People need to take greater care in getting divorced in North Carolina than they do to get married, according to the state Court of Appeals.

In a 2-1 ruling issued Tuesday, the court ruled that a marriage can be considered valid in the state even if the couple doesn't have a license and the ceremony is handled by someone other than a minister or justice of the peace. ...

The case arose from the end of Juma Mussa's 12-year marriage to Nikki Palmer-Mussa. He wanted their marriage annulled, ending his alimony payments, on the grounds of bigamy.

Before marrying Mussa in 1997, Nikki Palmer had married Khalil Braswell in Maryland under Islamic law. They had no license and were married by a construction worker who was Braswell's friend.

She said the marriage was never consummated, and she soon ended it under Islamic law by returning the dowry and declaring herself divorced.

The appeals court ruled that, even though her ceremony to Braswell "failed to meet statutory requirements," Palmer-Mussa still needed to get a judge to grant her a divorce or annul the marriage.

Because she was already married, the court voided her marriage to Mussa, which has produced three children.

Labels: common-law, divorce, Islam, Marriage, North Carolina

VOTE

Social conservatives - the people who want to protect the institution of marriage - should be enraged about last week's court decision on polygamy. They've been focusing on the fact that the B.C. Supreme Court judge said the law against polygamy is constitutional. They haven't noticed the judge also decided there's nothing special about state-sanctioned marriage. ...

Canada's Criminal Code makes it illegal for anyone to be in "any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage."

But Judge Robert Bauman found himself confronted with non-fundamentalist polygamists and polyamorists who didn't fit into his theory that all polygamy is harmful. He needed to reclassify those people as non-polygamists. He did that by classifying them as common-law, and interpreting the Criminal Code section to apply only to people who are married.

But for that law to then be applicable to anyone, he needed a new, broader definition of marriage. Clearly the everyday working definition most Canadians use - based on the licences and vows that so many Canadians, religious or not, hold sacred - wasn't going to work, because polygamists do not have access to the official versions. And if he made the law apply only to people who did X or Y - held a ceremony, drew up a contract, used the word "wife" - he'd be telling lawbreakers where to find the loophole.

So Bauman created a third category of relationship: not common-law, not officially married, but married if a court says you are, based on undefined "circumstances." He referred to a famous 19th-century definition: "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." ...

What Bauman did say unequivocally - and the irony is that he did this in an attempt to protect the "critical institution" of "monogamous marriage" - is that people can be married without licences, without banns, without solemnizers, without rites, without vows, without any recognition by the state. Not "as good as" married. Not "might as well be" married. Married.

Labels: Canada, common-law, Marriage, polygamy

VOTE

Couples in Mexico City could soon use "renewable" marriage contracts to try living with their other half before making a lifetime commitment.

Newlyweds would take a minimum of two years before deciding whether to cement their relationship or split up, under plans to alter the city's civil code.

If approved, the contracts would set out in advance marital duties, such as in childcare, schooling and budgeting.

Lizbeth Rosas Montero, who drew up the bill, hopes it will cut divorce rates.

Half of all marriages in Mexico City currently end in a split.

She believes the contracts, allowing couples to "renew or dissolve" the marital link after a pre-arranged term, would lead to more harmonious relationships and reduce the workload on family judges.

Terms governing healthcare provision, the way children are educated, how much money was needed to support the family, and how dependents would be looked after in the case of a break-up would be set out in advance.

Labels: cohabitation, common-law, divorce, Marriage, Mexico

VOTE

Statistics Canada will no longer collect and crunch numbers on the country’s annual marriage and divorce rates, a sign both of cost cuts at the agency and the changing nature of relationships, as definitions get fuzzier and harder to track.

The national statistical agency published its last national figures on marriage and divorce rates last week. It has been collecting divorce data since 1972 and marriage data since 1921. It pegs the cost of reinstating the collection at $250,000. ...

It will also be trickier to assess what is going well. This week, Ontario said it would require every couple in the province hoping to split to attend an information session on alternatives to going to court before getting a divorce. Evaluating whether measures like that work, five years later, has become much more difficult, Mr. Benmor said.

Statscan says it will still examine trends in family composition through its census, conducted every five years, and general social surveys. But annual data on marriage and divorce rates won’t be replaced.

Labels: Canada, committed relationships, common-law, divorce, divorce reform, economics, family policy, family structure, Marriage

VOTE

...And while the pressures on the leader of the Labour party will be slightly different to those of the average person, there is no mistaking that attitudes to marriage and family have changed. Getting married used to be about sex, living together and having children, but research shows this is no longer the case.

According to the latest British Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey, which was conducted in 2008, almost two-thirds of people now see little difference between marriage and living together. Fewer than a fifth of people took issue with it.

Just under half thought cohabitation showed just as much commitment as getting married. When it comes to children, where opinion can often be a bit more traditional, only 28% said they believe married couples make better parents.

So why do it? Psychologist Donna Dawson, who has specialised in sex and relationships, says it is often about making a public statement.

"Having the children take part is like a ceremonial creation of a family and a public statement that they are all in it together. It's very much a 21st Century ritual, which more and more people will be doing." ...

In the end it could all be about having a big party for Ed and Justine. According to BSA survey, 53% of people now think a wedding is more about a celebration than a life-long commitment.

Labels: children, cohabitation, committed relationships, common-law, Marriage, premarital sex, United Kingdom, unmarried parents

VOTE

The good ol' tradition of marriage is not extinct, but the numbers certainly are dropping.

Moving up the relationship ranks is the very modern - and considerably cheaper - option of living together, sans the 'I dos'.

"It's the first time in Canada there are more unmarried people than married people," explains Gemini-award winning documentary filmmaker Sue Ridout, producer and director of the new hour-long doc entitled, "Thoroughly Modern Marriage" (Dreamfilm Productions).

But, despite the popularity of common law and even the high rates of divorce, the institution is still likely to survive, Ridout believes. ...

According to Statistics Canada, in the past 25 years, common-law unions in Canada have more than tripled. ..

Regardless though, even pairs who sign on the dotted line are holding off longer than ever.

At the end of the '70s, the average marrying age for women was 23 and 25 for men. That number has jumped significantly, to 28 for women and 30 for men.

"People are seeing marriage as a capstone to their relationship - perhaps they've purchased a condo, maybe had a child ... and later on they're turning to each other and saying, 'hey, maybe we should get married.'"

Labels: Canada, committed relationships, common-law, Marriage

VOTE

A measure to require couples to undergo two hours of counseling before marriage won approval 51-45 on Wednesday in the state House of Representatives.

House Bill 2634 by Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa, would also allow people who have eight hours or more of premarital counseling to receive a $45 discount on the $50 marriage license.

McCullough said the goal of the counseling is to expose couples to the idea that they can get help if problems develop in their marriage.

The measure would also abolish common-law marriage, through which two people who have not had a civil ceremony but present themselves as husband and wife are considered legally married. ...

The bill would also require educational classes for couples who seek to divorce, McCullough said.

Labels: common-law, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling, Oklahoma

VOTE

Call it shacking up, living in sin or love without the paperwork -- more older Canadians are choosing it over traditional marriage.

The most recent census figures show big increases in the number of people over age 50 in common-law unions, with the most significant growth in the early-60s crowd. At the same time, the practice has nearly flatlined or even declined among the twenty- and thirtysomethings who used to scandalize their parents by moving in together.

The baby boomers are inflating the ranks of the 50-plus in general, but experts say that between more liberal social attitudes, a "been there, done that" mentality among those who have been divorced and the lack of financial incentive to marry, many older Canadians simply don't feel the need to walk down the aisle.

"We choose to stay common-law because, quite frankly, there's nothing in it for us to get married. There's no financial advantage; we need to file our income tax together anyway," says Jenni Hopkyns, 61, who's been living with her partner, Mike, in Victoria for four years. "We said 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' It seems to be working well."

Hopkyns had been married twice before and her 67-year-old partner had been married once, and she says seeing marriage vows break down makes another ceremony less enticing.

"It's not to mean that we're any less committed, because I wouldn't say that at all," she says. "We've just made a commitment to each other every day."

Between 2001 and 2006, the most recent year for which census data are available, the number of Canadians in common-law relationships shot up 77 per cent among those ages 60 to 64 and between 44 and 64 per cent for all other age groups over 50.

Labels: Canada, cohabitation, committed relationships, common-law, Marriage

VOTE