If you don't know what a common law marriage is, I'll try to explain it briefly. On second thought, I'll let somebody else explain it... at least in terms of the United States' defintion of a common law marriage... I'm not sure if the definition really changes that much when you look at different countries, but I would doubt that it could change very radically.
Anyways, this site has a pretty decent description of what one is, and it's pretty short. But you could also just type "common law marriage" into a search engine and probably find 5000 other sites saying the exact same thing.
If you noticed it while reading the article, to become common law married the two parties must be a man and woman. I, personally, question whether or not that stipulation is justified.
One side of the argument would say that because it is still a type of "marriage," gays would not be allowed to participate; however, common law marriages have no religious connection whatsoever, and are virtually only ever actually used when filling out taxes or on those episodes of COPS when they have the redneck drunk that was thrown out of his trailer by the woman that he's been living with for ten years (legally, they're common law married so she's not actually alllowed to just kick him out as he is also technically in possesion of the trailer)
Another argument is that many states which recognize common law marriages also require that the two parties intend to become married at some future date. Well, obviously gay marriage is not allowed in any of the common law states, so gay couples would not be able to become married there. However, should a couple become married in a different state and then move back, their marriage is required to be legally recognized by every state in the union, so that would still be able to meet the requirements of common law marriage.
So anyways, the debate is whether or not common-law marriage should be extended to gay couples as well. Not whether or not churches should start wedding gay couples, just if they should be allowed to become common law married.
Anyways, this site has a pretty decent description of what one is, and it's pretty short. But you could also just type "common law marriage" into a search engine and probably find 5000 other sites saying the exact same thing.
If you noticed it while reading the article, to become common law married the two parties must be a man and woman. I, personally, question whether or not that stipulation is justified.
One side of the argument would say that because it is still a type of "marriage," gays would not be allowed to participate; however, common law marriages have no religious connection whatsoever, and are virtually only ever actually used when filling out taxes or on those episodes of COPS when they have the redneck drunk that was thrown out of his trailer by the woman that he's been living with for ten years (legally, they're common law married so she's not actually alllowed to just kick him out as he is also technically in possesion of the trailer)
Another argument is that many states which recognize common law marriages also require that the two parties intend to become married at some future date. Well, obviously gay marriage is not allowed in any of the common law states, so gay couples would not be able to become married there. However, should a couple become married in a different state and then move back, their marriage is required to be legally recognized by every state in the union, so that would still be able to meet the requirements of common law marriage.
So anyways, the debate is whether or not common-law marriage should be extended to gay couples as well. Not whether or not churches should start wedding gay couples, just if they should be allowed to become common law married.
