"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Jaggy Bunnet]

there is no legal thing as "common law marriage" as its a social description but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, its used as a legally binding appelation by government bodies mainly for the purposes of Tax, social benefits and police involvement.

Can you provide a link to something that actually supports this?

HMRC seem to contradict you in relation to tax:

To claim Married Couple's Allowance telephone or write to HMRC giving details of your marriage/civil partnership ceremony and spouse/civil partner (including date of birth).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/married-allow.htm

For social security, NI Direct disagrees with you:

If two people of the opposite sex live together and share their lives in the same way as a married couple, we consider that they are living together as husband and wife, even though they are not married.

e.g.
I had an ex who was "unstable", I asked her to move out, she refused, I called the police and they evicted her, because in their eyes, the relationship hadn't lasted long enough for her to be regarded as my spouse. Had it been two years I was informed I would need a court order as we would be regarded as having a common law marriage, so yes, technically common law marriages have no provision under english law, however, we also come under legislation of European law, where it is, there was a recent stink about it when Greece joined the E.U.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7302433.stm

The lesson here is don't believe everything the police tell you.

Or ask them to back up what they are saying with an actual legal citation to legislation, regulations or case law.

From the direct gov leaflet:

"● If you rent your home …
… and the tenancy is in your ex’s name only, you will have no automatic
right to stay if your ex asks you to leave or walks out."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_067362.pdf

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

See what happens when you spend ages preparing a long post? Everyone else gets to the right answer and moves on.

Pfff.

 

[Tatyana]

Can you provide a link to something that actually supports this?

HMRC seem to contradict you in relation to tax:



http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/married-allow.htm

For social security, NI Direct disagrees with you:





The lesson here is don't believe everything the police tell you.

Or ask them to back up what they are saying with an actual legal citation to legislation, regulations or case law.

From the direct gov leaflet:

"● If you rent your home …
… and the tenancy is in your ex’s name only, you will have no automatic
right to stay if your ex asks you to leave or walks out."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_067362.pdf

Yes, he found out later in the thread that there is no such thing as common law marriage.

It is a worry as there are a lot of couples that think that they do have some sort of rights.

It is a worry for fathers who are not listed on the birth certificate as they have absolutely no parental rights and men have to fight the issue in court just to see their children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Going back to chattel, IIRC, Virginia was the last state to remove their laws from the books, and that wasn't until the 1970s.

No the Carolinas and the 90s. Virginia was apparently relatively liberal by criminalizing spousal rape in the 70s.

 

[Segnosaur]

It would wreak havoc with insurance for one thing. If I marry 5 women and have 3 kids with each, that's 15 kids and 5 spouses an insurance company would have to cover under my premium. This could be covered with higher premiums so I guess this is more of a practical reason than a legal reason.

But one spouse and 18 kids is ok? This is a very poor argument and easily covered by not treating any number of kids as a family. So say family is spouse and up to four kids, any more and you pay extra.

A couple of points:
- Many people have insurance policies for which they themselves don't pay anything, or the majority is paid for by their employer
- The difference between one person with multiple spouses vs. one person with multiple kids is that there is an incentive for a person to 'defraud' insurance companies by trying to claim additional spouses. (similar to something like a "green card marriage"... i.e. "Pay me $100 and I'll marry you so you can get free health insurance, just like I married these other 4 women." In the case of children, the incentive is reduced if not eliminated.

 

[xjx388]

Yep it is a feature of the degenerate races. Not the realm of proper Aryans. Or maybe you could find something not specifically couched in racist ideas.

That was kinda my point, there really is no compelling legal reason to ban polygamy and the only legal ruling we have depends on antiquated notions.

 

[crimresearch]

No the Carolinas and the 90s. Virginia was apparently relatively liberal by criminalizing spousal rape in the 70s.

Those words don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I too have been googling furiously, apparently it was abolished in 2006

bugger, so I guess I withdraw my earlier comments, except for the ex partner stuff which happened in 2005,


quick quick Tatyana, run to the church, only they can save you now

Interestingly, if you were married by cohabitation and repute in Scotland pre 2006, you would remain married even though you could no longer get married that way.

However it was quite difficult to be married in that way as you not only had to cohabit but your friends and family had to believe you were married.

"To be married at common law you would have to persuade the Court that you behaved in a way that was compatible with marriage and that your nearest friends and relatives also believed you to be married."

http://www.oraclelaw.com/Family-Law/marriage-in-scotland.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, he found out later in the thread that there is no such thing as common law marriage.

It is a worry as there are a lot of couples that think that they do have some sort of rights.

It is a worry for fathers who are not listed on the birth certificate as they have absolutely no parental rights and men have to fight the issue in court just to see their children.

As a matter of principle I am against common law marriage. I don't want the state to make assumptions about the status of my relationships with out me doing the paperwork.

 

[Tatyana]

As a matter of principle I am against common law marriage. I don't want the state to make assumptions about the status of my relationships with out me doing the paperwork.

That is a very valid point, but there are a lot of people who think that they do have rights under 'common law' and are quite devastated to find out that they do not have any rights at all when the partnership dissolves.

 

[Segnosaur]

It would wreak havoc with insurance for one thing.

It could yes. Of course there are possible remedies. The state could recognize the marriage of the second spouse without conferring insurance rights. I'm not sure if that is possible with our current legal system though and would create a subset of marriage law.

Of course by doing that, you are not exactly allowing "polygamy", since only one marriage would be considered a full marriage (with the other having fewer rights, such as insurance rights.) Kind of a 2-tier system.

And remember that insurance is not the only issue that would have to be dealt with... what about the tax system? (I'm from Canada, so our tax system is different, but here we allow married couples to split income. If you allow polygamy will you allow income splitting with all members of the marriage? What about immigration (where an immigrant can bring a spouse to the country)?

Yes, it is possible with all of these issues to define the first spouse as "primary" (with full rights) and other spouses as "secondary" (much like you suggested with insurance) but again that isn't necessarily a polygamous situation since the secondary marriages are not exactly "full marriages".

 

[Tatyana]

I don't have an issue with polygamy and if people are polyamorous and find it works for them, all the power to them.

However, traditional polygamy that has been practiced in certain religions or cultures has resulted in some unfortunate social engineering issues, for example, a lot of young men with a shortage of young women to form partnerships.

It just ends in dreadful things like raiding parties and wars.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That was kinda my point, there really is no compelling legal reason to ban polygamy and the only legal ruling we have depends on antiquated notions.

Ah I missed the sarcasm. Of course there is less argument that it is unconstitutional to ban it, rights around number of people vs sex discrimination.

 

[RandFan]

...and would create a subset of marriage law. It's a legitimate concern.

Of course by doing that, you are not exactly allowing "polygamy", since only one marriage would be considered a full marriage (with the other having fewer rights, such as insurance rights.) Kind of a 2-tier system.

Yep.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is a very valid point, but there are a lot of people who think that they do have rights under 'common law' and are quite devastated to find out that they do not have any rights at all when the partnership dissolves.

Sounds like they need an education campaign not a legal change.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, he found out later in the thread that there is no such thing as common law marriage.
.

yes, but just to deflate, Jaggy a little, there was the last time an authority was telling me there was under E.U. law
shame on them for not coming round and telling me they abolished it really

apologies Jaggy
pfff

 

[ponderingturtle]

Those words don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

No you are just ignoring the word relatively.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

yes, but just to deflate, Jaggy a little, there was the last time an authority was telling me there was under E.U. law
shame on them for not coming round and telling me they abolished it really

apologies Jaggy
pfff

No problem.

The policeman was either:

In England and wrong as common law marriage has not existed since the 18th century; or

In Scotland and wrong unless your family and friends believed you to be married and you had been to court to get it confirmed. Nothing to do with two years or anything else.

So unless you had the discussion with your ex in the 18th century, my advice holds good!

 

[Marduk]

No problem.

The policeman was either:

In England and wrong as common law marriage has not existed since the 18th century; or

In Scotland and wrong unless your family and friends believed you to be married and you had been to court to get it confirmed. Nothing to do with two years or anything else.

So unless you had the discussion with your ex in the 18th century, my advice holds good!

um no, you're still not acknowledging its use as a social appelation by the social services and that it was European law at the time
still doesn't matter, I think I've stated in a thread like this before that I would not be interested in any kind of ritual which requires overview from church or state anyway, Polygamy is just fine without marriage. Especially as in the UK now, the only difference a marriage license seems to make is in respect to assets in the event of a break up or accidental death or critical injury, believe it or not, like millions of other UK citizens, we don't prepare for those very well

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

um no, you're still not acknowledging its use as a social appelation by the social services and that it was European law at the time

That's changed a bit from "legally binding appelation" hasn't it?

People (including people employed by public bodies) may use the term, but that does not mean it has any real meaning.

You have also claimed several times now that it "was European law". Care to provide a link to legislation, regulation or case law to support that?