Unmarried couples cohabiting in Florida are still being prosecuted

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    I'm sitting here wondering how Florida has avoided being sued over this law. Surely SCOTUS would near unanimously strike it down (with Scalia being the only dissenter). What is wrong with that state? Funny part is gay couples are not effected by it, I guess the 19th century social engineers didn't think that far ahead.

    Link
     
  2. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
  3. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #3
    Is there any source that backs this articles claim, that 700 people were prosecuted?
     
  4. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #4
    I wonder how many were actually found guilty. Charges mean nothing.
     
  5. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #5
    http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/F...Being_Married_Can_Get_Arrested_128845313.html

    ----------

    I get that. But regardless of whether they were found guilty or not, this law shouldn't be on the books anymore. It's not about how often it's enforced, it shouldn't even exist. Even if no one was found guilty, it still caused them undue burden and lawyer fees for a law that's pretty blatantly unconstitutional.
     
  6. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #6
  7. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #7
    Blatantly unconstitutional? How so?
     
  8. iBlazed, Dec 22, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2014

    iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    The same way laws telling you where to stick your dick are unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas). I can't believe you're even asking this question. The better question is how is it constitutional for the government to tell you who you can and cannot live with? And I thought conservatives hated big government....

    Serious question, do you think this law would ever survive a SCOTUS challenge? I think it would be unanimously struck down.

    Looks like Utah's cohabitation law was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge.

    Utah didn't appeal the ruling, so it never got to SCOTUS.

    Same for NC.

    In the last couple of years, the number of states with these laws on the books decreased to only 3 states. Florida, Mississippi, and Michigan.
     
  9. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #9
    I agree that the law is ridiculous, but it would be nice to see if there are any actual guilty verdicts. It is a waist of tax dollars either way, but I know if I were foung guilty of such a pointless and stupid law hell would be raised. Actually, I am surprised that these people are just laying down and taking it.
     
  10. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #10
    The Canadian government can force you into marriage against your will. I assume at least some US states have common law marriage as well.

    I don't see how this is much different. If the state can legally force marriage on you, then pretty much anything is on the table.
     
  11. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #11
    As someone who currently has no plans to get married that is terrifying and just all around awful. What is the justification for this from the government's perspective?

    Force me to get married against my will and then take half my money if a marriage that I didn't want anyways doesn't work out? Terrifying. Obviously all hypothetical but still.

    What is the point of marriage anyways? Dumb social pressures.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Forcing people to go to trial seems pretty unreasonable too.
     
  13. DonJudgeMe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Location:
    Arizona
    #13
    A closed mouth does not get fed.;)
     
  14. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #14
    The justification is that if you and your significant other live together as spouses then break up, the division of property and child visitation rights and such (if there is no amicable agreement on how to do it) needs to done according to divorce proceedings lest one of the partners get screwed over by the other, even if you never filed legal paperwork establishing a marriage.

    The criteria for establishing a "common law marriage" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some don't recognize it at all. Criteria range from living together for a certain period of time, having a child together, calling each other your spouse in public - some jurisdictions even have a form to submit that establishes an "informal marriage." Check with your state or province. Mostly though, you can only ever be "forced to get married" if you're already living together as a married couple.

    For us, getting married was about health insurance coverage.
     
  15. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #15
    Only a few states have common law marriage left, and from what I've read, usually you have to do things pretty affirmatively (e.g., file joint tax returns, adopt a different name, present yourself as a married couple to others in public venues) for the status to be conferred on you. I don't think there's great justification for its continued existence.
     
  16. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #16
    Must be nice.

    It's very much alive in all Canadian provinces except Quebec. And the steep requirements, you ask?

    "A relationship of some permanence."

    Cohabitating with a woman, even for a few months, is financial suicide in Canada. A man could theoretically return home and find his girlfriend getting gangbanged by the local high school basketball team and be forced to pay her alimony for the rest of his natural life.

    #PatriarchyPrivilege

    ----------

    I'm sorry, but that is 100% completely false.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    This isn't true at all - http://www.canadiandivorcelaws.com/common-law-marriage/

    All it does is give child custody and child access rights that you'd get if you were married. And you have to live together for two-three years for it to apply.
     
  18. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #18
    You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't even think you read your own link (that BARELY skims over the issue).
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
  20. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #20
    Property Rights:

    The Family Relations Act governs division of property when a marriage ends. It does not apply to unmarried couples. However, this is all about to change. The new Family Law Act, when it takes effect, will treat married and common law couples the same with regards to property division. Meaning? Say goodbye to your house. Your girlfriend owns half of it now.

    http://www.commonlawrelationships.ca/bc/

    ----------

    Again: you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. I don't know why you are pretending that you do when you clearly don't.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Which only applies to British Columbia which is also what the news source in my quote is talking about.

    Additionally it excludes pre-relationship property, so a girlfriend can't come in and steal your house.
     
  22. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #22
    You googled the issue for the first time a few minutes ago and you're pretending you know what you're talking about. You don't.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Source?
     
  24. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #24
    I read the link and it’s no were near as bad as you stated.

    In #16 you state that the girlfriend only after a few months gets everything thing.


    BC
    Common Law British Columbia
    Family law is going through some rapid changes in BC, and this affects everyone, particularly people in common law relationships.

    Currently family law is governed by the Family Relations Act. However, the Family Law Act is in the process of replacing this legislation. The Family Law Act has already been given Royal Assent and will likely be proclaimed in force over the next twelve to eighteen months.

    The effect of this new legislation is dramatic, as the BC Family Relations Act did not cover common law relationships whereas the new Family Law Act does. Although not in effect now, for common law partners it may as well be, because even if your relationship ends right away, you or your partner can simply wait until the Family Law Act is in effect to use its provisions.

    Am I Common Law?
    British Columbia considers you common law if you and your partner have lived in a marriage-like relationship for two or more years, or you have children together.

    Property Rights
    The Family Relations Act governs division of property when a marriage ends. It does not apply to unmarried couples. However, this is all about to change. The new Family Law Act, when it takes effect, will treat married and common law couples the same with regards to property division. Although not yet in effect now, even if your relationship ends, a common law partner simply needs to wait until the Family Law Act is in effect to apply for a division of property.

    Spousal Support
    A common law partner in BC has one year after separation to apply to court for spousal support under the Family Relations Act. There is no deadline for married couples applying under the Divorce Act.

    Child Support & Child Custody
    Child support and child custody are decided the same way for common law couples in British Columbia as for married couples.

    Under the Family Relations Act, there is a one-year deadline to apply to court for child support from a common law step parent. No such deadline exists in the Divorce Act, which applies to married couples.

    Estates
    The rights of common law partners are the same as married partners when it comes to most estate issues, including intestate succession and dependents relief.

    Cohabitation Agreement
    Under the Family Relations Act, it often did not make sesne for common law BC partners to enter into a cohabitation agreement. This is because doing so brought them into the purview of the Family Relations Act, which required an equal division of all property. However, with the impending approach of the Family Law Act, a cohabitation agreement is strongly recommended if this is not the result wanted by a couple.

    Summary
     
  25. Gym Hellwig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #25
    In BC, she wouldn't technically get your house *if* you purchased it before you lived with her, but she could force you to sell it as she would be entitled to half of the increase in value of a pre-existing property. If you can't afford to pay out, your house is gone. In practical terms, your partner cost you your home.

    And if you purchase a house while dating her, it's as good as hers.

    http://www.familylaw.lss.bc.ca/resources/fact_sheets/dividePropertyAndDebts.php

    ----------

    The government forcing marriage on anyone is disgusting. And I have no clue why you would bold the quoted section above. Is that supposed to be significant in some way?
     

Share This Page