Posted on 09/30/2015 7:39:35 AM PDT by Zakeet
A wedding is not just two people exchanging rings; it is an entanglement of their personal, legal, and business affairs. For better or for worse, marriage affects a broad and substantial list of rights involving inheritance, property, child custody, and more. Now that gay marriage is legal in all fifty states, both the people involved in gay relationships and the legislators drafting the laws that govern all these rights need to carefully analyze the issues presented.
As it turns out, those who cheered the decision [legalizing homosexual marriage] may have their own reasons to worry. The Law of Unintended Consequences plays no favorites, and the Obergefell decision may create headaches for gay couples, especially in common-law marriage states.
[Snip]
Common-law marriage functions to create the legal relationship of marriage even though the two spouses have not completed the formal procedures to register their marriage with the government.
While the law differs from state to state, generally the requirements are that the couple are both legally able to marry (they both freely consent, are not already married to other people, are of sound mind, and are of legal age or have their parents’ consent), and they hold themselves out to the public as husband and wife. Some jurisdictions require the common-law spouses to be cohabiting, or to cohabit for a certain period of time, in order for them to be considered common-law married. Other states require children, either by birth or adoption.
Currently, common-law marriages are expressly allowed in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and the District of Columbia. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriages for probate purposes only, and Oklahoma, Utah, and some Native American tribes offer additional limited recognition. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
... it seemed like such a good idea at the time ...
Other subheadings in the article:
Wait until the common law gay marriage arguments show up to interfere with settled estates.
LOL! The GAYstapo had such great intentions. They only wanted to use Obergefell as a tool to bludgeon traditional Christians and other opponents into submission.
Amazingly, they'll inevitably use the issue that they harped on, children, to push for their perverted definition to now disclaim the reason: "We can't naturally have children and so the issues surrounding custody don't apply."
I wonder what arrangements Ellen and Rosie and Elton have made....since marriage does not automatically deem assets as "ours".
You need a lawyer and a contract...and then there are no guarantees. Judges have discretion.
They have to go through some legal adoption procedure. Caring for children or saying “he’s mine” is not ownership.
Take care in what you wish for. Your wish may be granted.
And waking up to discover that a nasty and painful set of bite marks are now to be found on your gluteus maximus.
Pretty hard to get those worms back into the can.
That wasn't the case with Lisa Miller and her dyke 'lover' Jenkins, though. They only entered a "domestic partnership" in Vermont, and yet, the child that Lisa birthed with an anonymous donor was deemed Jenkins' child also by proximity. So much so that Jenkins successfully claimed the right to visitation, and then sole custody.
Look up the CASE LAW and you will find you are WRONG, if you “HOLD” that a child is yours, even though not biologically related or by any other means, the COURTS in any and ALL CUSTODY CASES will make it so and you will PAY FOR SUPPORT.
I found this out during my own custody hearing 20 years ago when the court granted me Custody of my ex’s Son, as well as my daughter.
Typically, a lot of homos are wealthy. Imagine then, their surprise when one day their current ‘houseboy’ walks in with a lawyer claiming half of everything he owns........................
“since marriage does not automatically deem assets as “ours”.”
In some states it does just that.
The first couple married in America are all ready divorced. They just have to figure out who’s the woman and then screw the other queer.
Saw a political cartoon years ago.
1st panel, two guys at a bar, 1st guy, “I think they should allow gays to marry....”
2nd panel, 2nd guy, eyes wide, “that’s pretty open minded coming from a conservative...”
3rd panel “divorce lawyer like yourself.”
Ooooh! - I’m eating a bowl of Ramen noodles, so mentioning WORMS is yukky! (Sigh) I didn’t put in the whole seasoning pack; too much salt! - A moot point now; but I think you meant well.
Yes, Goodrich’s fake “marriage” didn’t even make it two years.
Ah, the continued fiction that courts pass laws. Guys calling themselves married can only be legislated.
I think I see the loophole here.
Who says all these restrictions exist? Used to be that men couldn't marry men but that was deemed unfair. So what if three people want to get married, if they all consent who is to say it's not permissible under the current Supreme Court logic of "go with the zeitgiest and let legal precedent be damned!"?
It's all just one unelected judge away from being the law of the land, permanently and irrevocably.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.