# Can. citizens same-sex marrying in US **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 21, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-citizens-same-sex-marrying-in-us/514646 "2009-10-21T18:23:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-citizens-same-sex-marrying-in-us/514646/21 "2009-10-26T10:44:26Z")
that wiki article is inaccurate, in that it uses the term “common law marriage” to mean both a true common law marriage, where cohabitation and holding oneself out as married can establish a marriage status, and informal relationships of cohabitation that do not create a married status. For example, the intro defines common law marriage as: > [@](#): > > Common-law marriage, sometimes called de facto marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is a form of interpersonal status which is legally recognized in some jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry. The article then notes that the term is also used in some countries, such as Canada, to refer to informal relationships that do not create a legal married status: > [@](#): > > Since the mid-1990s, the term “common-law marriage” has been used in parts of Europe and Canada to describe various types of domestic partnership between persons of the same sex as well as persons of the opposite sex. Although these interpersonal statuses are often, as in Hungary, called “common-law marriage” they differ from true common-law marriage in that they are not legally recognized as “marriages” but are a parallel interpersonal status, known in most jurisdictions as “domestic partnership”, “registered partnership”, or “civil union”. However, in the later portion of the article, it does not keep that distinction in mind, which is the same point I made earlier. As well, it’s factually inaccurate when it states: > [@](#): > > A couple must meet the requirements of their province’s Marriage Act for their common-law marriage to be legally recognized. If that is intended to suggest that some provinces recognize common law marriages that carry the legal status of marriage, to the best of my knowledge it’s not correct - no provinces recognize true common law marriage. On the other hand, if it’s a reference to the legal recognition of some rights for couples who cohabit without getting married, that’s not governed by the Marriage Acts at all, but by the Family Law Acts, as noted in the next section of the article, citing the Ontario Family Law Act. Really, that article needs a thorough clean-up, because it’s talking about two different legal concepts without distinguishing between them, even though there are significant differences. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-citizens-same-sex-marrying-in-us/514646/22 "2009-10-26T11:35:18Z")
It appears to me that the article suffers from serious translation problems, as well. In many languages, “civil marriage” is the one which carries a civil-law contract as opposed to a sacrament/religious contract. It’s registered in a civil registry, as opposed to being registered in church registries or personal ones. For example, translating “matrimonio civil” as “civil union” and assuming that it is different from “marriage” (rather than a type thereof) is just plain mistaken. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-citizens-same-sex-marrying-in-us/514646.md?page=1)