From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 93 20:14:27 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PGP in FIDO
Message-ID: <9310030314.AA20581@netcom5.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


khijol!erc@uunet.UU.NET (Ed Carp) said:
>Not at all.  I *did* look it up.  Technically, you are correct - but that
>marriage is recorded by no government agency, you won't find it in any
>public records - hell, if you still file 'single' on your tax return, who's
>going to know?  You can just walk away - and if your spouse agrees with
>you, you *can*.  I'm not talking about 'what would do in court' - I'm
>talking real life.
>
>How do I know?  I'm an ex-cop.  I worked on one of those 'common law'
>marriage cases.

Practical experience is a good thing. However, you are neglecting something:
the case where your spouse doesn't agree. This is real life, and such
things do happen.

Your ex-common-law wife can retroactively file for alimony, or even for
getting hold of your property during divorce proceedings, and use
testimony from mutual acquaintances to establish that a common law
marriage had been in effect.

The details vary from state to state, but I would be surprised if it
were as few as 9 states. There also tends to be a time interval involved...
for instance, if you live together and apparently share a budget,
pooling resources, and other such things, for N years, then if that
can be established by witnesses, then you've got a common law marriage.

The point that if no one knows, what difference does it make?... is
a lot like the proverbial tree falling in the forest. The difference
is that, in real life, people *will* know if you lived with an SO for
many years in a relationship that resembled marriage, and they can 
and often will testify to that fact.

Having a baby during that period certainly helps nail down the legal
status, but is not required.

Introductions as husband and wife helps, but is not required.

"Technically correct" versus pragmatics is often just a matter of whether
one's ex-SO is vindictive enough and knowledgeable enough to nail you.

I am not a lawyer; the above is merely my lay understanding of laws,
and hence may be completely incorrect.

P.S. Let me guess, despite the length of time that this issue has been
kicked around here, I'll get nailed for posting something that's not
apropos to cypherpunks. So let me point out how it is apropos: privacy.
If no one knew about your 10 year live-in lover, you wouldn't be able to get
nailed on such an issue. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader
to figure out how to use cryptography to ensure the secret. :-)

Cryptographic sex? Naw....
	Doug