the process of ensuring the people involved are of age, consenting and not already married. I don't think there is any system of them being refused outside those strict legal restrictions (and even then, I'm not sure that would be caught at the marriage licence stage).

 

[joko104]

My girlfriend and I remain unmarried (after 15 years of cohabitation) for one reason. If (when?) her ex-husband (who is 9 years older than I am) dies then she would collect (inherit?) his Social Security benefits. That would increase her (our?) income by about $1K/month.

There are many elderly around here. I was told some go thru a marriage ceremony without a license due to how it would affect government payments.

There is a very distant relative on the wife's side living with an undocumented immigrant as if husband and wife. They have 4 children. He makes $25 an hour as a contract labor apartment maintenance man plus about another $20K a year fixing up and selling cars, totaling about $70L a year. She receives over $3000 a month as a "single" mother of 4 young children. So they are making over $100K a year, maybe paying taxes on $50K, and taxpayers are kicking about $40K of their income.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There are many elderly around here. I was told some go thru a marriage ceremony without a license due to how it would affect government payments.

There is a very distant relative on the wife's side living with an undocumented immigrant as if husband and wife. They have 4 children. He makes $25 an hour as a contract labor apartment maintenance man plus about another $20K a year fixing up and selling cars, totaling about $70L a year. She receives over $3000 a month as a "single" mother of 4 young children. So they are making over $100K a year, maybe paying taxes on $50K, and taxpayers are kicking about $40K of their income.

No sense in turning down free (government) money. I make sure to keep my reported (1099) income below the level (about $11K) where I would have to pay self-employment income taxes.

 

[joko104]

True, though there was often some kind of involvement (including permission, if only implied) from religion, commonly acting as a pseudo-government in such times. I do suspect there was a strong distinction between the wealthy and noble compared to the common people but that was true for many civil and legal issues.

If you're now talking about the present day, I think this is very much not the case - there are plenty of legal situations where a legally recognised marriage is relevant. It is certainly true that unmarried couples are more often recognised in case law and legislation for simple practical reasons but that is far from meaning marriage is legally irrelevant.

Really? I've never known of anyone suggesting any such thing. I've certainly seen people objecting to couples living together without getting married, but that is more often a religious/moral objection than a strictly legal one and I've not seen any "abusive man" angle to it.

I'm not sure that is practical. The point of many of the legal recognitions of marriage is abut acknowledging the commitment and the implied rights and responsibilities. I don't think you can expect the law to treat "married" people differently to "unmarried" people without any formal way to define the difference and I don't think you'd really want to entirely eliminate all of the legal rights and responsibilities being married brings.

I think in most developed nations (certainly here in the UK), getting a marriage licence is largely a formality, part of the process of ensuring the people involved are of age, consenting and not already married. I don't think there is any system of them being refused outside those strict legal restrictions (and even then, I'm not sure that would be caught at the marriage licence stage).

There are pluses and minuses both ways. I think the bigger difference is probably psychological with good or bad results.

Marriage with a marriage license to some people's mind means it is FINAL! as an enormous change in their relationship. This can bring reassurance and does make separating a bigger decision maybe. But it also can put a person dangerously in a comfort zone being so certain the relationship is permanent that they take it for granted. Ultimately, that conduct can ruin the marriage.

We were unusual because we married without a license in a full blown church wedding. Over 300 people. Flowers, dressing up, Attendants. All the post marriage reception stuff. Even breakfast and brunch the next day. Only her parents knew there was no license (her father the minister). I think the reason they went along with this is because they didn't think the marriage would last 2 days - and for good reason - and maybe really hoped it wouldn't too. That was about 2 decades and a lot of kids ago. lol However, they are wonderful in-laws and 100% positive towards me and supportive overall.

Later we did enter into a lawyer prepped contract on economic and children matters including in case we part ways. Signed. notarized.

Most married people without a license have no ceremony and no written agreement. Rather they just evolve or into living together and then it just gently becoming "common law" marriage to their minds. While this makes parting ways easier. But it also means there isn't necessarily are hard line (filling for divorce) if breaking up, maybe making it easier to reverse the breakup - and maybe not having the "assurance" of a marriage license will cause both to be more attentive to the relationship.

The divorce procedure can be brutal and massively destructive economically and psychologically, particularly with children. That can happen of course in common law marriage, but they are less likely to think in terms of winning (destroying the other) in court maybe too. I suspect without the brutality of the fight over the kids and over economic issues it could be far easily for an unmarried couple to maybe reunite or have a more working friendly relationship even if they don't.

I've seen so many people shattered via divorce court - and then put themselves back together, act like they should have kept acting while married to find someone else, and basically end up in the same type marriage with a new person - next marriage same as the old marriage - with all the residual anger and damage. Often the grass isn't greener on the other side. Then again, sometimes it definitely is or the couple just evolved in different directions.

 

[joko104]

No sense in turning down free (government) money. I make sure to keep my reported (1099) income below the level (about $11K) where I would have to pay self-employment income taxes.

Yes! Isn't that like 17% ot 12.5%? That's a lot, even more for those it is on top of other taxes due.

 

[Quag]

Sure you can have a religious or civil ceremony without getting legally married but then you do not have the same rights and responsibilities as those that do.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes! Isn't that like 17% ot 12.5%? That's a lot, even more for those it is on top of other taxes due.

Even if you owe no federal income tax, the FICA self-employment ‘payroll’ tax is 15.3% (7.56% for the “employee” and 7.56% for the “employer”) on gross income. I had to pay that self-employment tax once (in 2006) and made sure never to let that happen again.

Most of my self-employment income is in unreported (tax free) cash, but my commercial customers (mostly landlords) must issue 1099’s so that they can write off (the labor portion of) my bills on their taxes.

 

[HonestJoe]

Marriage with a marriage license to some people's mind means it is FINAL! as an enormous change in their relationship. This can bring reassurance and does make separating a bigger decision maybe. But it also can put a person dangerously in a comfort zone being so certain the relationship is permanent that they take it for granted. Ultimately, that conduct can ruin the marriage.

I don't think it's legitimate or fair to blame the legal status of the relationship on that. If a couple can't handle the psychological shift to being married, especially if they've already been in a relationship for some time, I would suggest the issues lay elsewhere.

It's ultimately a personal choice (or should be!) for any individual couple as to whether they marry or not and either option can be perfectly successful for different people.

We were unusual because we married without a license in a full blown church wedding. Over 300 people. Flowers, dressing up, Attendants. All the post marriage reception stuff. Even breakfast and brunch the next day.

I'd suggest you did a significant proportion of what sets a marriage as final in peoples minds then. I'm not convinced just signing a form is the be-all and end-all. Happy it worked for you though.

Later we did enter into a lawyer prepped contract on economic and children matters including in case we part ways. Signed. notarized.

That's fine but there is no way that kind of contract can cover all of the various legal aspects associated with marriage, particularly around things like recognition as next-of-kin. Again, happy it's worked for you but I'm not convinced it's as perfect a solution as you're suggesting.

The divorce procedure can be brutal and massively destructive economically and psychologically, particularly with children.

I think the break-up of a relationship can be destructive, especially with children involved. I don't think a legal divorce is the only aspect (especially if you're effectively replicating that with a contract anyway). If anything, not having the established legal structure of divorce could potentially add complexity and create even more dispute and argument.

Bottom line is that I don't think your focus on marriage licences as a specific problem is justified.

 

[joko104]

I don't think it's legitimate or fair to blame the legal status of the relationship on that. If a couple can't handle the psychological shift to being married, especially if they've already been in a relationship for some time, I would suggest the issues lay elsewhere.

It's ultimately a personal choice (or should be!) for any individual couple as to whether they marry or not and either option can be perfectly successful for different people.

I'd suggest you did a significant proportion of what sets a marriage as final in peoples minds then. I'm not convinced just signing a form is the be-all and end-all. Happy it worked for you though.

That's fine but there is no way that kind of contract can cover all of the various legal aspects associated with marriage, particularly around things like recognition as next-of-kin. Again, happy it's worked for you but I'm not convinced it's as perfect a solution as you're suggesting.

I think the break-up of a relationship can be destructive, especially with children involved. I don't think a legal divorce is the only aspect (especially if you're effectively replicating that with a contract anyway). If anything, not having the established legal structure of divorce could potentially add complexity and create even more dispute and argument.

Bottom line is that I don't think your focus on marriage licences as a specific problem is justified.

I'm just stating an alternative viewpoint, not that there is a one-size-fits-all since each marriage is unique. Others have noted there can be huge other economic consequences of having a marriage license. Actually, my marriage I refer to likely has no relevancy to anyone else regardless. There are many pluses and negatives with a marriage license in relation to government.

Do you think when people marry with a license they know and agreed to subject themselves to "all of the various legal aspects associated with marriage, particularly around things like recognition as next-of-kin?" I suspect few couples, unless older, discuss legal consequences in relation to courts whatsoever. I do personally know lots and lots of couples come out of a divorce far worse than they went into it after the court system is done with them.

 

[Rexedgar]

The missus’ mother was appalled that we were living together, she had to explain it away to her friends. We visited her parents in FL about twenty three yers ago. The future MIL got all the ducks in a row, preacher, location and the after ceremony dinner/party. We appeared at the county courthouse and we obtained our license. i forget what the total charge were but I asked for a break-down of the fees. The biggest cut was for the battered women’s fund in FL. Every time we have gotten into an argument, we wonder if we have used up our donation to the fund.