Marital status

[Philster]

@suranyi

As has been said, it varies from state to state.

In California, it is possible to get a Confidential Marriage License, in which case the public cannot know about the marriage. See this official website for details:

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Pages/TypesofMarriageLicenses.aspx

FURTHER driving home the fact that it’s, by default, open/public information. Seems CA allows you to take some legal steps to hide the fact that you are married.

[salinqmind]

How do private detectives find out these things? I recall reading Sue Grafton’s Kinsey Milhone used to walk down to the library or courthouse or whatever, in the '80s, and look up public records. What do they do now, online?

[An_Arky]

You can freak out about privacy all you want, but your info is obtainable, there’s fuck all you can do about it, and if you can’t deal, you are just going to be unhappy. You won’t change anything. I don’t like the idea of it when I think too much about it, but really, unless you want to go completely undergound ala the Unabomber or something, you’re going to be a matter of public record somewhere.

BTW, I want the whole world to know I’m married to my wonderful wife! (I realize there are exceptions to that attitude, and I’m truly sorry if it’s a sore point for you).

[Schnitte]

@Philster

Yes, I am familiar with the term and I a familiar with your position/approach.

I believe I clarified, despite a big honkin’ “public record” reference at the get-go.

You can opt not to be married legally. What part of this are you not getting?

Cool it, man, I really don’t know why you’re freaking out about this. All I said was that the idea of publishing information about marriages, as you claimed “American law” did but which “American law”, as others said, doesn’t, at least not without generally and without exceptions, reflects a sense of privacy some people disagree with. That’s all there is to it, and there’s really no need to get all crazy about it.

[Philster]

“…get all crazy…”.

O

k

[Captain_Amazing]

@Schnitte

The stance that marriage is first and foremost a private thing which you should not be obliged to tell others about if you don’t wish to do so is at least a defensible. Maybe this issue is another instance of the Anglo-Saxon world vs the continental European culture taking a very different view on things.

Since the Aufgebot system was in effect in Germany until recently, and still is the case in Austria, this probably isn’t a case of a different Anglo-Saxon legal culture.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Schnitte

The stance that marriage is first and foremost a private thing which you should not be obliged to tell others about if you don’t wish to do so is at least a defensible.

But if you are expecting certain special, legal privileges as a result of your marriage, you can hardly claim it as a private matter anymore.

Privileges like income tax benefits for married couples, property ownership & inheritance benefits, legal protection from testifying against each other, down to a price reduction on city pet licenses to married couples. There are 515 such special privileges in the laws of my state, and hundreds more in the Federal statutes.

These have become more known (and counted) because of the gay marriage issue. The moral argument for that is equal treatment of all people; the practical argument is all these public privileges that are provided with marriage.