Pregnant woman fired for not marrying fiance

[Jethro Bodine]

No you mis-understand the law. Nine states still have legal Common Law marriage, seven others made laws that take in special consideration for religious groups such as the Quakers in PA, because they did that all people can legally also choose that option.
ALL states recognize any legal marriage from another state.
If your friend and your brother were married in a state where Common Law is legal then every other state recognizes those marriages as being legal. They don't have a choice. Per the Supreme Court ruling.

That is why the Supreme Court was being pushed to make a ruling defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. They refused to do it. If they had,, we wouldn't be in this mess with same-sex marriage.
My state tried to get that definition written into our state constitution several yrs. ago but the voters said no.

I'm not sure you're understanding my POV about all this. But that could be my fault because I will confess I understood common law marriage as two people living together with no thought of marriage whatsoever and the state deciding for them they will now be legally recognized as being married after a certain period of time whether they want to be or not.

I thought that was going to happen to my son and my brother in their respective relationships in their states. I see that is NOT going to happen. They will remain legally unmarried until they purposely get married. Common law marriage according to that definition is NOT recognized in their states. And that is the common law 'marriage license-less' marriage I resist in the church. If I was a pastor I'd turn you right around at the door and say come back when you're really married.

 

[Deborah13]

I was not aware that there was such a thing as a Common Law marriage. Interesting.

You have a better understanding of much of our history than most public high school grads.
Here's an interesting background on Common Law and how it was adapted in the colonies and later the states. It is not about marriages under Common Law, just about what Common Law compared to civil law and how both came about.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I was not aware that there was such a thing as a Common Law marriage. Interesting.

I was not aware of one that you purposely apply for. But rather one that is imposed on you after a certain amount of time, like three, or seven years. And imposed on you for legal purposes, nothing else. If I was a pastor I would not recognize the latter as a legitimate marriage--even if the couple agreed with it being imposed on them.

 

[Kathi]

Then aren't you turning your nose up to this command? Romans 13:1-2
Submit to Government
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I was not aware of one that you purposely apply for. But rather one that is imposed on you after a certain amount of time, like three, or seven years. And imposed on you for legal purposes, nothing else. If I was a pastor I would not recognize the latter as a legitimate marriage--even if the couple agreed with it being imposed on them.

I never knew this existed before this thread, but to my current understanding the requirements of a common law marriage include outward signs of marriage. I couldn't name the requirements, but I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread that these include wedding rings. (And from the sounds of it, what they do in private doesn't have much to do with it from the law's standpoint.)

 

[Obadiah]

A long time ago my wife and I were new to a neighborhood and went to talk to the pastor of a local church. In the process of our conversation about coming to his church, he asked if we were married. (He was quite a fundamentalist by the way.) We said yes, and that was the end of the questioning. We attended his church for about 9 years and the subject was never brought up again. Since there was no reason for him to doubt my answer, had he asked me to prove it by showing him a marriage license I could have done that but would not have. In my mind if he considers me so dishonest that he can't take my word for something like that when there's no evidence I'm lying, then I would fear I would constantly be in a position of needing to prove myself in his church and would never be trusted. I would not be in a church with a pastor that showed that kind of distrust for no reason.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not sure you're understanding my POV about all this. But that could be my fault because I will confess I understood common law marriage as two people living together with no thought of marriage whatsoever and the state deciding for them they will now be legally recognized as being married after a certain period of time whether they want to be or not.

That is a common (no pun intended) misunderstanding that many people have.
I don't know of ANY common law state who determines common law marriage by time living together, that would be immoral and encouraging immoral behaviors.

I thought that was going to happen to my son and my brother in their respective relationships in their states. I see that is NOT going to happen. They will remain legally unmarried until they purposely get married. Common law marriage according to that definition is NOT recognized in their states.

Did they live in another state where common law marriage is legal at the time they declared their marriage status? If so, their current residing state does recognize their marriages as legal.
If they have never lived in a common law state and fulfilled the requirements of that state, then no, their current state would not recognize their marriages as legal.
What Common Law marriage does is leave the state out of the marriage contract. The contract is between a man and a woman. In the case of Christians this contract includes God.
In civil law marriage the contract is between the man, the woman, and the state. In the case of Christians the man, woman, God, and state.
Two people could be married by a JP or pastor and that marriage be registered at the county courthouse. There is no stipulations that they have to cohabit or represent to the community that they are husband and wife in anyway, to the public. Common Law marriage is more strict. One MUST cohabit, one MUST let it be known in the community that they are husband and wife. If they don't they are not legally married under Common Law.

 

[Kathi]

A long time ago my wife and I were new to a neighborhood and went to talk to the pastor of a local church. In the process of our conversation about coming to his church, he asked if we were married. (He was quite a fundamentalist by the way.) We said yes, and that was the end of the questioning. We attended his church for about 9 years and the subject was never brought up again. Since there was no reason for him to doubt my answer, had he asked me to prove it by showing him a marriage license I could have done that but would not have. In my mind if he considers me so dishonest that he can't take my word for something like that when there's no evidence I'm lying, then I would fear I would constantly be in a position of needing to prove myself in his church and would never be trusted. I would not be in a church with a pastor that showed that kind of distrust for no reason.

What is wrong with a fundamentalist?I do not see why he would question you.He is taking your word.But.....you were not employed with the Church.That is different.I am sure their are many who attend a Church who are either living together or are in a Common Law marriage.Why should a pastor turn them away?But being employed is a whole different story.

 

[Obadiah]

I never knew this existed before this thread, but to my current understanding the requirements of a common law marriage include outward signs of marriage. I couldn't name the requirements, but I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread that these include wedding rings. (And from the sounds of it, what they do in private doesn't have much to do with it from the law's standpoint.)

The details vary. When I was in law enforcement in California nothing like that was required. As long as the couple lived together in what they considered an "intimate" relationship and there were outside signs of this (such as neighbors observations or whatever) they were considered married under common law marriage as far as the law was concerned. I know today California isn't listed as a state that has common law marriage, so maybe that's changed since then. But that was the law and it was held up in court at that time. There were no rings, ceremonies, affidavits or anything else required other than the fact that they did live together in an intimate relationship. This prevented for example, one spouse could not simply put another out of the house, or take all the property, or prevent the other from seeing their children, etc. All the laws and protections that applied to a licensed marriage applied to a common law marriage. I dealt with countless cases (almost on a daily basis) where one person in a couple were surprised when they found out they couldn't just kick the other person out of their house or some such thing. There wasn't even a requirement that the two people had to declare n any way that they intended to be married. And this was held up in court, at least at that time.

 

[Deborah13]

I never knew this existed before this thread, but to my current understanding the requirements of a common law marriage include outward signs of marriage. I couldn't name the requirements, but I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread that these include wedding rings. (And from the sounds of it, what they do in private doesn't have much to do with it from the law's standpoint.)

"(And from the sounds of it, what they do in private doesn't have much to do with it from the law's standpoint.)"
You are correct.
The law doesn't say one must wear a wedding ring but that is one way one can fulfill the requirements of signifying to the community that one is married.
Wedding rings are very much like the Eastern cultures, including Orthodox Judaism, where a married woman keeps her hair covered signifying her status as married.

 

[Kathi]

"(And from the sounds of it, what they do in private doesn't have much to do with it from the law's standpoint.)"
You are correct.
The law doesn't say one must wear a wedding ring but that is one way one can fulfill the requirements of signifying to the community that one is married.
Wedding rings are very much like the Eastern cultures, including Orthodox Judaism, where a married woman keeps her hair covered signifying her status as married.

Either of my husbands would wear a wedding ring.But then again they were both cheaters.

 

[Obadiah]

What is wrong with a fundamentalist?I do not see why he would question you.He is taking your word.But.....you were not employed with the Church.That is different.I am sure their are many who attend a Church who are either living together or are in a Common Law marriage.Why should a pastor turn them away?But being employed is a whole different story.

Read my statement again. I didn't say there was anything wrong with him. If you are unfamiliar with fundamentalist Christianity, they would be the ones more likely to demand proof, as opposed to a liberal Christian that may not care.

The subject I am replying to had nothing to do with church workers in particular, but I have also been a paid employee, even in ministry positions, yet never asked to prove my marriage by producing any kind of legal documentation.

 

[Kathi]

Read my statement again. I didn't say there was anything wrong with him. If you are unfamiliar with fundamentalist Christianity, they would be the ones more likely to demand proof, as opposed to a liberal Christian that may not care.

The subject I am replying to had nothing to do with church workers in particular, but I have also been a paid employee, even in ministry positions, yet never asked to prove my marriage by producing any kind of legal documentation.

Yes,they are the more conservative ones who adhere to strict Bible rules,regulations and doctrine.I am a fundamentalist so yes I am familiar with them.I guess some of the Churches go by God's word and some do not.

 

[Obadiah]

Yes,they are the more conservative ones who adhere to strict Bible rules,regulations and doctrine.I am a fundamentalist so yes I am familiar with them.I guess some of the Churches go by God's word and some do not.

This is very true. Some go by God's word, some ignore parts of God's word, and some add their own rules to God's word. Lot's of variety in churches out there and in a lot of ways that's a good thing. Not every Christian is required to have the same tastes and preferences as one particular Christian prefers.

 

[Deborah13]

The details vary. When I was in law enforcement in California nothing like that was required. As long as the couple lived together in what they considered an "intimate" relationship and there were outside signs of this (such as neighbors observations or whatever) they were considered married under common law marriage as far as the law was concerned. I know today California isn't listed as a state that has common law marriage, so maybe that's changed since then. But that was the law and it was held up in court at that time. There were no rings, ceremonies, affidavits or anything else required other than the fact that they did live together in an intimate relationship. This prevented for example, one spouse could not simply put another out of the house, or take all the property, or prevent the other from seeing their children, etc. All the laws and protections that applied to a licensed marriage applied to a common law marriage. I dealt with countless cases (almost on a daily basis) where one person in a couple were surprised when they found out they couldn't just kick the other person out of their house or some such thing. There wasn't even a requirement that the two people had to declare n any way that they intended to be married. And this was held up in court, at least at that time.

That sounds more like domestic partnership laws that have been applied in 8 states and over 100 municipalities around the country. Calf. is one of the states that has these laws.
If Common Law marriage included having a sexually intimate relationship then a man who was injured, say in war, and could not fulfill this requirement, he could never be married under Common or civil law.

There was a case in Texas, Flores vs Flores, it's very interesting how the court ruled under their Common Law requirements. The couple was married by common law, got a legal divorce. Then the husband later returned and they lived together with their children for two more years. He had a girlfriend and left again. She petitioned for a divorce again. The court ended up determining that there was not enough proof in the community that they had reestablished a common law marriage. He claimed that he had told his long time girlfriend that he had moved back in just to financially help her out and they were not married, etc., etc..

 

[Obadiah]

That sounds more like domestic partnership laws that have been applied in 8 states and over 100 municipalities around the country. Calf. is one of the states that has these laws...

Maybe the terms have changed since then, but it was called "Common law marriage" even in legal court documents. As I'm trying to think back on it, I don't recall the term "domestic partnership" being used back then, so it could very well be that changes in the law have happened and there are different names for some of these things now.

...If Common Law marriage included having a sexually intimate relationship then a man who was injured, say in war, and could not fulfill this requirement, he could never be married under Common or civil law...

That's why the term "intimate" instead of "sexually intimate". They recognized it's possible to be intimate without sex. That differentiates the relationship from simple room mates.

It seems like there was some sort of time requirement too, but I can't remember how much it was now. 3 years comes to mind, but I really don't remember anymore. The purpose was that they didn't want to enforce marriage on a couple who were intimate and simply lived together temporarily for some reason other than intending it to be a marriage.

 

[Deborah13]

Either of my husbands would wear a wedding ring.But then again they were both cheaters.

For some people it comes off as easily as it went on.

My husband doesn't wear his all the time because of the type of work he has always done and seeing two men lose a finger when their ring got hung up on a piece of equipment. Some of the oil rigs he worked on forbid them to wear rings or necklaces because of this danger.
But when he goes somewhere else, shopping etc. he wears it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

A long time ago my wife and I were new to a neighborhood and went to talk to the pastor of a local church. In the process of our conversation about coming to his church, he asked if we were married. (He was quite a fundamentalist by the way.) We said yes, and that was the end of the questioning. We attended his church for about 9 years and the subject was never brought up again. Since there was no reason for him to doubt my answer, had he asked me to prove it by showing him a marriage license I could have done that but would not have. In my mind if he considers me so dishonest that he can't take my word for something like that when there's no evidence I'm lying, then I would fear I would constantly be in a position of needing to prove myself in his church and would never be trusted. I would not be in a church with a pastor that showed that kind of distrust for no reason.

I hope you don't think this is what I'm defending.

I'm saying you could not come into my church and say your co-habitating relationship is a marriage simply because you say it is. If you keep your mouth shut and I'm never the wiser then that's how it would remain, although the different last names would probably give you away. But if it becomes known that you married yourselves you will be asked to leave until you get some kind of legitimate accounting of a marriage having occurred betweenst the two of you. I've explained the reasons why this is so essential to be done.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then aren't you turning your nose up to this command? Romans 13:1-2
Submit to Government
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Who's this addressed to?

 

[petester]

What Deborah said is ABSOLUTELY right not just about the supposed women also the supposed men.There was a time when the human race had something to focus on....it was called the "American Dream" and to achieve that dream status it required us to practice moral standards.THERE ARE NO MORE REAL WOMEN OR MEN anymore, its gotten to the point where asexual practices are considered the standard operating procedure.They broadcast this amoral nonsense everyday.I hope that you dont subscribe to this nonsense because its that personal leverage you give that contributes to the overall degeneration of our species.