It is absolutely a thing. And, in the states where it is a thing, it is going to be a thing that can potentially require a matrimonial attorney:
Jeff Schreiber, a family law attorney in Charleston, South Carolina, said that common-law marriage laws are “not just used to prove someone is married, it’s used as leverage” in negotiating how property ownership and other rights are determined after a breakup. Just the threat that one of the former members of a couple may attempt to claim a common-law marriage existed can encourage the other person to settle with them to avoid that risk.
Screiber pointed out additional “wide-reaching issues” that can be effected by the existence or absence of a marital relationship, such as property rights, inheritance, child support and custody, medical decisions, and criminal law.
…Yes, folks: there are people out there who suddenly got the ability last summer to retroactively sue a former partner for alimony. And there’s gonna be a lot of lawyers who will find it reliably profitable to figure out what the law is now. Because Anthony Kennedy couldn’t be bothered to work out those details.
Shortcuts make for bad law, folks. Deal with it. And, oh, yeah: some of you same-sex marriage advocates out there should probably look into divorce reform. Trust me: you’ll be happier if you do.
Moe Lane
PS: I have zero sympathy because I’m a same-sex marriage supporter. I wanted people to sit down and craft a set of state and federal laws that could equably resolve the situation, or at least not grind anybody’s face into the dirt over it. I was overruled. I am not responsible for this mess.
Hey, ya want equal rights with the breeders, ya gotta take equal headaches too. Don’t see an issue here.
Comedian I worked with for a while: “As a straigh man, I fully support Gay-marriage. Why should we be the only ones to suffer?”
As a happily married, straight cat, I fully support gay marriage.
.
Would sterotypical 20something straight male humans really be able to compete with stereotypical gays – the latter are well-dressed, impeccably fashionable, adventurous gourmands, and willing to watch chick-flicks.
.
I say let ’em get married, it’ll keep down the competition for other straights!
.
Mew
You missed a big one, Moe.
.
Estates also have debts..
.
For just one example, prior to the SSM decision, hospitals had to eat any end-of-life costs associated with gay patients who sheltered their assets via their life-partners, but could go after the spouse of a dead guy to recover monies spent.
.
This is a big change, and you can bet hospitals are sitting up and salivating…
.
Mew
Also gun rights. Any issue about who is a domestic partner for purposes of domestic violence misdemeanor convictions that make one a prohibited person for firearms prosecution just got blown away.
Yep. You’ll also start to see more separate living arrangement just to make sure the well off in the pair doesn’t get stick with the common law thingie. You ask for it, prepare to suffered for it.
I’m not sure this would fly. While the Supreme Court has been allowed the power to change the U.S. Constitution, they do not have any power to change the Common Law, which long precedes the U.S. Constitution. Nor am I sure that the Court can compel a state to redefine the definition of common law marriage, which is external to U.S. law. Though given how Justice Kennedy in particular is so willing to rewrite human history in order to validate his feelings, perhaps he would not stop at violating the foundation of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence as well, even if – like Samson – he risks bringing down the house on top of him.
Also, since Justice Stevens and others who are so fond of utilizing foreign laws systems, shouldn’t they be protective of the common law too?
That’s the thing .. the ruling didn’t change the law .. it just removed the gender parameters for marriage .. so if Joe and Larry are in any way provably a committed gay couple, they now qualify for “common law” if their State recognizes suchlike.
.
No change to “common law” (or written law, for that matter) required.
.
It’s a .. nice .. little “unintended (but entirely predictable) consequence”**.
.
Mew
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
** It is, in fact, *so* predictable that I wonder if Roberts assigned this case to Kennedy to further destroy the man’s historical reputation, eh?
Exactly. And here’s an example of just that happening. The Boston Globe provided benefits to same-sex “spouses” (I use the term that way not as any kind of pejorative, but as a way to describe the state that existed before the state supreme court imposed SSM on the state) for several years. Some time after SSM became legal in Massachusetts, the Globe announced that, since it didn’t provide spousal benefits for non-married straights, and gays could now get married, it was going to stop providing benefits for non-married gays.
Fun ‘evolving standards of international law’ thought. If the old world becomes a hundred ISIX, does that mean we have to throw gays off buildings?
.
I’m a strict ‘the rest of the world can go roughly shove their opinions of what we should being doing’ myself.
They changed the common law, over the objection of state and a majority of citizens, to “legalize” gay “marriage” in the first place.
They didn’t have the power to do it.
But evidently a majority of the population doesn’t know that.
Well .. no, the court *didn’t* change the law, but it’s a subtle distinction .. the court changed what part of the law can be enforced, not the law itself.
.
It’s not clear why you think the court didn’t have the power to change what part of law can be enforced, that’s .. pretty much the point to the court system, they decide how law is to be interpreted.
.
Every case, especially once you get into the appeals level, is about lawyers arguing different theories of interpretation, and the court making decisions about which interpretation is more correct.
.
Mew