A Commercial

Background music: baroque harpsicord and lute.

A medieval nobleman is seen stuffing his face with meat, fruit, and wine.
Voice over and text at the bottom of the screen: Gluttony:
Cut to nobleman shaking bishop's hand.
Six ducats
Nobleman knocks miniature ships and armies off a map.
Anger:
Cut to nobleman and bishop.
Two ducats
Nobleman moving rapidly with an intense look on his face enclosed in a four-poster bed.
Lust:
Cut to nobleman handing a sack of coins to bishop.
Three hundred ducats
Nobleman without a shirt, being whipped and surrounded by flames.
Going to hell anyway:
Cut to bishop with devil horns.
Priceless
Voice over: There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, tax the peasents.

In Common

tamheals and I met on May 30th, 2004. In November, we moved in together. A few weeks ago, we decided to enter in to a Common Law Marriage. After doing some research, we found that the most official such an arrangement can get is to file a notarized affidavit with the County Recorder's Office. Since it was late morning on a Saturday, we brainstormed for a moment about what notary would be open. Tamara said to check First Bank's web page. We found, to our delight, that the First Bank inside King Soopers at Kipling and Ken Caryl is open until 2pm on Saturdays.

We finished breakfast and drove off, self-written document in hand. We signed the paper, got the stamp, deposited a check, and then Tamara got a drink at the Starbucks next to the bank. (I would have gotten an Italian Soda to celebrate, but this small outfit couldn't produce.) We got some lunch meat, some snacks, some sorbet, and a cooked chicken and checked out, husband and wife. (Technically, we were married under common law a few nights before, when we decided to be married. The document just serves as a reference for people who want proof.) On 05/05/05 at 8:19, our affidavit was recorded in Jefferson County, CO. It was document number 2005014349. The recording fee was $6.

Tamara's family was pretty excited about this. They like me, and now all three of her dad's daughters got married within a year. Despite our protestations, he sent me a check for $1,000 and a Toad Suck Daze T-Shirt. My mom was rather taken aback; she had to lie down on the floor while we talked about it. Her main concern was that this happened without a ritual marking the change in life status. We assured her that ritual was on our mind, but that we wanted to properly prepare for it, whereas we could get the legal business out of the way simply. My dad offered his congratulations and baked us a wedding pie. (Pecan with lots of molasses; his old standby pie.)


Why did we do this?

Our perspectives on marriage differ significantly. Tamara's parents got married two weeks after they met in Florida, though they insist she got pregnant on the honeymoon. Last August when she was having some health problems, Tamara's dad told her he didn't want her living at the Y and offered to send her the $35 so we could get married at the court house. At her sister's wedding, her dad told us he'd come visit Colorado if we got married.

With that as a background, but not as a major motivating factor, Tamara mentioned several times her desire to get married over the past few months. She expressed her perspective that it's an expression of love and commitment, and that when people love each other and are committed, they should get married to secure that bond.

I've grown up with a perspective on social activities which is somewhat outside the mainstream. I think it's quite admirable when a couple stays together for a long time without getting married. They acknowledge their love and commitment and don't feel that a government or church should get involved. Since people of the same sex can't enter into a legal marriage in most places, this sort of a partnership appeals to my sense of equality.

I wasn't opposed to the idea of marriage, but when it came up I felt like we hadn't been together long enough to make that kind of decision. I've seen a lot of great relationships last for a few years and then end, one way or another. I thought I would be more comfortable getting married after we'd lived together for a few years. Since I could tell marriage was important to Tamara, I wanted to get married, just not yet.

So why did we get married in King Soopers the day before Beltane? (Aside from being cheaper than eloping to Vegas...) Tamara left her job with hospice before her thyroid surgery in March, and has taken this opportunity to get her health in order. I've been paying a lot of our expenses, since I earn more than she does. Merely by being married, Tamara can be covered by my health insurance and we get a significant discount on car insurance. We didn't get married because of insurance, we got married because we love each other. We got a common law marriage a week and a half ago because that gave us immediate benefits. If there weren't any legal benefits, we would've waited, organized a significant ceremony, etc. We still plan to have a wedding with lots of friends, food, and fun. But we're separating the concepts of marriage and wedding. The former conveys certain legal rights and responsibilities. The other is a ritual marking a couple's union, an opportunity to share their love with their friends and family and make it clear to the community that they're an item.


In Colorado, all that's necessary for a Common Law marriage is for the parties involved to be of opposite sex, over 18 (or 16 with parental permission), not otherwise married, able to enter into a legal agreement, and intend to be married. Doing things like sharing a last name, living together, referring to each other as spouses, etc. can be used as supporting evidence should it come up. But the only thing that must be present is the intent to be married and the ability to enter into a formal marriage. A common law marriage is legally valid in any situation in which a formal marriage is called for. All states should honor a common law marriage from another state. To end a common law marriage, a couple must still get a divorce. This site has a lot more information about marriage law, including what states allow common law marriages.

For those interested, below is a copy of the affidavit I wrote, adapted from a generic affidavit from the web. I've altered the address; if you want our real address, drop me a line. For the record, I prefer the term "partner" while Tamara prefers the term "wife."

( Affidavit of Common Law Marriage )

On a Philosophical Note

A separate entry, to separate historical narrative from social commentary. You should probably read the previous entry first.


I think the distinction between legal and social marriage is an important one. From a legal standpoint, marriage gives a couple certain rights such as filing taxes jointly, inheritance in the absence of a will, medical visitation, etc. Some companies provide further benefits based on marriage, such as insurance. It seems to me that these are things which should be limited to pairs of people with mismatched genitalia. Two men can create a Legal Partnership which is a single entity for tax purposes, can hire employees, provides certain rights and responsibilities, and comes with a name like Jones and Jones, Attorneys at Law. However, in most places in the USA, two men cannot create a legal partnership which is a single entity for tax purposes, can adopt children, provides any rights and responsibilities, and comes with a name like Jones and Jones, Husband and Husband. This sort of marriage is about establishing a household where people take care of each other, and providing legal support for that.

A social and/or religious marriage is about a lot of things. It's about tradition; it's about a public display of love; it's about family and friends affirming that this is a good idea; it's about getting dressed up in snazzy clothes and scattering flowers and playing your favorite love song. There are all sorts of religious rules, social considerations, and family issues involved in social marriage. There's nothing wrong with most of them, given that the couple is okay with them, and many of them serve very important purposes. But they have nothing to do with law, and thus should be entirely up to the couple getting married and the important parties involved (parents paying for the wedding, religious official conducting the ceremony, etc.). They shouldn't be enforced through the legislature.

The restriction of one man and one woman to a marriage is a long-standing tradition, but it's still a tradition. In many cases, what was officially a heterosexual pairing turns out to be a multiparty endeavor. Cultures as varied as the Muslims and the Mormons have had one-to-many relationships, while nobles the world 'round have had intimate relationships with multiple people at once. In some cases, wives were even proactive about finding mistresses for their husbands.

Furthermore, there have been countless people who have cared for each other in sickness and in health who happened to have similarly shaped genitals. Such unions have not traditionally been given the same social status as heterosexual pairings, but it doesn't mean the substance wasn't the same. They still made each other tea when one was sick, fought over messes in the kitchen, and groggily stole blankets at three in the morning. What's wrong with gay marriage? The same things that are wrong with straight marriages. Massachusetts has had full-fledged same-sex marriages for several months now and the fabric of society has not fallen apart.

In a land where you can stroll down to a bank kiosk in a supermarket and be officially married, a land where any number of any gender of adults can form a business partnership, why should only two people of opposite gender be allowed to get married?

This is not an attack on the sanctity of marriage. Religious organizations can still have whatever rules they want about marriage, divorce, child rearing, and what food's allowed to be in the wedding cake. The government isn't in the business of sanctifying anything. In Colorado, a religious official, a clerk, a judge, or even the couple themselves can solemnize a marriage. In a country founded on the separation of church and state, let's leave the sanctification to the churches and the solemnizing to the law.