Canada and common law marriage and the LDS Church

[daz2]

Common law marriage, as distinct from civil law marriage, has largely disappeared from the United States, although a few states still recognize it to one degree or another.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Utah  This is an oversimplified summary, but civil law marriage means a marriage with a marriage license, formal ceremony, registration.  Common law marriage does not require a license, ceremony or registration.  Generally speaking it requires cohabiting for a period of time and usually it requires holding oneself out as "married."

It looks like in various Canadian provinces, common law "marriage" or partnerships continues to exist and evolve, including things like "adult interdependent partnerships."  In British Columbia, apparently a new law grants to common relationships all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, whether or not they hold themselves out or consider themselves "married"    As I understand it, after two years of cohabitation a heterosexual couple has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/4-myths-about-common-law-relationships-1.1315129 

If this is correct, my question for my Canadian friends, or those familiar with Church operations in Canada, is how does the LDS Church view heterosexual common law marriage or relationships that have all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage?  Are such couple eligible to be baptized without going through a civil law ceremony?  May they be sealed in the temple with a civil law ceremony?  Is a heterosexual common law marriage enough to be considered legally and lawfully wedded for LDS purposes?  Or is there a policy at all?

Edited December 29, 2017 by daz2

[Duncan]

46 minutes ago, daz2 said:

Common law marriage, as distinct from civil law marriage, has largely disappeared from the United States, although a few states still recognize it to one degree or another.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Utah  This is an oversimplified summary, but civil law marriage means a marriage with a marriage license, formal ceremony, registration.  Common law marriage does not require a license, ceremony or registration.  Generally speaking it requires cohabiting for a period of time and usually it requires holding oneself out as "married."

It looks like in various Canadian provinces, common law "marriage" or partnerships continues to exist and evolve, including things like "adult interdependent partnerships."  In British Columbia, apparently a new law grants to common relationships all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, whether or not they hold themselves out or consider themselves "married"    As I understand it, after two years of cohabitation a heterosexual couple has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/4-myths-about-common-law-relationships-1.1315129 

If this is correct, my question for my Canadian friends, or those familiar with Church operations in Canada, is how does the LDS Church view heterosexual common law marriage or relationships that have all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage?  Are such couple eligible to be baptized without going through a civil law ceremony?  May they be sealed in the temple with a civil law ceremony?  Is a heterosexual common law marriage enough to be considered legally and lawfully wedded for LDS purposes?  Or is there a policy at all?

finally something i'm an expert in! So, really it's no different from the US as far as I know. Here in Canada, if two people are shacking up they first get married either by the province or the Bishop, then baptized and then hopefully sealed. It's a process. It's common but probably no more here than anywhere else. As long as you are legally married with a marriage cerificate and not just living together you're good to go for baptism and Temple sealing

Edited December 29, 2017 by Duncan

[Jane_Doe]

I'm not Canadian, but I am very familiar with US common law marriage (they are commonly enacted and powerful in my area).  The LDS Church does not acknowledge these as being legal marriages.  They will totally acknowledge the emotional relationship, but no you're not legally married.  If such a couple wish to be baptized or otherwise, then they need to say "I do".   Legally getting married takes ~10 minutes at the courthouse and ~$10.  

I am also familiar with the laws and policy elsewhere in the world (many countries have various common-law marriages that are held on equal standing).  Still, LDS requires legal marriage with the local licensing.  The only place I am aware of exceptions is the Philippines, where divorce is completely illegal, so a couple legally cannot get married if one had been previously married.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, daz2 said:

Common law marriage, as distinct from civil law marriage, has largely disappeared from the United States, although a few states still recognize it to one degree or another.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Utah  This is an oversimplified summary, but civil law marriage means a marriage with a marriage license, formal ceremony, registration.  Common law marriage does not require a license, ceremony or registration.  Generally speaking it requires cohabiting for a period of time and usually it requires holding oneself out as "married."

It looks like in various Canadian provinces, common law "marriage" or partnerships continues to exist and evolve, including things like "adult interdependent partnerships."  In British Columbia, apparently a new law grants to common relationships all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, whether or not they hold themselves out or consider themselves "married"    As I understand it, after two years of cohabitation a heterosexual couple has all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/4-myths-about-common-law-relationships-1.1315129 

If this is correct, my question for my Canadian friends, or those familiar with Church operations in Canada, is how does the LDS Church view heterosexual common law marriage or relationships that have all or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage?  Are such couple eligible to be baptized without going through a civil law ceremony?  May they be sealed in the temple with a civil law ceremony?  Is a heterosexual common law marriage enough to be considered legally and lawfully wedded for LDS purposes?  Or is there a policy at all?

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that the Church requires, prior to baptism, some sort of solemnization (either a ceremony or a judicial decree) that definitively establishes the marital relationship.  

Meanwhile, here's an interesting story.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

.................................................

I am also familiar with the laws and policy elsewhere in the world (many countries have various common-law marriages that are held on equal standing).  Still, LDS requires legal marriage with the local licensing.  The only place I am aware of exceptions is the Philippines, where divorce is completely illegal, so a couple legally cannot get married if one had been previously married.

Since divorce is illegal in the Philippines, one need only obtain a formal annulment (a declaration that there never was a marriage).  Then one can get married legally in the eyes of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that the Church requires, prior to baptism, some sort of solemnization (either a ceremony or a judicial decree) that definitively establishes the marital relationship.  

Meanwhile, here's an interesting story.

Thanks,

-Smac

it's more than a guess, it's accurate! no legal marriage=no baptism

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, daz2 said:

Common law marriage, as distinct from civil law marriage, has largely disappeared from the United States, although a few states still recognize it to one degree or another.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Utah  This is an oversimplified summary, but civil law marriage means a marriage with a marriage license, formal ceremony, registration.  Common law marriage does not require a license, ceremony or registration.  Generally speaking it requires cohabiting for a period of time and usually it requires holding oneself out as "married."............................................................

At one time on this planet most "marriages" consisted merely of cohabitation, often with the permission of the female's parents, and with the payment of a bride price.  There was no formal ceremony, and the consummation of the marriage took place privately in a tent, much as depicted in the Bible for patriarchs such as Jacob-Israel.  Such pair-bonding was normal for most of humanity for most of history.  Only in recent times has marriage become an administrative, governmental matter -- another reason for the demise of common law marriage.

Those who pay attention to such things in genealogical work will notice that the relationship is frequently listed as "consensual," there being no marriage date.  I assume that such couples may be sealed together just as well as any of those who have been formally married.

[daz2]

Are people saying that legal marriage for LDS purposes means civil law marriage, not common law marriage, even if, under the law, common law married people are just as married as civil law married people?  Is there a handbook source that says that common law marriage (i.e., where the government recognizes the union as marriage) is not recognized by the LDS Church, and that people whose relationship is recognized by the government as common law married still have to go through a civil law process (i.e., formal license and ceremony)?  (This was actually an issue that involved some people I knew in the U.S., and the stake presidents and bishops involved did not know of any church policy on the issue.  I do not know what the final resolution was.)

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, daz2 said:

Are people saying that legal marriage for LDS purposes means civil law marriage, not common law marriage, even if, under the law, common law married people are just as married as civil law married people?  Is there a handbook source that says that common law marriage (i.e., where the government recognizes the union as marriage) is not recognized by the LDS Church, and that people whose relationship is recognized by the government as common law married still have to go through a civil law process (i.e., formal license and ceremony)?  (This was actually an issue that involved some people I knew in the U.S., and the stake presidents and bishops involved did not know of any church policy on the issue.  I do not know what the final resolution was.)

yes, the Church only recognizes civil law marriage not common law marriage. I'd have to look for the source

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, daz2 said:

Are people saying that legal marriage for LDS purposes means civil law marriage, not common law marriage, even if, under the law, common law married people are just as married as civil law married people?  

In short: the LDS church doesn't recognize common law marriage.  You got to actually get married and say "I do" to be married.  

4 minutes ago, daz2 said:

(This was actually an issue that involved some people I knew in the U.S., and the stake presidents and bishops involved did not know of any church policy on the issue.  I do not know what the final resolution was.)

Final resolution:  You got to actually get married and say "I do" to be married.  In the US that takes 10 minutes and 10 bucks.  If your relationship isn't worth that to you, then... well you got more problems than LDS church policy.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At one time on this planet most "marriages" consisted merely of cohabitation, often with the permission of the female's parents, and with the payment of a bride price.  There was no formal ceremony, and the consummation of the marriage took place privately in a tent, much as depicted in the Bible for patriarchs such as Jacob-Israel.  Such pair-bonding was normal for most of humanity for most of history.  Only in recent times has marriage become an administrative, governmental matter -- another reason for the demise of common law marriage.

Those who pay attention to such things in genealogical work will notice that the relationship is frequently listed as "consensual," there being no marriage date.  I assume that such couples may be sealed together just as well as any of those who have been formally married.

The actual functional purpose of the ceremony is to announce to the community that the couple considers themselves to be a unit for life (or for us- longer  )

Sociologically that is how ceremonies in general function.  That is the purpose of witnesses which of course started anciently and various tokens to help the community remember the promises and declarations made especially in pre-literate times, like perhaps a ring or a dowry.  It is like a line drawn in the playground sand with a kid saying "OK if you are on my side step over this line" and some step over and others do not and those in the "community" remember who stepped over the line and who did not.

So it seems in keeping with normal human practice that without a public declaration of some sort that the couple consider themselves legally and formally "one" are necessary whatever form it takes.

To me common law marriage does not do this- but notice that in one of the quotes above it is defined as the couple "holding themselves out" as married- as perhaps on a tax return or introducing one's partner as a "spouse".   It is that kind of declaration that makes the difference in society- but that kind of declaration without something recorded is on a shaky foundation when it comes to legalities of inheritance etc.

So it makes perfect sense to me that without some kind of legal declaration, there is no official marriage.

And it can be very important to determine if one really is married or not in cases such as inheritance.  In my opinion one would have to be an idiot to live together for years and then let the kids argue after Mom dies if Dad's kids really get anything or vice versa.

It's a financial planning nightmare, potentially.

So really this "piece of paper" has vast implications for those who choose to do without it.  Besides the religious implications it could mean mom or dad left destitute.

I have seen it happen.

When people ignore legalities it can truly become a nightmare.   I saw one case where Mom gifts her house to her only son, who lives there with her.  Son gets married.  Son gets divorced.  Wife gets house and throws out Mom and she is literally left homeless.

Not good to leave sloppy legal "details" for someone else to figure out without declaring your intentions formally.

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Odd place, Canada. 

You can be married without being married and yet gay people fight to get to go to the courthouse.

Rather strange, this culture we live in where marriage is only valued by gay people.

Who knew that gay people tended to be conservative?

 

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Odd place, Canada. 

You can be married without being married and yet gay people fight to get to go to the courthouse.

Rather strange, this culture we live in where marriage is only valued by gay people.

Who knew that gay people tended to be conservative?

 

what's worse, up until a couple of years ago when in the US certain States had SSM, couples that wanted to get divorced had to come to Canada to do it. So, the wait was around a year so there was all these upset gay couples living in Canada, just waiting for their paperwork to process to then get divorced

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since divorce is illegal in the Philippines, one need only obtain a formal annulment (a declaration that there never was a marriage).  Then one can get married legally in the eyes of the LDS and Roman Catholic churches.

From Smac's link, the phrase "need only" while technically accurate has the wrong connotation of it being relatively easy to do so.  Smac's link makes it clear it is often out of reach financially and annulment may be often not granted because it doesn't meet the legal requirements, i.e. a spouse could be abusing the other, but unless the other can prove they are mentally or emotionally disturbed, no annulment.  Wouldn't that require a doctor's evaluation and possibly a psychiatrist?  I don't see many abusive spouses willingly going through the hoops to be labeled psychologically disturbed.

Since the government recognizes the annulment and considers the parents never married at that point, I wonder if that turns any children to illegitimate status.  If it does and there is a social stigma attached, that must make a complicated situation even more complicated. (In places where divorce is legal, the children are viewed as legitimate because it is a legal status, not a religious one.  I have read in a nonauthoritative site that annulment stills has the parents in a "natural marriage" and children are therefore still viewed as legitimate by the Catholic Church, but I am wondering here how the government views them, not the Church.

From the link:

"An annulment ends a marriage, but differs from divorce in important ways. The parties, for instance, must prove that the marriage was never valid to begin with. Under Philippine law, reasons can include one or both parties having been below the age of 18 when they got married, either party having an incurable sexually transmitted disease, or cases of polygamy or mistaken identity. Infidelity and physical abuse are not the list of acceptable reasons for a marriage to be declared invalid under Philippine law. A petitioner seeking to leave a marriage for those or any number of other reasons has to try to prove that his or her spouse is suffering from psychological incapacity such as narcissistic personality disorder. Furthermore, annulment cases may drag on for 4 years or more, and court fees, which typically amount to nearly $400 just to file paperwork, can exceed the average monthly wages of Filipino workers, which a 2012 International Labor Organization study estimated at less than $300."

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Calm

[strappinglad]

How about we reintroduce the custom of " jumping the broom "  ( Roots reference ) ?

Actually, men are finding  marriage a legal quick sand and are seriously  contemplating the danger to their financial and emotional future.

I have heard that in some jurisdictions , if a woman lives even a few months with a man , she is considered 'married' to him  and can apply for state support should she leave him ie . get access to his funds , pension etc.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I have heard that in some jurisdictions , if a woman lives even a few months with a man , she is considered 'married' to him  and can apply for state support should she leave him ie . get access to his funds , pension etc.

As long as the same law applies to the women (men can apply for the same support), why is that a problem?  It is unlikely the woman forced the man to live with her, if he chose to do so why should he not be held accountable for his choice (as any woman should be as well)?  If he doesn't want to be in that situation, then just say "no".

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what's worse, up until a couple of years ago when in the US certain States had SSM, couples that wanted to get divorced had to come to Canada to do it. So, the wait was around a year so there was all these upset gay couples living in Canada, just waiting for their paperwork to process to then get divorced

LOL!

I know guys who specialize in financial planning for gay clients who are quite wealthy since there is no "glass ceiling" for gays in the business world - so you have two high-caliber male executives marrying and getting divorced.  I think it happens more in the gay community because of salary discrimination against women, that two combined incomes tend to be so high, plus typically there are no single wage-earner situations, and few if any children.

No matter how hard I try I am sure there is still some sexism here someone will find in my comment, but it is a very lucrative area for the lawyers and others who help to separate assets, sell off real estate, etc  

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

From Smac's link, the phrase "need only" while technically accurate has the wrong connotation of it being relatively easy to do so.  Smac's link makes it clear it is often out of reach financially and annulment may be often not granted because it doesn't meet the legal requirements, i.e. a spouse could be abusing the other, but unless the other can prove they are mentally or emotionally disturbed, no annulment.  Wouldn't that require a doctor's evaluation and possibly a psychiatrist?  I don't see many abusive spouses willingly going through the hoops to be labeled psychologically disturbed................................................

Since corruption is rife, one can bribe officials to work things out, or call upon a "favor" from someone influential.  I recall how Frank Sinatra wanted a divorce, and had to fork over a lot of money to bribe his way through the process to annulment, which angered his first wife no end since it delegitimized her marriage.  It was much more difficult to obtain a divorce or annulment back in those days, and private eyes made a lot of money getting photographs of cheating spouses -- since that was grounds for divorce.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The actual functional purpose of the ceremony is to announce to the community that the couple considers themselves to be a unit for life (or for us- longer  )

Sociologically that is how ceremonies in general function.  That is the purpose of witnesses which of course started anciently and various tokens to help the community remember the promises and declarations made especially in pre-literate times, like perhaps a ring or a dowry.  It is like a line drawn in the playground sand with a kid saying "OK if you are on my side step over this line" and some step over and others do not and those in the "community" remember who stepped over the line and who did not.

So it seems in keeping with normal human practice that without a public declaration of some sort that the couple consider themselves legally and formally "one" are necessary whatever form it takes.

To me common law marriage does not do this- but notice that in one of the quotes above it is defined as the couple "holding themselves out" as married- as perhaps on a tax return or introducing one's partner as a "spouse".   It is that kind of declaration that makes the difference in society- but that kind of declaration without something recorded is on a shaky foundation when it comes to legalities of inheritance etc.......................................

In the case of the Patriarchs, the marriages were of course legal and binding, even without a ceremony, because everyone did know of the arrangement with Uncle Laban, and the children all legitimate in every way.  This was true even when Laban cheated Jacob by substituting Leah for Rebecca, and we all know the rest of the story.  The culture of a modern society is vastly different, which is why common law marriages no longer carry legitimacy.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since corruption is rife, one can bribe officials to work things out, or call upon a "favor" from someone influential.  I recall how Frank Sinatra wanted a divorce, and had to fork over a lot of money to bribe his way through the process to annulment, which angered his first wife no end since it delegitimized her marriage.  It was much more difficult to obtain a divorce or annulment back in those days, and private eyes made a lot of money getting photographs of cheating spouses -- since that was grounds for divorce.

If they don't have much money to begin with, not seeing where they are getting the money for a bribe.  And Frank Sinatra is not exactly a typical modern day poor citizen of the Philippines so not seeing how his example is relevant.

Do you have stats on the rates of annulments compared to those who want them in the Philippines?

Edited December 30, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

If they don't have much money to begin with, not seeing where they are getting the money for a bribe.  And Frank Sinatra is not exactly a typical modern day poor citizen of the Philippines so not seeing how his example is relevant.

Do you have stats on the rates of annulments compared to those who want them in the Philippines?

Many Filipinos have relatives in foreign countries and their remittances are key to survival.  One could easily imagine special payments being arranged for special purposes.  But I wasn't suggesting that Filipinos are all rich, but rather that corruption of all kinds is rife, and that includes much more than monetary payments.  I don't have stats, but am certain that favors can be done and that people understand how to get them.

I mentioned Old Blue Eyes since his public annulment was so notorious, and that reflected the corruption of those times here in Ameica.

[Calm]

Do you have personal experience or study that leads you to contradict the claims made about the difficulty of receiving annulments in the Philippines or are you extrapolating from other countries' experiences?

"Many Filipinos have relatives in foreign countries and their remittances are key to survival.  One could easily imagine special payments being arranged for special purposes"

"key to survival" seems to imply that there would be other more immediate needs to address if more money was sent over.

If one is living at survival level, following through on a longterm plan for legal recognition that doesn't improve survival standing might be difficult.

[theplains]

On 29/12/2017 at 12:58 PM, Jane_Doe said:

I'm not Canadian, but I am very familiar with US common law marriage (they are commonly enacted and powerful in my area).  The LDS Church does not acknowledge these as being legal marriages.  They will totally acknowledge the emotional relationship, but no you're not legally married.  If such a couple wish to be baptized or otherwise, then they need to say "I do".   Legally getting married takes ~10 minutes at the courthouse and ~$10.  

Is the courthouse the main place where Mormons get married before they try to qualify to get temple entrance in
order to be sealed in a temple?  If no, what are some other places where Latter-day Saints are joined in matrimony
before a temple-sealing?

Thanks,
Jim

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, theplains said:

Is the courthouse the main place where Mormons get married before they try to qualify to get temple entrance in
order to be sealed in a temple?  If no, what are some other places where Latter-day Saints are joined in matrimony
before a temple-sealing?

Thanks,
Jim

you can get married literally anywhere, even the moon if you could afford it

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, theplains said:

Is the courthouse the main place where Mormons get married before they try to qualify to get temple entrance in
order to be sealed in a temple?  If no, what are some other places where Latter-day Saints are joined in matrimony
before a temple-sealing?

Thanks,
Jim

What an odd question.  Where would you think?  Certainly not the main place.

I'm pretty sure Jane_Doe was just indicating the relatively small expense of getting married at a local courthouse.  Asking one's bishop to do the deed is cheaper, but if neither one of the couple are not  members of the church, then an LDS bishop is not authorized (by the church) to marry them.  So they go to the courthouse.  Or find some private wedding chapel.  But the courthouse is cheaper.

But here's some answers from personal experience:

• My first marriage, which was not in the temple and ended in divorce, was solemnized at my parents house by our bishop.
• My second marriage was at the courthouse, solemnized by a justice of the peace.  Reason not in the temple: my wife had a prior temple sealing that needed to be cancelled.  And it was at the courthouse because I was soon to ship out to Germany (I was in the Army), and the state we lived in at the time required a longish waiting period after getting the license.  So we hopped the border to the neighboring state, which had no waiting period.  The temple sealing was later, in the Swiss temple.
• One of my older stepsons was married to his LDS wife in the Relief Society room of the meetinghouse, solemnized by our ward bishop.
• My third marriage, after my second wife died, was at my ward chapel in the Young Women's meeting room at my meetinghouse, solemnized by my bishop. Reason not in the temple: she was sealed to her late husband and that sealing will remain.

In the UK and many other countries, LDS couples who are going to be sealed in the temple are first married civilly in their ward meetinghouses, and then travel to the temple. Because LDS temples are not recognized for marriages -- in the UK that is because marriages must be solemnized in public, by law.  My new stepdaughter's marriage was done that way.