Pregnant woman fired for not marrying fiance

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Not any more. It used to be that way in some states. And it was determined for legal reasons--property rights, etc.

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.

No.

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.

Which is the point.....they're not married no matter how much they might insist they are (I don't know if either couple does insist that). All I know is they have obviously left it this way for a reason. And for the Christian couple doing that it's probably not a good reason to leave it that way. At least not good enough to be considered for fellowship in a local Bible believing church.

What Common Law marriage does is leave the state out of the marriage contract.

Maybe to the relief of some here, I would recognize a common law marriage in which the couple approached the authorities to declare the intentions of that union. Like a baptism, it demonstrates sincerity of intent, and commitment and responsibility.

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.

Which I have no problem with. If I was a pastor this couple is welcome into the fellowship as a legitimately married couple. Not because the state made it so, but because they demonstrated commitment and responsibility beyond that of simply living together--which is nothing more than immoral sexual behavior.

 

[Deborah13]

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.

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.

Leave it to Cali to redefine common law marriage and make married couples into fornicators for three years. So in Cali even though they said they had common law marriage couples could not morally be married under their definition.
I don't think the state can force marriage on anyone unless they have in some way said they are married. The state can enforce the idea that they have been in a relationship that is like a marriage in order to enforce maintenance and property laws though.
If the state had that power then those couples would have to get a legal divorce before they could marry anyone else. Do you know if this was the case?
I'm just asking because the law is an interest of mine. I find it fascinating how laws are made and how they effect the freedoms that are declared to each and every citizen under our Constitution.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

My wife hasn't worn her's in prolly 25 years because it chaffs her.

...and because it causes her finger to break out.

 

[petester]

I believe interpretation of God's scripture is valid UP TO A POINT (within reason) and it's my opininion that God gave us the chance to interpret that as a testing of our nature.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

I have to use loads of a greasy hand lotion to wiggle mine off my finger. Obviously it has shrunk over the years and gotten tighter on my finger.

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.

But he could lose a finger by catching it on a shopping cart. Not a very manly way to lose a finger, but hey, it could happen.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I believe interpretation of God's scripture is valid UP TO A POINT (within reason) and it's my opininion that God gave us the chance to interpret that as a testing of our nature.

I agree: "19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." (1 Corinthians 11:19 NIV)


.

 

[Deborah13]

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.

Kathi, I think there have been enough posts quoting the law to establish the fact that there are DIFFERENT laws about marriage in different states, there isn't any federal law about marriage other than that Common Law marriage is legal in certain states and that other states must recognize those marriages.
So who do you think is turning their nose up to the law? Those who recognize and follow the law or those who say one must do as I do and forget about what the law actually says.

If you are referring to God's Laws, then please defend that with scripture. The one you posted here does not apply to those who are following the laws of this nation.

 

[Deborah13]

I have to use loads of a greasy hand lotion to wiggle mine off my finger. Obviously it has shrunk over the years and gotten tighter on my finger.

Oh, obviously.

But he could lose a finger by catching it on a shopping cart. Not a very manly way to lose a finger, but hey, it could happen.

lol, but not likely, not enough resistance to pull off a finger unless a pretty strong person gave the cart a jerk.

 

[Obadiah]

Leave it to Cali to redefine common law marriage and make married couples into fornicators for three years. So in Cali even though they said they had common law marriage couples could not morally be married under their definition...

This is getting beyond my experience, but I think they could still be in a common law marriage before the time period was over if they declared it in some way. (I'm just not sure on the details of how it would be done.) The reason for the time period wasn't to prevent them from being married sooner, it was to prevent one spouse from taking advantage of the other through living with them and living off of them for a long period of time, and then just leaving them out to dry as if they had been nothing more than room mates.

...I don't think the state can force marriage on anyone unless they have in some way said they are married. The state can enforce the idea that they have been in a relationship that is like a marriage in order to enforce maintenance and property laws though...

Yet essentially that's what they did when it came to laws regarding couples and how they deal with each other.

...If the state had that power then those couples would have to get a legal divorce before they could marry anyone else. Do you know if this was the case?
I'm just asking because the law is an interest of mine. I find it fascinating how laws are made and how they effect the freedoms that are declared to each and every citizen under our Constitution.

I wish I could remember, but I never dealt directly with that end of it. Somehow I think I did hear about them having to go through a divorce procedure of some kind if things were done properly. Of course the problem comes up that if there had been no prior incidents that would have generated any records, they could conceivably get away with just walking away from each other and marrying someone else if neither spouse challenged it. I suppose there's lots of people getting around lots of laws like that. But that's not an area I ever dealt with personally so I don't know for sure how it worked or how it works today.

 

[Kathi]

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.

Some husbands can not wear a wedding ring because of their profession.Too dangerous.

 

[Kathi]

Who's this addressed to?

This original OP?

 

[Deborah13]

Not any more. It used to be that way in some states. And it was determined for legal reasons--property rights, etc.
No.
Which is the point.....they're not married no matter how much they might insist they are (I don't know if either couple does insist that). All I know is they have obviously left it this way for a reason. And for the Christian couple doing that it's probably not a good reason to leave it that way. At least not good enough to be considered for fellowship in a local Bible believing church.

Maybe to the relief of some here, I would recognize a common law marriage in which the couple approached the authorities to declare the intentions of that union. Like a baptism, it demonstrates sincerity of intent, and commitment and responsibility.

Which I have no problem with. If I was a pastor this couple is welcome into the fellowship as a legitimately married couple. Not because the state made it so, but because they demonstrated commitment and responsibility beyond that of simply living together--which is nothing more than immoral sexual behavior.

That is my point, they demonstrate that they are a married couple, that is a requirement for common law.
What if they had a piece of paper that says they are married under the law but they do not demonstrate that they are a married couple. Would you or the pastor consider them to be married? If so, why?

 

[Deborah13]

This is getting beyond my experience, but I think they could still be in a common law marriage before the time period was over if they declared it in some way. (I'm just not sure on the details of how it would be done.) The reason for the time period wasn't to prevent them from being married sooner, it was to prevent one spouse from taking advantage of the other through living with them and living off of them for a long period of time, and then just leaving them out to dry as if they had been nothing more than room mates.

Yet essentially that's what they did when it came to laws regarding couples and how they deal with each other.
I wish I could remember, but I never dealt directly with that end of it. Somehow I think I did hear about them having to go through a divorce procedure of some kind if things were done properly. Of course the problem comes up that if there had been no prior incidents that would have generated any records, they could conceivably get away with just walking away from each other and marrying someone else if neither spouse challenged it. I suppose there's lots of people getting around lots of laws like that. But that's not an area I ever dealt with personally so I don't know for sure how it worked or how it works today.

It gets very complicate if there are no clearly written laws like Colorado has. Like any contract it's very important that there is documentation of events in order to establish proof for a court of law.
When Aaron asked my daughter to marry him, she wanted a wedding on the tropical beach, that had always been her dream. There are no tropical ocean beaches in Colorado or in New England where his parents live. So they decided they would establish a common law marriage and wait on the wedding. I didn't object because I knew the law in our state. Aaron's mother knew too but insisted that they file it at the county courthouse. Her concern was that if something were to happen to Aaron, that Heather may have difficulties with establishing her property rights and with taxes. Aaron already owed a house and eighty acres before they were married. So that is what they did. Wise decision I think.