[LMB] OT: Re: Terms for Cohabitation (was Re: parentalleave

Marna Nightingale marna at redmaplegrove.org
Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:47:16 -0500


"Daniel R. Reitman" wrote:
> 
>  Marna Nightingale <marna at redmaplegrove.org> wrote:
> 
> > Following myself up, bad habit. The terminology  now used in Canadian law is
> > "common-law partner/conjoint<e> de fait".
> 
> > Which seems to me to work quite well.  And you can use it at the office :-)
> >. . . .
> It's problematic south of the 49th because most states do not
> recognize common law marriage, but some do, and those that grant full
> marital rights.  Which usually means actually holding oneself out as
> married is an element.

There is some element of that here as well. It's somewhat nuanced, but for
example, if I had a roomate and we'd had sex once or twice while sharing a
space, we'd not be common-law at the end of a year. 

But it's not full marriage rights; inheritance and common property, for example,
are handled differently. 

Marna. 


-- 
Marna Nightingale
marna at redmaplegrove.org
~~~~~
"Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact,
be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men."
St. Augustine.