QUESTIOIN OF MARRAGE AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND GOVRERMENT BENEFITS
923 S. A. AVE - ORDER OF ZEWS CAN BE USED FOR BUSINESS & FAN MAIL
Jesus Christ is the U.S, Constitution, The Word of God,
Wherefore, The World is No Longer under the Written Code, But Under the Law.
"I and the Father are One"
Pope John Paul One
Title President
JONES, FRANK Paul, Rev.
ALL THE HUWO HOME OF RECORD IS
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| PRIDE OF AVON, LODGE NO. 462, INC. | N42593 | INACT |
917 S. A. AVE
Jones, Latonya
QUEEN ELIZABETH BY PROCLAMATION
Queen And APARTMENTS
Florida Profit Corporation
QUEEN ELIZABETH APARTMENTS INC
Filing Information
Document Number 247268
FEI/EIN Number00-0000000Date ]
Filed 05/08/1961
State FL Status INACTIVE
Last Event DISSOLVED BY PROCLAMATION
Event Date Filed06/28/1965
Event Effective Date NONE
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| THE QUEEN LTD. | 822879 | INACT |
| QUEEN LLC | L16000162792 | Active |
| QUEEN AND COMPANY LLC | L22000049157 | Active |
| QUEEN INCORPORATED LLC | L22000183588 | Active |
| QUEEN, LLC | M04000003119 | INACT |
| THE QUEEN CORP. | P00000097770 | CROSS RF |
| QUEEN LIMITED, INC. | P04000036938 | INACT |
| QUEEN LIMITED, INC. | P14000068240 | NAME HS |
| QUEEN COMPANY INC. | P19000083086 | INACT |
| THE QUEEN CO. | S35564 | INACT |
| THE QUEEN, LLC | W21000065857 | Active |
| QUEEN16 HAIR & LASHES LLC | L21000343199 | INACT |
| QUEEN 2A KING PROPERTY, LLC | L18000088598 | INACT |
| QUEEN2B LLC | L19000205558 | INACT |
| QUEEN 2 NUEVA IMAGEN, INC. | P04000134831 | INACT |
| QUEEN2RULE BEAUTY DBA WRIGHT VENDING LLC | L22000219017 | INACT |
| QUEEN 3 REPRODUCTIONS, LLC | L15000049360 | INACT |
| QUEEN OF '49, INC. | P19000030378 | InActive |
| QUEEN 5117 LLC | L24000093118 | Active |
| QUEEN OF 5 BOUTIQUE LLC | L21000258617 | Active |
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| QUEEN ELIZABETH LLC | L05000052153 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH LLC | L11000031344 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH APARTMENTS INC | 247268 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH APARTMENTS, INC. | P97000067521 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH APT HOTEL CO | 170107 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH CLEANING SERVICES INC. | P12000066456 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH'S LLC | L20000243964 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABETH'S CLOSET LLC | L13000076459 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELIZABHETH NAILS BEAUTY SALON SPA CORP | P23000006148 | Active |
| QUEEN ELLIS VENDING, LLC | L19000216975 | Active |
| QUEEN ELM LLC | L21000208916 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELM CREATES LLC | L23000215727 | Active |
| QUEEN E LUXURY PRODUCTS INC | P18000023726 | INACT |
| QUEEN ELYS, LLC. | L21000086424 | INACT/UA |
| QUEEN EMERALD, CORPORATION | P99000101911 | Active |
| QUEEN EMMA, INC. | P96000104511 | INACT/MG |
| QUEEN OF THE EMPANADAS LLC | L17000124217 | INACT |
| THE QUEEN OF EMPANADAS LLC | L23000487370 | Active |
| QUEEN EMPIRE COUTURE LLC | L20000167712 | Active |
| QUEEN EMPOWERMENT CONSULTANTS LLC | L21000052097 | Active |
Florida Profit Corporation
AUGUSTA CORPORATION
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| AUGUSTA CORP | 144154 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA CORPORATION | 161876 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA, INC. | F11057 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA L.L.C. | L03000006810 | NAME HS |
| AUGUSTA, LLC | L03000039949 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA INC. | P00000008744 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA CORP | P11000039774 | Active |
| AUGUSTA, INC. | P97000075191 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA COMPANY, INC. | V24441 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA 10 INVESTMENTS LLC | L13000135683 | Active |
| AUGUST-A13, LLC | L11000053601 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA2006 LLC | L23000227222 | INACT/UA |
| AUGUSTA 44 LLC | L06000064958 | NAME HS |
| AUGUSTA A CARTER, INC | P11000007436 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA ADVISORS, LLC | L15000192193 | InActive |
| AUGUSTA AIR SHOW, LLC | L22000332476 | Active |
| AUGUSTA ANALYTICS LLC | L23000127800 | INACT/UA |
| AUGUSTA ARMS, INC. | P93000045424 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA ASSOCIATES - WINDSOR PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | A30987 | INACT |
| AUGUSTA AT GOLFVIEW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. | N43581 | Active |
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| FLORIDA CORPORATION, THE | 003233 | INACT |
| FLORIDA INCORPORATED THE | 105428 | INACT |
| FLORIDA CORPORATION THE | 119147 | INACT |
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| FLORIDA PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION, INC. | 752813 | Active |
| FLORIDA PUBLIC DEFENDER & DESIGN OF SHIELD SHAPE WITH BLINDFOLDED LADY JUSTICE HOLDING SCALES UP IN LEFT HAND AND SWORD POINTING DOWN IN RIGHT HAND | T16000000173 | Active |
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| JESUS CHRIST, INC. | N16000009754 | Active |
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| THE NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK MIAMI DADE CHAPTER, INC. | N12000008183 | NAME HS |
| THE NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER, INC. | N12000009279 | INACT |
| NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER, S M INC. | N13000009771 | INACT |
| THE NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK SOUTH FLORIDA CHAPTER, INC. | N12000008183 | Active |
| Corporate Name | Document Number | Status |
|---|---|---|
| THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY NETWORK, INC | N09000010173 | NAME HS |
| THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY NETWORK, INC | N09000010173 | INACT/UA |
| NATIONAL COMMUNITY NETWORK, INC. | P96000027136 | INACT |
| THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY NETWORK & COALITION OF HIGHLANDS, INC | N09000010173 | NAME HS |
WALMART V THE CITY OF NEW YORK
KEYNOTE:
WHEREFORE, WALMART STORES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ARE DEPARTMENTAL AND DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN A DEPARTMENTS STORES DO HAVE DEFIFFEREBT REGULATIONS THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, ONE THING DO REMAIN.
WALMART EMPLOYEES AND STAFF HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK AND THE PROTECTION OF THIS UNION AND ITS MILITARY FORCES, IN ALL AREAS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONCLUSUION:
THE RIGHT TO EAT IS THE RIGHT TO WORK AND THE RIGHT TO WORK IS
THE RIGHT TO EAT.
WHEREFORE, THE FIRST UNION, JESUS CHRIST, INC. IS A UNION THAT
ARE PRO-CREATORS OF ETERNAL LIFE,
WHEREFORE, AN ANGEL IS HUMAN, HOWEVER, THEY CANNOT PROCREATE, AS
SO WITH A CHILD, HOWEVER, AN ANGEL AND A CHILD CANNOT PROCREATE AT THIS TIME
AND THE FUNDAMENTAL RATIONAL BEHIND A UNION AS WITH A MARRIAGE IS TO PROCREATE
AND BRING LIFE INTO THIS WORLD THRU LABOR.
WHEREFORE THE FOUNDATION OF A UNION IS PROCREATION AND TO DO
THIS THE MATES MUST BE COMPATIBLE,
WHEREFORE, INCOMPATIBILITY ARE GROUNDS FOR AN ANNULMENT,
WHEREFORE, MARRIAGE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BETWEEN OR AMONG
INCOMPAITIBLE MATES,
WHETREFORE, THE DECLAEATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS A SEPARATION
AGREEMENT OR MARRAIAGE WITHOUT RIGHTS,
FIELD ORDER 15. IS AN ORDER OF RESTRAINMENT,
WHEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF HUMAN BEINGS AND MAN, HUMANS BEINGS
WERE BEING ABUSE BY HUMANS WHO REQUIRE HUMAN PROTEIN TO SURVIVE, DUE TO THE
REMOVAL OF THEIR ABILITY TO PROCREATE, WHICH IS THE FOUNDAMENTAL RATIONAL AND
REASON FOR A MARRIAGE OR UNIONS ANOUNG HUMANKIND,
WHEREFORE, THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERN AND ISSUE.
WHEREFORE, HUMANKIND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND MOST CERTAINLY HAS
BEEN EMANCIPATED,
WHEREFORE, I WAS NEVER MARRIED TO THOSE WHO ARER STERILIZED AND
CANNOT PROCREATE AND DEPEND ON HUMANKIND FO GUMAN PROTEIN AND EAT PEOPLE AND
PEOPLE EATERS ARE DESCRIBED IN FIELD ORDER 15 AS WHITE INHANITANTS OR CANNIBLE,
WHEREFORE, FIELD ORDER 15 is CONSTITUTIONAL, WHEREFORE, ALL
HUMANKIND DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK,
WHEREFORE, WALMART EMPLOYEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK, WHICH IS A
HUMAN RIGHT, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND NOW WITH THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005
IN FULL EFFECT SINCE 2018, THIS UNION AND ITS MEMBERS ARE EMANCIPATED AND DUE
TO THE STATE OF THIS UNION, FIELD ORDER 15 IS GOOD LAW,
WHEREFORE, WALMART STORES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ARE
DEPARTMENTAL AND DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN A DEPARTMENTS STORES DO HAVE
DEFIFFEREBT REGULATIONS THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, ONE THING DO REMAIN.
WALMART EMPLOYEES AND STAFF HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK AND THE
PROTECTION OF THIS UNION AND ITS MILITARY FORCES, IN ALL AREAS OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
REV. DR. FRANK PAUL JONES – MESSIAH, M.D.
POPE JOHN PAUL 1
GENERAL OF THE ARMY
THE FIRST LABOR UNION ARE PROCRESTORS OF ETERNAL HUMANKIND
OPENING STATEMENT: AS FOR - QUESTIOIN OF MARRAGE AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND GOVRERMENT BENEFITS
IT IS CLEAR THAT DIKES DO THIS TO BEAT THE SYSTEM
HEY, LETS KEEP IT REAL, THIS IS AS BAD AS THOSE FAKE ASS VEITNAM FAKE VETS!
Rev. DR.FRANK PAUL JONES
– MESSAIH, M.D. v. AUSTRIA
Jesus Christ, INC. - THE
PROCLAMATION CORPORATION
THANKSGIVING 4 MARCH OF
EACH YEAR
UNCONSTITIONAL, WHEREFORE,
WE ARE A UNION
THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE – WAS INDEPENDENCE FROM SATAN
FIELD ORDER 15
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964
ROE v. WADE
THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005
– IN FULL EFFECT – 2018
WHEREFORE, THERE IS NO
STATUE OF limitations TO FRUAD AS CONCERNING BENEFIT GAINED TO INCLDE SOCIAL
SECURITY AND OTHER BENEFITS
AUSTRIA MARRIAGE LAW –
AND THE U.S WHICH ARE INATE ENEMIES = INCOMPABLE
ARGUMENT DEAD ON
ARRIVAL
Rev. DR. FRANK PAUL JONES – MESSIAH, M.D.
GENERAL OF THE ARMY AND CHAPLAIN OF THE UNION FORCES
IN RE:
QUESTIOIN OF MARRAGE AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND GOVRERMENT BENEFITS
REV. FRANK PAUL JONES - V - SHARA C. AND KELLY BUEFORD
RESPONSE FOR BENEFITS; CASE # 24-030166JPM
ATTORNEY:CHRISTOPHORB MARK
COPY FUNISHED; PAULETTE BROWN
FILE HIGHLANDS HOSPITAL : FILE # 1941-WO-25-0300178
AUSTRIA AN INNATE ENEMY MARRAGE CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTION, BUT THE REAL CONCERN THEY ARE SPENDING MY RETIREMENT AND ALREADY SPENT MY EARLY RETIREMENTS AND HATE CRIMES HAS ME IN A MANSION WITHOUT UTILITIES AS I PAY EVERY BODIES UTILITES AND BENEFITS.
To get married in Austria, you must meet certain legal requirements
and provide specific documents.
Legal requirements
- You must be at least 18 years old, unless a court
authorizes a marriage between an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old
- You must not be subject to a prohibition of
marriage
- You must be capable of making decisions, which
means you can understand the consequences of your actions
Documents required
- Passport
- Birth certificate
- Driver's license or similar document
- Residence registration form
- Documentary proof of previous marriages
- U.S. marriage license
- Notarized parental consent if required
- Proof of the dissolution of a previous marriage
or a death certificate of the previous spouse
- Birth certificates, proof of nationality, and
proof of residence for any children
Application process
- You must apply in person at the Vital Statistics
Office (Standesamt)
- You must pay court fees
- The application process usually takes two to four
weeks
- Entrance and Residence
- Tips for travelling to Austria
- Drugs and Medicines
- Driving & Toll Roads
- Marriage in Austria
- Value-Added Tax
- Travel with Pets
- Guns, Rifles, Firearms, and
Ammunition
- Miscellaneous (Residency
Registration, Schools etc.)
- Customs and Import Regulations
- Studying in Austria
- About Austria
Marriage in Austria
Marriage in Austria
US citizens may get married in Austria. However, the procedure
requires time and thorough preparation. Therefore, US residents contemplating
marriage in Austria should be familiar with the following requirements:
1) Legal Age for Marriage:
The legal age for either sex is 18. Persons at least 16 years of
age may also marry upon presentation of written, notarized consent from both
parents and if the other spouse is at least 18 years old.
2) Required Documents:
- Passport
- Birth Certificate (original or certified copy)
- Driver's License or like document that shows
address of residence
- A residence registration form
("Meldezettel") issued by the Austrian authorities after
arrival, unless the applicants are staying in a hotel, youth hostel etc.
- Documentary proof of dissolution of previous
marriage(s), if any, e.g., final divorce or annulment decrees (Mexican
divorces are usually not recognized in Austria) or death certificate(s) of
previous spouse(s). The marriage certificate(s) of such previous
marriage(s) is/are also usually required.
- U.S. marriage license g. Notarized parental
consent, if required (see above).
Documents (other than passports and driver's licenses) not in
German must be accompanied by certified translations done by an official
translator. Further, certain US documents (e.g. birth certificate) might have
to be certified and an apostille be affixed.
3) Place of Marriage:
Only civil marriages are legal in Austria. They may, however, be
followed by religious ceremonies if desired. Civil marriages are performed by
officials of the Vital Statistics Office (Standesamt) in the appropriate
jurisdiction. The ceremony takes place at the Standesamt. If either party to
the marriage is an Austrian citizen or resides in Austria (regardless of
citizenship), the application for marriage must be filed at the Standesamt in
the locality of that residence. If both parties to the marriage are neither
Austrians nor residents, the application must be filed at the Standesamt for
the First District of Vienna (Standesamt Wien-Innere Stadt, Schlesingerplatz 4,
A-1082 Vienna, Austria; Phone: 01143 1 40134 08580; Fax: 01143 1 40134 99
08580; E-Mail: post-a08(at)m61.magwien.gv.at).
4) Procedures:
Both marriage partners - bringing with them the required documents
listed above - should apply in person at the appropriate Vital Statistics
Office (Standesamt). The Standesamt will forward the documents for approval of
the marriage to the appropriate Superior Court (Oberlandesgericht). After
payment of the court fees, the file is returned to the Standesamt which then
schedules the date of the wedding (there may be some difficulty obtaining
appointments during major holidays). The overall fees for the various
procedures and services can reach up to approximately Euro 300.00. The ceremony
itself lasts approximately 15 minutes. In case one or both marriage partners do
not speak German, they must engage the services of an official Austrian
interpreter at their own expenses. Please be advised that you need an apostille
affixed to your Austrian marriage certificate since it will otherwise not be
accepted by the authorities in the US. You should apply for an apostille at the
Standesamt where your marriage ceremony is to take place.
5) Time required to complete application process:
Although Austrian law does not require a period of residence in
Austria prior to marriage, the administrative procedures involved usually
require two to four weeks to complete.
6) Miscellaneous:
Usually both marriage partners should be present in Austria during
the entire period necessary to arrange for the ceremony. If only one partner
can be present in Austria, he/she may make the arrangements providing he/she
obtains the authority from the other partner on a form called
"Ermächtigung". These forms (in German) are available from all
Standesamt offices.
For additional information, US citizens can also contact the US
Embassy, American Citizen Services, Gartenbaupromenade 2, A-1010 Vienna; Phone:
01143 1 313 39 7575; Fax: 01143 1 512 5835; E-Mail:
consularvienna(at)state.gov.
7) Validity of Austrian marriages:
Binding advice regarding the validity of an Austrian marriage in
the United States can be obtained only from an attorney or an official in the
appropriate state. However, marriages legally performed in Austria are
generally recognized in the United States.
U.S. Marriage LAWSMarriage in the United States is a legal,
social, and religious institution. The marriage age is
set by each state and territory, either by statute or the common law applies.
An individual may marry without parental consent or other authorization on
reaching 18 years of age in all states except in Nebraska (where
the general marriage age is 19) and Mississippi (where
the general marriage age is 21.) In Puerto Rico the
general marriage age is also 21. In all these jurisdictions, these are also
the ages of majority. In Alabama,
however, the age of majority is 19, while the general marriage age is 18. Most
states also set a lower age at which underage persons are able to marry
with parental or judicial consent. Marriages where one
partner is less than 18 years of age are commonly referred to as child or underage marriages.
Marriage laws have changed considerably over time, including the
removal of bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.
In 2009, there were 2,077,000 marriages, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.[needs update][1] The
median age for the first marriage has increased in recent years.[2] The
median age in the early 1970s was 23 for men and 21 for women; and it rose to
28 for men and 26 for women by 2009[3] and
by 2017, it was 29.5 for men and 27.4 for women.[4]
Marriages vary considerably in terms of religion, socioeconomic
status, age, commitment, and so forth.[5][6] Reasons
for marrying may include a desire to have children, love, or economic security.[7] Marriage
has been in some instances used for the sole purpose of gaining a green card and/or
facilitating full citizenship; the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments
of 1986 are among laws that are used to prevent their recognition for
immigration purposes, and a marriage visa can be obtained in advance of entry
of the non-national where there is a long-term, committed relationship
demonstrable.[8] In
2003, 184,741 immigrants were admitted as spouses of US citizens.[9]
Marriages can be terminated by annulment, divorce or
death of a spouse. Divorce (known as dissolution of marriage in some states)
laws vary by state, and address issues such as how the two spouses bifurcate
their property, how children will be cared for, and support obligations of
one spouse toward the other. Since the late 1960s, divorce has become more
prevalent. Divorce rates in 2005 were four times the divorce rates in 1955, and
a quarter of children less than 16 years old were raised by a stepparent.[10] Divorce
rates peaked in 1979, and had dropped by more than a third by the early 2020s.[11] In
2009, it was found that marriages that end in divorce lasted for a median of 8
years.[12] As
a rough rule, marriage has more legal ramifications than other types of bonds
between consenting adults. A civil union is
"a formal union between two people of the same or of different genders
which results in, but falls short of, marriage-like rights and
obligations," according to one view.[13] Domestic partnerships are a version of civil
unions. Registration and recognition are functions of states, localities, or
employers; such unions may be available to couples of the same sex and,
sometimes, opposite sex.[14] Cohabitation to
a certain extent is an expectation of marriage, in which context it means
living together, a term also applied to when two unmarried people live together
and have an intimate or loving relationship.[15]
Interjurisdictional recognition
[edit]
All U.S. jurisdictions recognize all validly contracted
out-of-state marriages under their laws of comity and choice of law/conflict of laws rules
- including marriages that cannot be legally contracted domestically. Likewise,
an invalidly contracted out-of-state marriage will not be valid domestically,
even if it could have been validly contracted domestically. For example,
California allows first cousins to marry but Nevada does not. If two first
cousins attempt to marry in Nevada, that marriage will not be valid in either
Nevada or California, notwithstanding it could be legally contracted in
California. But if they attempt to marry in California, their attempt will be
successful and the marriage will be valid in both California and Nevada,
notwithstanding the marriage could not be legally contracted in Nevada. This
may lead to jurisdiction shopping.
History
[edit]
A Marriage Certificate issued in the US in 1877
The marriage between Luisa de Abrego, a free black domestic servant
from Seville and
Miguel Rodríguez, a white Segovian conquistador in
1565 in St. Augustine (Spanish Florida),
is the first known and recorded Christian marriage anywhere in what is now
the continental United States.[16]
When the country was founded in the 1770s, marriage between whites
and non-whites was in many states
forbidden due to the racist attitudes of the time. Nine states,
including the most recent two, never passed any law clearly forbidding such a
marriage. In 1948, the California Supreme
Court became the first state high court to declare the state's
ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously rendered unenforceable remaining interracial marriage laws – these
had been applicable in sixteen states forming the south-east of the United
States – in Loving v. Virginia.[17] It
struck down the law directly in that state.[17] In
2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's
decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a ballot initiative that
removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.[18]
Expectations of a marriage partner have changed over time. Second
U.S. President John Adams wrote in his diary that the ideal spouse
was willing to "palliate faults and mistakes, to put the best construction
upon words and actions, and to forgive injuries."[19] A
1940 paper by a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania reported that male
students resisted the idea of marrying a girl who they suspected had sex with
another man.[20] The sexual revolution in
1960s United States altered this norm for many.
Over the last 50 years, Americans increasingly choose not to marry.
The proportion of Americans age 25–50 who had never married rose from 9% in
1970 to 35% in 2018.[21] They
also increasingly find themselves in a household without a partner: the
proportion of Americans age 25–54 who were not currently living with a partner
(whether married or unmarried) rose from 29% in 1990 to 38% in 2019.[22] Susan
Brown, co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research,
said the number of women marrying for the first time between the ages of 40 and
59 has increased 75 percent since 1990.[23]
Demographics
[edit]
Marital status by age group in 2004
[edit]
Marital status of residents of the United States of America in 2004
In 2004 the U.S. Census Bureau measured the marital status of
U.S. residents, showing several trends.[24][25] While
about 96% of residents in their 70s and 80s were married at least once, many
were widowed due
to the death of their spouses. In addition, a large portion of middle-aged
Americans are either divorced, legally separated,
or informally separated. Of those who were "separated or divorced,"
approximately 74% were legally divorced, 15% were "separated," and
11% were listed as having an "absent spouse."
Marital status in the U.S. in the year 2000
[edit]
The four maps on the right shows the pattern of married, widowed,
separated, and divorced households in the United States in the year 2000. The
map on the bottom left shows that the west coast had the highest percentages of
households to go through divorce. According to the map bottom right of the
census chart the south east coast and New Orleans had the highest percentage of
separated houses in the U.S. The northeast had the highest percentages of
marriages. The highest percentages of widowed households was in the Midwest.[citation needed]
Trends and census data of 2006–2021
[edit]
A map comparing the distributions of marriage in 2006 and 2017 of
the population 15 years or older by state in the United States.
As of 2006, 55.7% of Americans age 18 and over were married.[26] According
to the 2008–2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 51.5% of males and
47.7% of females over the age of 15 were married. The separation rate was 1.8%
for males and 2.5% for females.[2] Rates
of marriage are falling rapidly in the US.[27]
African Americans have married the least of all of the predominant
ethnic groups in the U.S. with a 29.9% marriage rate, but have the highest
separation rate which is 4.5%.[2] Native
Americans have the second lowest marriage rate with 37.9%. Hispanics have a
45.1% marriage rate, with a 3.5% separation rate.[2]
In the United States, the two ethnic groups with the highest
marriage rates included Asians with 58.5% and Whites with 52.9%. Asians have
the lowest rate of divorce among the main groups with 1.8%. Whites, African
Americans, and Native Americans have the highest rates of being widowed ranging
from 5%–6.5%. They also have the highest rates of divorce among the three,
ranging from 11%–13% with Native Americans having the highest divorce rate.[2]
The median age for Americans' first marriage has risen in recent
years,[2] with
the median age at first marriage in the early 1970s being 21 for women and 23
for men, and in 2009, it had risen to 26 for women and 28 for men.[3][28]
In 2009, 2,077,000 marriages occurred in the United States.[1] From
that point on, though, a Pew study found that the number of new marriages
declined 5% in just one year (that is, from 2009 to 2010).[29]
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the average family income
is higher than previous years at $62,770.[30] The
percentage of family households below the poverty line in 2011 was 15.1%,
higher than in 2000 when it was 11.3%.[31] According
to a report in 2013, the percentage of heterosexual couples who marry has
fallen dramatically, but couples who marry are more likely to have college degrees and
higher income than those who do not marry.[32] Some
commentators suggest that marriage in twenty-first century America has become
a luxury good.[33]
Studies show that the number of working-age Americans without a
partner is on the rise, and a growing number of young people are living
together without marriage. Experts often link the long-term decline in
marriages to gender equality, financial independence and education. The
national marriage rate fell to 5.1 per 1,000 in 2020 due to the Covid-19
pandemic, the lowest level in 121 years. By 2021, new marriages had almost
returned to pre-pandemic levels. 6.0 per 1000 people.[34]
Since the 2010s, the rate of ideological heterogamy has increased
dramatically, from about 6 percent in the 1970s to 22 percent today. For every
young liberal woman today there are only 0.6 single young liberal men.
Likewise, there are only 0.5 unmarried young conservative women for every young
conservative man. Statistically, about half of these ideologically minded young
singles face the prospect of not being able to find a partner who shares their
politics.[27]
Sociology of marriage
[edit]
Main article: Sociology of the family
Types of marriage
[edit]
Monogamy is
when one person marries one other person and is the most common and accepted
form of marriage in the United States.[6] Serial
monogamy is when individuals are permitted to marry again, often on the death
of the first spouse or after divorce; they cannot have more than one spouse at
one time because that would be polygamy which
in countries with marital monogamy like the US is called bigamy.[6][35] Polygamy is
a form of marriage in which someone marries multiple people at a given time,[6] and
is illegal throughout the U.S. under the Edmunds Act.[36] Part
of the function of looking at marriage from a sociological perspective is to
give insight into the reasons behind various marital arrangements.
Reasons for marriage
[edit]
There are several reasons that Americans marry. The desire to have
children is one; having a family is a high priority among many Americans.[7] People
also desire love, companionship, commitment, continuity, and permanence.[7] There
are some reasons for marriage that are ephemeral. These reasons include social
legitimacy, social pressure, the desire for a high social status,
economic security, rebellion or revenge, or validation of an unplanned
pregnancy.[7]
Law
[edit]
Marriage laws
are established by individual states.[37] There
are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common-law marriage and
obtaining a marriage license.[38] Common-law
marriage is no longer permitted in most states.[37] Though
federal law does not regulate state marriage law, it does provide for rights and
responsibilities of married couples that differ from those of
unmarried couples. Reports published by the General Accounting Office in 1997 and 2004
identified over 1000 such laws.[39]
Marriage as a fundamental right
[edit]
The United States Supreme Court has in at least 15
cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.
These cases are:[40][41]
1.
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Marriage
is "the most important relation in life" and "the foundation of
the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor
progress."
2.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) The
right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central
part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3.
Skinner v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Marriage
is "one of the basic civil rights of man" and "fundamental to
the very existence and survival of the race."
4.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) "We
deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older
than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse,
hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an
association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet
it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior
decisions."
5.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) "The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
6.
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) "[M]arriage
involves interests of basic importance to our society" and is "a
fundamental human relationship."
7.
Cleveland Board of
Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) "This
Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
8.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) "[W]hen
the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this
Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests
advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation."
9.
Carey v. Population
Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) "[I]t
is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without
unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing
and education."
10.Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) "[T]he
right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
11.Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) "[T]he
decision to marry is a fundamental right" and an "expression[ ] of
emotional support and public commitment."
12.Planned Parenthood
of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) "Our
law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and
education. [...] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity
and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
13.M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) "Choices
about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among
associational rights this Court has ranked as 'of basic importance in our
society,' rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's
unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect."
14.Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) "[O]ur
laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions
relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and
education. ... Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these
purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."
15.Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) "[T]he right to marry is
a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the
same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
Age of marriage
[edit]
Main articles: Marriage age in the
United States and Child marriage in
the United States
The age at which a person can marry varies by state. The marriage
age is generally 18 years, with the exception of Nebraska (19) and Mississippi
(21). In addition, 37 states allow minors to marry in certain circumstances,
such as parental consent, judicial consent, pregnancy, or a combination of
these situations. Most states allow minors aged 16 and 17 to marry with
parental consent alone. In four states, there is no statutory minimum age if
other legal conditions are met. All other states have set an absolute minimum
age by statute, which varies between 15 and 18.[42] Over
the past 15 years, more than 200,000 minors married in the US, and in Tennessee a
10-year-old girl was married in 2001,[43] before
the state finally set a minimum age of 17 in 2018.[44]
Restrictions and expansions of marriage
[edit]
Marriage has been restricted over the course of the history of the
United States according race, sexual orientation, number of parties entering
into the marriage, and familial relationships.
Common-law marriage
[edit]
Main article: Common-law marriage
in the United States
Eight states and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages.
Once they meet the requirements of the respective state, couples in those
recognized common-law marriages are considered legally married for all purposes
and in all circumstances. Common-law marriage can be contracted in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and
the District of Columbia.[45][46] Common-law
marriage may also be valid under military law for
purposes of a bigamy prosecution
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.[note 1]
All U.S. jurisdictions recognize common-law marriages that were
validly contracted in the originating jurisdiction, because they are valid
marriages in the jurisdiction where they were contracted, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, absent legal
registration or similar notice of the marriage, the parties to a common law
marriage or their eventual heirs may have difficulty proving their relationship
to be marriage. Some states provide for registration of an informal or common-law
marriage based on the declaration of each of the spouses on a state-issued
form.[47]
Marriage law and race
[edit]
Main article: Anti-miscegenation
laws in the United States
Anti-miscegenation laws which prohibited interracial marriage date back to Colonial America.
The earliest were established in Maryland and Virginia in the 1660s. After
independence, seven of the original colonies and many new states, particularly
those in the West and the South, also implemented anti-miscegenation laws.
Despite a number of repeals in the 19th century, in 1948, 30 out of 48 states
enforced prohibitions against interracial marriage. A number of these laws were
repealed between 1948 and 1967. In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled the Californian
anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp.
Many other states repealed their laws in the following decade, with the
exception of states in the South. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared all
anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.
As at October 25, 2023, seven states required couples to declare
their racial background when applying for a marriage license, without which
they cannot marry. The states are Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Minnesota, New Hampshire and Alabama. After a lawsuit against Virginia's law by
three couples,[48] Virginia
Attorney General Mark Herring removed the question from future
licenses on September 14, 2019.[49] The
law was ruled unconstitutional by a District Court on October 11, 2019,[50] and
the law was repealed by the Virginia General Assembly on March 10, 2020.[51]
Marriage law and sexual orientation
[edit]
Main articles: Same-sex marriage in
the United States and Same-sex marriage
legislation in the United States
For much of the United States's history, marriage was restricted
to heterosexual couples. Marriage licenses were issued
to gay male couples Michael McConnell and Jack Baker in 1970 and Billie Ert and
Antonio Molina in 1972, but both marriages were declared
invalid by courts afterwards. In 1993, three same-sex couples challenged the
legality Hawaii's
statute prohibiting gay marriage in the lawsuit Baehr v. Miike.
The case brought same-sex marriage to national attention and spurred the
creation of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which
denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and defined marriage to be
between one man and one woman. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of
DOMA was unconstitutional in the case of United States v. Windsor.
In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples. In reaction, many states took measures to define
marriage as existing between one man and one woman. By 2012, 31 states had
amended their constitutions to prevent same-sex marriage, and 6 had legalized
it. Bolstered by the repeal of DOMA, an additional 30 states legalized same-sex
marriage between 2012 and 2015. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
declared all state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Polygamy
[edit]
Polygamy (or bigamy)
is illegal in all 50 states,[36] as
well as the District of Columbia, Guam,[52] and
Puerto Rico.[53] Bigamy
is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both, according to the law of the
individual state and the circumstances of the offense.[54] Because
state laws exist, polygamy is not actively prosecuted at the federal level,[55] but
the practice is considered "against public policy" and, accordingly,
the U.S. government does not recognize bigamous marriages for immigration
purposes (that is, would not allow one of the spouses to petition for
immigration benefits for the other), even if they are legal in the country
where a bigamous marriage was celebrated.[56] Any
immigrant coming to the United States to practice polygamy will not be
admitted.[57]
Many U.S. courts (e.g. Turner v. S., 212 Miss. 590, 55 So.2d 228)
treat bigamy as a strict liability crime: in some jurisdictions, a person can
be convicted of a felony even if he or she reasonably believed he or she had
only one legal spouse. For example, a person who mistakenly believes that their
spouse is dead or that their divorce is final can still be convicted of bigamy
if they marry a different person.[58]
Polygamy became a significant social and political issue in the
United States in 1852, when the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) made it known that a
form of the practice, called plural marriage,
was part of its doctrine. Opposition to the practice by the United States government
resulted in an intense legal conflict, and resulted in it being outlawed
federally by the Edmunds Act in 1882. The LDS Church president Wilford Woodruff announced the church's
official abandonment of the practice on September 25, 1890.[note 2] However,
breakaway Mormon fundamentalist groups living mostly in the
western United States, Canada,
and Mexico still
practice plural marriage.
Some other Americans practice polygamy including some American Muslims.[59]
Other restrictions
[edit]
Marriage between first cousins is illegal in most
states. However, it is legal in some states, the District of Columbia and some territories. Some
states have some restrictions or exceptions for first cousin marriages and/or
recognize such marriages performed out-of-state.
Marriage and immigration
[edit]
Main article: Green card marriage
According to the U.S. Census Bureau "Every year over 450,000
United States citizens marry foreign-born individuals and petition for them to
obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States."[60][better source needed] In
2003, 184,741 immigrants were admitted to the U.S. as spouses of U.S. citizens.[9]
There are conditional requirements in order to obtain a green card
through the marriage process. The prospect must have a conditional green card.
This becomes permanent after approval by the government. The candidate may then
apply for United States citizenship.[61]
A conditional residence green card is given to applicants who are
being processed for permanent residence in the United States because they are
married to a U.S. citizen. It is valid for two years. At the end of this time
period if the card holder does not change the status of their residency they
will be put on "out of status". Legal action by the government may
follow.[62]
There are different procedures based on whether the applicant is
already a U.S. citizen or if the applicant is an immigrant. The marriage must
also be legal in, if appropriate, the emigrant's country.[61]
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986
[edit]
Public Law 99-639 (Act of 11/10/86) was passed to deter marriage fraud among
immigrants. The United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services summarizes the law and its
implications: "Its major provision stipulates that aliens deriving their
immigrant status based on a marriage of less than two years are conditional
immigrants. To remove their conditional status the immigrants must apply at a
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office during the 90-day period
before their second-year anniversary of receiving conditional status. If the
aliens cannot show that the marriage through which the status was obtained was
and is a valid one, their conditional immigrant status may be terminated and
they may become deportable."[8]
The conditional immigration status can be terminated for several
causes, including divorce, invalid marriage, and failure to petition
Immigration Services to remove the classification of conditional residency. If
Immigration Services suspects that an alien has
created a fraudulent marriage the immigrant is subject to removal from the
United States. The marriage must be fraudulent at its inception, as can be
determined by several factors. The factors include the conduct of parties
before and after the marriage, and the bride and groom's intention of
establishing a life together. The validity must be proved by the couple by
showing insurance policies, property, leases, income tax, bank accounts, etc.
Cases are decided by determining whether the sole purpose of the marriage was
to gain benefits for the immigrant.
The punishment for fraud can be up to five years in prison and a
fine of up to $250,000, or both[63] and
the possibility of never becoming a permanent resident of the United States.[64] The
U.S. citizen or resident spouse could also face criminal prosecution, including
fines or imprisonment. They could be prosecuted for either criminal conspiracy[65] or
for establishing a "commercial enterprise" to fraudulently acquire
green cards for immigrants.[63]
These Amendment Acts cover spouses, children of spouses, and K-1 visa fiancés.[8]
Basic immigration law
[edit]
The Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952 has been amended many times, but still
remains the basic and central body of immigration law.[66]
Intersection of immigration law and family law
[edit]
Immigrants who use the reason of family ties to gain entry into the
United States are required to document financial arrangements. The sponsor of a related immigrant must guarantee
financial support to the immigrant.[67] These
guarantees form a contract between a sponsor and the federal government. It
requires the sponsor to support the immigrant relative at a level equivalent to
125% of the poverty line for his or her household size. A beneficiary of
the contract, the immigrant, or the Federal Government may sue for the promised
support in the event the sponsor does not fulfill the obligations of the
contract. The sponsor is also liable for the prevailing party's legal expenses.[68]
Divorce does
not end the sponsor's obligation to provide the support deemed by the contract.
The obligation terminates only when the immigrant spouse becomes a U.S.
citizen, the immigrant spouse has worked forty Social Security Act eligible quarters (10 years),
the immigrant spouse ceases to be a lawful permanent resident and has left the
U.S., the immigrant spouse obtained an ability to adjust their status through
another method, or the immigrant spouse dies. A sponsor's death also cuts off
the obligation, but not in regards to any support the sponsor already owes
which will be paid by the sponsor's estate.[68]
Mail-order bride and immigration fraud
[edit]
A mail-order bride is a foreign woman who contacts American men and
immigrates for the purpose of marriage.
Initially, it was conducted through mailed catalogs, but now, more
often, on the internet. Prospective brides are typically from developing
nations such as South/Southeast Asia,
the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, Macao, Hong Kong,
and China.
Brides from Eastern European countries have been in demand.[69] The
mail-order bride phenomenon can be traced as far back as the 1700s and 1800s.[70] This
was due to the immigration of European colonizers who were in far away areas
and wanted brides from their homeland.[70]
First world governments have speculated that some foreign women
marry men in their country as an easy immigration route, staying married long
enough to secure permanent citizenship, and then divorcing their husbands.
Whether the brides choose to remain married or not, they could still sponsor
the rest of their families to immigrate. Precautions have been taken by several
countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. They have
fought the proliferation of the mail-order bride industry through amending
immigration laws. The United States addressed the mail-order bride system by
passing the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of 1986.[71] Great
Britain and Australia have experienced similar immigration and are trying to
deal with the issue.[69]
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender immigrants
[edit]
In 2000, 36,000 same-sex bi-national couples were living in the
United States. A majority of these couples were raising young children.[72] Female
couples head 58% of bi-national families; 33% are male couples.[72]
History
[edit]
The revision of American immigration law imposed a ban on
homosexual people beginning in 1952.[72] The
language barred "aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, epilepsy
or mental defect."[72] Congress
explicitly intended this language to cover "homosexuals and sex
perverts." The law was amended in 1965 to more specifically prohibit the
entry of persons "afflicted with... sexual deviation."[72] Until
1990, "sexual deviation" was grounds for exclusion from the United
States, and anyone who admitted being a homosexual was refused entry.[72] Lesbian
and gay individuals are now admitted and US citizens may petition for immigrant
visas for their same-sex spouses under the same terms as opposite-sex spouses.[73]
Boutilier v. Immigration Service, 1967
[edit]
In 1967, the Supreme Court confirmed that, when describing a
homosexual person, they were to be referred to as a "psychopathic
personality."[72] Twenty-one-year-old
Clive Boutilier, a Canadian, had moved to the United States in 1955 to join his
mother, stepfather, and 3 siblings who already lived there.[72] In
1963, he applied for US citizenship, admitting that he had been arrested on a
sodomy charge in 1959.[72] He
was ordered to be deported. He challenged his deportation until it became a
federal matter and became a case for the Supreme Court. In a six-three
decision, the court ruled that Congress had decided to bar gay people from
entering the United States:[72] "Congress
was not laying down a clinical test, but an exclusionary standard which it
declared to be inclusive of those having homosexual and perverted
characteristics..." Congress used the phrase 'psychopathic personality'
not in the clinical sense, but to effectuate its purpose to exclude from entry
all homosexuals and other sex perverts."[72] Boutilier
was torn from his partner of eight years. According to one historian,
"Presumably distraught about the Court's Decision... Boutillier attempted
suicide before leaving New York, survived a month-long coma that left him
brain-damaged with permanent disabilities, and moved to southern Ontario with
his parents, who took on the task of caring for him for more than twenty
years."[72] He
died in Canada on April 12, 2003, only weeks before that country moved to
legalize same-sex marriage.[72]
Even with the ban being enforced homosexual people still managed to
come to the United States for several reasons, but especially to be with the
people they loved.[72] The
fight to allow homosexual immigrants into the United States continued in the
mid-1970 with an Australian national named Anthony Sullivan.[72] He
was living in Boulder, Colorado, with his American partner, Richard Adams.[72] When
Sullivan's visitor's visa was about to expire, they managed to persuade the
county clerk to issue them a marriage license, with which Sullivan applied for
a green card as Adams' spouse.[72] They
received a negative reply from the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Sullivan and Adams sued, and in 1980, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
concluded that because Congress intended to restrict the term
"spouse" to opposite-sex couples, and because Congress has extensive
power to limit access to immigration benefits, the denial was lawful.[72] The
ban was finally repealed in 1990, but without making any provision for gays and
lesbians to be treated equally with regard to family-based immigration
sponsorship.[72] Sponsorship[73] became
possible only after the 2013 US Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor[74] that
struck down a provision to the contrary in the Defense of Marriage Act.
Divorce
[edit]
Main article: Divorce in the United States
Marriage and divorce rates in the US 1990–2007
Divorce is
the province of state governments, so divorce law varies from state to state.
Prior to the 1970s, divorcing spouses had to prove that the other spouse
was at fault, for instance for being guilty of adultery,
abandonment, or cruelty; when spouses simply could not get along, lawyers were
forced to manufacture "uncontested" divorces. No-fault divorce (on
the grounds of "irreconcilable differences", "irretrievable
breakdown of marriage", "incompatibility", or after a separation
period etc.) gradually became available in all states beginning with California
in 1969 and ending with New York in 2010. State law provides for child support where
children are involved, and sometimes for alimony.[10]
Relevant types of unions
[edit]
Domestic partnerships
[edit]
Domestic
partnerships are a version of civil unions. Registration and
recognition are functions of states, localities, or employers; such unions may
be available to couples of the same sex and, sometimes, opposite sex.[14] Although
similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer the 1,138 rights,
privileges, and obligations afforded to married couples by the federal
government, but the relevant state government may offer parallel benefits.[14] Because
domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or
local jurisdictions, or employers, there is no nationwide consistency on the
rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.[14] Some
couples enter into a private, informal, documented domestic partnership
agreement, specifying their mutual obligations because the obligations are
otherwise merely implied, and written contracts are much more valid in legal
circumstances.[14]
Cohabitation
[edit]
Main article: Cohabitation in the
United States
The term is used in a legal setting often to mean, as applied to
spouses, living together. Otherwise, cohabitation means
two unmarried people, who are in a loving, most often intimate, relationship,
living together.[15] Many
couples cohabit as a way to experience married life before marriage. Some
cohabit instead of marrying. Others may live together because other
arrangements are less desired. In the past few decades, societal standards that
discouraged cohabitation have faded; it is now considered more acceptable.[75]
Children of cohabiting, instead of married, parents are prone to a
more changing family unit. In 2011, The National Marriage Project found about 2⁄3 of
children of cohabitees saw them break up before they were 12 years old, as
opposed to 1⁄4 otherwise.[76]
See also
[edit]
- Family structure in the United States
- History of courtship in the United States
- Married Women's Property Acts
in the United States
- Polygamy in North America
- Marriage certificate § United States
- Single parents in the United States
Comments
Post a Comment