Is it considered marriage ....

[November Rain]

Is it considered a legal marriage (in California), if a priest, or the likewise, performs a marriage ceremony with witnesses but there is no certificate, to prove that it actually took place, even though witnesses were present ("marriage in the eyes of God")?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

No. There must be a marriage license issued by the State, and a Certificate of Marriage for the officiate to sign. Without these documents, you'll be as married as an actor and actress on a Soap Opera wedding. Do you think those actors that "get married" on T.V. are really married ?

Of course not.

IAAL

 

[November Rain]

My response:

No. There must be a marriage license issued by the State, and a Certificate of Marriage for the officiate to sign. Without these documents, you'll be as married as an actor and actress on a Soap Opera wedding. Do you think those actors that "get married" on T.V. are really married ?

Of course not.

IAAL

Really? They're not?? I'm shocked and appauled! Why I'll never watch "Days" again! Watch out Jerry Springer, here I come!!! LMAO!

The difference with the actors on TV and real life is that they don't stand infront of a real priest. Hence my question.

Either way, thanks, you have answered my question.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

No. There must be a marriage license issued by the State, and a Certificate of Marriage for the officiate to sign. Without these documents, you'll be as married as an actor and actress on a Soap Opera wedding. Do you think those actors that "get married" on T.V. are really married ?

Of course not.

IAAL

Really? They're not?? I'm shocked and appauled! Why I'll never watch "Days" again! Watch out Jerry Springer, here I come!!! LMAO!

The difference with the actors on TV and real life is that they don't stand infront of a real priest. Hence my question.

Either way, thanks, you have answered my question.

My further response:

Now, how do you know that the T.V. actor playing the "priest" isn't also, in real life, sanctioned by the State to perform marriages? But, even if he was, it doesn't matter because on T.V., or in your real world situation, the marriage license and Certificate of Marriage is missing.

IAAL

 

[November Rain]

My response:

No. There must be a marriage license issued by the State, and a Certificate of Marriage for the officiate to sign. Without these documents, you'll be as married as an actor and actress on a Soap Opera wedding. Do you think those actors that "get married" on T.V. are really married ?

Of course not.

IAAL

Really? They're not?? I'm shocked and appauled! Why I'll never watch "Days" again! Watch out Jerry Springer, here I come!!! LMAO!

The difference with the actors on TV and real life is that they don't stand infront of a real priest. Hence my question.

Either way, thanks, you have answered my question.

My further response:

Now, how do you know that the T.V. actor playing the "priest" isn't also, in real life, sanctioned by the State to perform marriages? But, even if he was, it doesn't matter because on T.V., or in your real world situation, the marriage license and Certificate of Marriage is missing.

IAAL

I was expecting a smart-@$$ remark back, but I guess not... AND because Cali doesn't have common law marriages, then we have no real ties with our live-in lover. That's good to know. I know, I know, unless of course we purchase something of significance, right?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

No. There must be a marriage license issued by the State, and a Certificate of Marriage for the officiate to sign. Without these documents, you'll be as married as an actor and actress on a Soap Opera wedding. Do you think those actors that "get married" on T.V. are really married ?

Of course not.

IAAL

Really? They're not?? I'm shocked and appauled! Why I'll never watch "Days" again! Watch out Jerry Springer, here I come!!! LMAO!

The difference with the actors on TV and real life is that they don't stand infront of a real priest. Hence my question.

Either way, thanks, you have answered my question.

My further response:

Now, how do you know that the T.V. actor playing the "priest" isn't also, in real life, sanctioned by the State to perform marriages? But, even if he was, it doesn't matter because on T.V., or in your real world situation, the marriage license and Certificate of Marriage is missing.

IAAL

I was expecting a smart-@$$ remark back, but I guess not... AND because Cali doesn't have common law marriages, then we have no real ties with our live-in lover. That's good to know. I know, I know, unless of course we purchase something of significance, right?

My response:

Wrong. No matter what, California does not give "marital status" based upon purchases.

Even if you buy a house together, that doesn't change the fact that two people who may live together for 40 years are still not married.

Such an asset is divided equally either by agreement, or by a lawsuit called "Complaint for Partition".


No Statutory "Marriage-Like" Rights and Remedies Between Nonmarital Cohabitants: Family Code property and support rights and remedies are predicated on the existence of a valid marriage or, if a "void" or "voidable" marriage, "putative spouse" status (see Ch. 19). Moreover, simply living together as husband and wife cannot give rise to a "marriage" under California law; the concept of "common law marriage" has long been abolished in California. [Maglica v. Maglica (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 442, 448, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 103

Consequently, nonmarital cohabitation does not itself give the parties any property interests or support rights cognizable under the Family Code; and, unless either party can prove he or she is an "actual" or "putative" spouse of the relationship, any rights arising from the relationship cannot be adjudicated in a Family Code marital status action. [Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 679-681, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 828-829, & fns. 17, 18 & 19; Schafer v. Super.Ct. (Christopher) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 305, 309, 225 Cal.Rptr. 513, 515

No community, quasi-community or "quasi-marital" property rights or interests accrue during the term of a purely nonmarital cohabitation relationship. Therefore, nonmarital cohabitants cannot rest on state community property law to claim a 50% interest in each other's earnings and accumulations during the relationship. [Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 681, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 829 & fn. 19; see also Ca Fam § 299.5(d)


IAAL

 

[November Rain]

My response:

Wrong. No matter what, California does not give "marital status" based upon purchases.

Even if you buy a house together, that doesn't change the fact that two people who may live together for 40 years are still not married.

Such an asset is divided equally either by agreement, or by a lawsuit called "Complaint for Partition".


No Statutory "Marriage-Like" Rights and Remedies Between Nonmarital Cohabitants: Family Code property and support rights and remedies are predicated on the existence of a valid marriage or, if a "void" or "voidable" marriage, "putative spouse" status (see Ch. 19). Moreover, simply living together as husband and wife cannot give rise to a "marriage" under California law; the concept of "common law marriage" has long been abolished in California. [Maglica v. Maglica (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 442, 448, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 101, 103

Consequently, nonmarital cohabitation does not itself give the parties any property interests or support rights cognizable under the Family Code; and, unless either party can prove he or she is an "actual" or "putative" spouse of the relationship, any rights arising from the relationship cannot be adjudicated in a Family Code marital status action. [Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 679-681, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 828-829, & fns. 17, 18 & 19; Schafer v. Super.Ct. (Christopher) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 305, 309, 225 Cal.Rptr. 513, 515

No community, quasi-community or "quasi-marital" property rights or interests accrue during the term of a purely nonmarital cohabitation relationship. Therefore, nonmarital cohabitants cannot rest on state community property law to claim a 50% interest in each other's earnings and accumulations during the relationship. [Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 681, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 829 & fn. 19; see also Ca Fam § 299.5(d)


IAAL [/B][/QUOTE]


THANKS for the great info....