Brown v. Buhman

[DarkAnts]

I know we discuss sister wives on Quiver full of Snark. But, I think this may for more here. The Brown Family said the Satate of Utah over The cohabitation law. Before the lawsuit, Utah was a common law state. You cohabit ate with someone and say you are a couple for 6 months the you are seen as a married couple in the eyes of the law. This case has gone to the court of appeals this month. 

I am kind of conflicted with this law. I do agree that consenting adults should be able to live in the fashion they see fit. Utah has not used this law to prosecute every polygamist couple. It was used in the case of Tom Green. He married his underage step kids.  The law should be used to protect underage children, but how can we that and protect the rights of consenting adults and underage children in this culture?

[Mrsaztx]

Are you saying someone said he was common law married to underage girls? That should be a fairly easy thing to except from the law, "no common law marriage under 18". But I may have misunderstood your post.

[Firiel]

I don't think Utah even has "common law" marriage-- you can petition to be recognized as a married couple, but it doesn't happen automatically.

https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/marriage/commonlaw/

Quote

Many people want to get a "common law marriage." Utah does not have common law marriage; instead, you may petition the court to recognize your relationship as a marriage even though you never had a marriage ceremony. If the court approves, the man and woman will be considered to have been married ever since the following conditions have been met. 

The law is bullshit, honestly.  It's a law that is in place because the LDS church doesn't want to be associated with polygamy anymore.  It's just as religious as any laws outlawing same-sex marriage were.  How do you protect underage girls and keep them from becoming sister-wives?  Well, you prosecute anyone that violates the age of consent by having sex with an underage girl...

If it's government money that is the issue, it would be better to have laws in place that affect how polygamist women collect government benefits for being single mothers. (Not saying that there should be a law about this... just that it seems like a better way to go about it than regulating someone's sex life...).

[AmazonGrace]

I don't get it. Dropping in the office to get a marriage licence and a quick ceremony is less trouble than petitioning the court, usually, isn't it? So if you want to be married, why not just get married.

[Firiel]

Waaaaah!  Just realized the OP said that Utah was a common law state before the lawsuit.  So my answer may not be relevant.

@AmazonGrace, from what I've read, it seems like petitioning the courts would be useful 1) if a marriage-like relationship ends and the other person is trying to screw you in a way that wouldn't be possible if you were legally married or 2) if you somehow need to be married retroactively.  Why you would need to be married retroactively... I don't know.  Insurance purposes, maybe?  You can also petition for marriage once one partner has died.  I imagine that would be quite useful for post-death practicalities.