I believe acsenray is correct as to the essential conservatism of the American electorate on this aspect of a candidate’s personal life, then and now. The higher the office sought, the greater scrutiny such a candidate would receive, and the more votes he or she would lose because of it, I suspect.
Are children of unmarried parents not allowed to take their father’s name in your jurisdiction? As I’ve said, my parents aren’t married, but I certainly have my father’s name (though the government tends to spell them slightly differently). According to Quebec law it is permissible to give children their father’s last name, their mother’s last name, or both (up to a maximum of two hyphenated last names).
It’s worth mentioning that cohabitating couples in Quebec don’t have the status of a common-law marriage. Common-law marriages exist in some common-law jurisdictions, take effect when a couple has been cohabitating a certain amount of time (I don’t know the specifics), and are almost indistinguishable from a celebrated marriage; for one, they need to be dissolved by divorce. Quebec law doesn’t have this device; cohabitating couples have almost no legal status regardless of the time they’ve lived together.
See, this is really alien to me. In my peer group, almost nobody is married, but if two people are a couple I know they’re off limits. They don’t even have to be living together or have children together, but that would only make it truer.
I live in Phoenix and my children could easily take my name without my being married. But it might help prevent the mother from leaving me for one reason or another before giving birth and deciding to name the child… whatever. If this doesn’t make any sense, feel free to disregard it.
I don’t believe there is common-law marriage in Phoenix.
I don’t agree that there is such a well-defined line between married/hands off and not-married/free for all comers, either. I think it’s more of a spectrum, with casual dating at one end and married at the other. I’m one of those old-fashioned people, too, who think that there is a difference between a long-term unmarried relationship and being married. Making the commitment, making the plans, getting up in front of your friends and family, and having the government register the change in your marital status does change things.
I never saw the point of marriage unless the couple had children or real estate, because a marriage is essentially a legal contract. No assets, no need for contract. After all, the legal contract wouldn’t change my feelings for Mrs. Ispolkom My wife (of almost 18 years now) saw marriage as a sacrament, so she had a lot more invested in that argument, and won it.
We now own real estate (but have no children), and I have to admit that marriage is a wonderfully useful institution. I’d never buy a house with someone without the marriage contract between us. But it still doesn’t change my feelings for Mrs. Ispolkom.
In the common-law jurisdictions of Canada, there are three categories: statutory marriage, common-law marriage, and cohabitation in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage. Unfortunately, most people, including many judges, use the term “common-law” to refer to cohabitation in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage.
Statutory marriage is made under the statute laws, for example, Ontario’s Marriage Act. This includes weddings performed by a justice of the peace or by a minister or priest, who performs the wedding according to the statute law (e.g. marriage licence and registration). Duration of cohabitation is not relevant in determining if there is a marriage. Divorce is applicable.
Common-law marriage does exist in common-law jurisdictions in Canada, however, it is vanishingly rare. The only examples are to be found in remote aboriginal communities in which (1) there is a tradition of people in the community being recognized by the community as being married (as opposed to simply living together in a conjugal relationship), and (2) where statutory marriage is not feasible due to the remoteness of the community. Duration of cohabitation is not relevant. This sort of common-law marriage is a marriage and is treated as if it were a statutory marriage, duration of cohabitation is not relevant in determining if there is a marriage, and divorce is applicable.
Cohabitation in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage in the common-law jurisdictions of Canada has statutory protections for custody, access, child support, spousal support, and dependent’s relief that are the similar to the statutory protections for married people, but duration of cohabitation or having a child may be necessary conditions in addition to cohabitation. There is no statutory protection for equalization or division of property. For this, the parties rely on the common-law of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, in which duration of cohabitation often plays a significant role. This sort of relationship is not a marriage and is not treated as if it were a marriage, and divorce is not applicable. Unfortunately, the term that most people, and many judges, use to describe this sort of relationship outside of marriage is “common-law”, when in law it is not a common-law marriage. When reading judicial decisions, one must keep this in mind, for usually when a judge says “common-law relationship”, he or she does not mean “common-law marriage”.
As far as how these family law matters are handled in Quebec, which is a civil law jurisdiction rather than a common-law jurisdiction, here is a nice summary: We couldn't find that Web page (Error 404) - Department of Justice / Nous ne pouvons trouver cette page Web (Erreur 404) - Ministère de la Justice . Although the laws are very different between Quebec and the rest of Canada, the results are fairly similar when it comes to custody, access, child support, spousal support under marriage, property under marriage, and property under cohabitation in a conjugal relationship. The biggest difference is that in Quebec there is no statutory trigger for spousal support under cohabitation in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage, but there are such triggers in the common-law jurisdictions in Canada.
Thank you Muffin for this detailed explanation. I see I wasn’t entirely right, but I’m not a lawyer either, I was just going with what I’d heard before.
Dang. There’s those social-cultural variations impacting legal affairs. Around here “il/legitimacy” has not been a specific legal status with any sort of distinct legal effect for decades, and “circumstance of birth” is locally a protected category for civil rights purposes.
Compare people of eligible age (ages 20-64): in 1970, 77 percent of them was married. In 2003 only 58 %. Nowadays young Dutch people live alone or cohabitate almost a decade before marrying. Only a few percent of people will never have had a partner at all.
The average age of the first marriage was 24 on average in 1960; it is 31 now. So in the Netherlands, a first marriage typically is a thirty-something affair, and about a third of people will never marry at all but keep lat-ing of cohabitating.
As for black people, I get the impression that in the US, the partner in raising children for a poorer black woman is not primarily her husband, but her mother. If surveys would ask black women in broken homes if their mothers or grandmothers helped with income and childcare, I think the numbers of “whole homes” would be much closer to those of other ethnic groups.
Since property rights are a matter of provincial law, this point varies from province to province. Under Saskatchewan law, a couple that has cohabited for a certain period has the same statutory rights to equalization and division of property as a married couple. I believe Manitoba has a similar arrangement.
Plus, to add to Muffin’s summary, there are also civil unions in Quebec and Nova Scotia, which are not legal marriages but which confer much the same rights. The difference between a civil union and a simple cohabitation is that there is some paperwork required to get civil unioned, whereas the fact of cohabitation alone may be enough to trigger rights and obligations in other situations, without any formal steps by the couple.
as always, not intended as legal advice, but simply to comment in a general way on a matter of public interest. Anyone needing legal advice on this issue should speak to a lawyer in their jurisdiction.
And what about hospital visitation? Life insurance? Compensation for wrongful death? Society has created the category of “spouse” and allocated certain benefits and obligations to it. By choosing not to subscribe to that category, you’re foregoing a lot of tangible stuff.
The private feelings one has for a partner is only a part of what marriage is about. The other, equally important part, is the declaration you’re making to society. Human beings are social animals. The social aspect is thus important. One’s partner would be fully justified in having doubts about a partner who is unwilling either to take that step or unable to admit its importance.
Obviously a person owes loyalty to one’s friends. The societal message is to people you don’t know.
Where I live, Ontario, Canada, where Joe snd Maueen lived while he was PM, a wfe’s (or husband’s) registered name is not changed when she (or he) marries. She (or he) can use her (or his) husband’s (or wife’s) name, or any name at all, as an alias provided it is not done to mislead. Here, people can use aliases, whether they are married or not, so there is no poblem in a wife going by her husband’s name, despite that being an alias for her.
You were right, but there was more out there needed to paint a clear picture. Even then, my post was too general and needed futher infomation from NothernPiper.
The complexity and variety of family law is such that a couple should get some expert legal advice before setting up shop together. A lot of my family law clients are devestated when they lean that the law is not what they thought it was.
In the United States, you can do anything you want to with your name, but “aliases” are extremely uncommon except in showbusiness. Even in showbusiness, if a woman chooses to have a separate professional name, it is generally the married name that is the legal name. Generally speaking, a woman who doesn’t want to take her husband’s family name as her legal name just continues using her birth name for all purposes.
I don’t know how uncommon it is. My maiden name is my legal name. But I use my married name socially (not always, depends on the group), answer to it at the kids school. In my experience, that actually isn’t that uncommon. My husband’s coworkers know me by his last name - they don’t have any reason to know mine.
If its a legal document, I make sure it has my legal name on it.
But socially - sometimes its easier to just be Mrs. Him…
But, like many statistics, it may be misinterpreted. Just because higher-income people are more married doesn’t mean getting married increases your income. It’s possible that increased income encourages you to get married. One must be careful about cause and effect, i.e., the chicken/egg question.