Non-Common Law Marriage States

[mystic]

I'm sure Michiganders in general don't even know it's a law. As Chris notes, though, the authorities know what tools they have for applying pressure to families.

 

[Joe Picker]

:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
• Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
• Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
• Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
• Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Utah

 

[Cap]

:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
• Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
• Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
• Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
• Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Utah

Florida

 

[paterfamilias]

:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
• Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
• Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
• Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
• Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Utah

Texas is funny but probably not unique in that it has informal marriage now rather than common law wherein you have to go sign a register and meet all the same requirements you would for a license i.e. they are defacto granting you permission to wed just like with a license (grossly offensive notion but that is a different topic). The thing is though that judges still refer to common law marriage in court and one of them who is a personal acquaintance lost a bet with me on the topic. He had, close to a decade after the change, never heard about informal marriage. This has been quite some time so I hope most of them are aware of it now but they still seem to operate as if common law marriage is being recognized in parallel with informal. The general population seems to be totally unaware of the distinction.

 

[rockfox]

He had, close to a decade after the change, never heard about informal marriage. This has been quite some time so I hope most of them are aware of it now but they still seem to operate as if common law marriage is being recognized in parallel with informal. T

Which is sort of funny as that's pretty much the essence of common law marriage.

And from our common law legal heritage the whole idea of marriage licenses is absurd. Although informal is better.

Here is the thing though, all of this can change. Law follows culture most of the time. At their heart laws are about protecting people and cultural norms. Just like we went from all common law marriage to all statutory license to informal unlicensed; things can change again. We are part of that change.

 

[paterfamilias]

The fortunate thing is that there seems to be all the more acceptance all the time. None of my family or friends were particularly surprised by my walking this path. There was more concern expressed about making sure that I choose good women who will be good wives and mothers than anything else. Well that and my father opined that I was either the bravest or the craziest man he had ever met. To be fair though I have had far better marriages than he did so it is to be expected that he might think the idea a bit addle-brained.