How Long Should A Couple Live Together Before It Is Considered A Common Law Marriage?
I am speaking about couple living together and not married.
A) one year
B) three years
C) five years
D) ten years
E) never
Let’s just assume no children are involved.
I ask because people say they are afraid of losing half if not more after a divorce. Yet the laws for common marriage basically can do the same thing. Do you agree with common law marriages?
Related Posts
Tags : Before, Common, Considered, Couple, Live, Long, Marriage, Should, Together
The whole question makes me feel a little weird, because on one hand, it’s ridiculous that people can have legitimate, recognized marriages that last but a couple of months, yet people who decide not to get the legal recognition of their relationship have to be together longer in order to “prove” something. That strikes me as incredibly unfair.
January 27, 2010 2:27 pm | #1I think the whole idea of common law marriages is becoming wildly difficult to define as we start getting into new views of commitment, cohabitation, and couples choosing not to get married. It’s just hard.
I think never.
January 27, 2010 2:51 pm | #2Yet last year BBC showed a story that in India now, cohabitation for a period of more than 12 months is common law marriage. And a woman can claim rape after sex if they decided to marry in future but did not. And the common law wife gets all the benefits of legal wife. And the country has complete alimony system.
I do yeah, if you’re living together as a married couple would, you should get the same benefits that married couples do. If it means you also could be ****** in a breakup, then you take that with the good as far as taxes and whatnot.
January 27, 2010 3:16 pm | #3Three years seems decent, but I like 5 better. Tough call, happy I’m not the one who decided it, really.
I guess 5 feels safer, I’d say 5.
I’m ok with common law marriage, but that is probably because I wouldn’t live with someone who wasn’t contributing anything. (Nor would I BE someone who wasn’t contributing anything.) So splitting things evenly after a breakup would be logical, not unfair. Each takes what was theirs before, and then split what was acquired together. How does that not make sense, except to an extremely greedy person?
January 27, 2010 3:56 pm | #4I think its seven. I’m fine with that. The common law is mostly for if you have children and what to do after the “spouse” passes away. It makes sense to a degree, especially if you have children. I suppose there could be a different law for those couples who DON’T have children.
January 27, 2010 4:04 pm | #5As far as the government is concerned, never.
January 27, 2010 4:28 pm | #6Marriage needs to become more of a private sector and religious thing if it is to remain relevant going forward. Until then, I can’t recommend either marriage or cohabitation for men in the West.
Most states don’t recognize common law marriage anymore…and those that did it was only 7 years.
January 27, 2010 4:43 pm | #7Personally, I say never. Marriage is marriage…and living together is living together.
E- i don’t believe in “common law marriage” I think its ludicrous if women think I’m going to pay them to be my ex wife or ex common law wife. Good luck.
January 27, 2010 4:53 pm | #8I do not agree with common law marriages, I believe in REAL marriages in which someone proposes and the other person accepts and then goes on to make it official.
January 27, 2010 5:42 pm | #9I don’t believe in common law marriages. You either get married or you don’t. Make the commitment or don’t.
January 27, 2010 6:03 pm | #10i think it’s 7 years here in ky i think people should live together before they get married that’s how people know each other.
January 27, 2010 6:56 pm | #11The minimum. Six months?
January 27, 2010 7:35 pm | #12E never
January 27, 2010 7:51 pm | #13