I'm a little confused about the LW who claims that she and her SO are "not married by choice" but are "legally recognized as common law." If you are legally recognized as common-law spouses, you ARE married, just as much as a couple that had a ceremony. Although the requirements for common law marriage vary, even in states that recognize it, in at least some states you must hold yourself out as married to be considered common-law spouses, and there is often a requirement that this have continued for a certain duration. If you tell other people that you are not married, you probably don't have a common-law marriage.

In some states, simply living together long enough and sharing property is sufficient, without the requirement of introducing yourself as a married couple. Just because they didn't have a ceremony doesn't mean they aren't married.

I think she's afraid that everyone will see this "single" guy dancing around, and look over at her knocked up girlfriend, and assume she's a slut.

True--it depends on the state (although positively stating that you are not married, as opposed to merely not holding yourself out as married, is at least *evidence* that you are not actually married) --but she's either married or not. She cannot both be "not married by choice" but "legally recognized as common law." Married is married, no matter how you get there.

Law does not change perception. Even if the living and financial arrangements are the same, there is actually a difference between being technically married by default and stating vows through an arranged ceremony in front of friends and family. Some people actually still place meaning in traditions. Go figure.

Here's the thing: is marriage the commitment, or the ceremony?

Having been married now for just shy of 4 weeks, I don't feel any different about my husband than I felt 4 weeks ago. The commitment was made long before the ceremony, and it is a commitment that is made every day, not just on that one day of my life.

I understand, but what it "feels like" to the married couple isn't exactly the issue here.

IncogNeato:

In some states, simply living together long enough and sharing property is sufficient, without the requirement of introducing yourself as a married couple. Just because they didn't have a ceremony doesn't mean they aren't married.

I think she's afraid that everyone will see this "single" guy dancing around, and look over at her knocked up girlfriend, and assume she's a slut.

I'd bet my house they're not actually in a common law marriage.  First of all, there are only 11 states in the US (plus DC) that recognize common law marriages at all.  And the key element in all of them is that the couple hold themselves out as husband and wife - although this requirement varies somewhat.  Some states put more weight on the intent of the couple, while others consider whether or not they are known to third parties as 'married.'  Three years is almost certainly not long enough to be common law spouses, and simply living together and sharing property are never enough to create a marriage.  And it's important to recognize that a common law marriage, once created, is as valid as any other marriage, and may only be terminated by a legal divorce.  The fact that the writer considers herself unmarried (and ostensibly represents to others that she is not married) is, by itself, near-conclusory evidence that she is not in a common law marriage.

In any event, I wouldn't do a humiliating dance to amuse my future sister-in-law's family.

I think that's all right, Naptowner. There is almost no chance that she is actually married. Were she so, her marriage would be equally legally valid, not merely "technical" as someone above suggested, and her SO could refuse to do the stupid dance on the ground that he was actually married. She seems to want to suggest that the dance somehow denigrates her relationship, which is, by her account, very committed but not a marriage. She's not married, she should not expect people to treat her as such (this is not a case where she is unable to marry her SO because of some legal impediment--they could get married but are choosing not to, so why she thinks people ought to treat her that way is beyond me) but she and her SO can still refuse to do the dance on the grounds that it's stupid and they don't want to.

Youre absolutely right Naptowner - if she lives in the U.S.

The common thread for common law marriages in every state in the U.S. is that the couple "hold themsevles out to the community" as husband and wife. You dont automatically become common law simply by living together/sharing property. If you tell people you arent married, then you cant possibly have a common law marriage.

However, thats not the case in Canada for common law relationships.

But the difference is that in the U.S. a common law marriage IS a marriage. In order to break out of it, a couple must obtain a divorce just as if they had gotten a marriage license and had the ceremony performed. Common law in Canada is different - its more like a type of domestic partnership status that is conferred on couples (heterosexual and homosexual) who cohabitate for a period of time. Its not an actual marriage though like *here* in the U.S.

My guess is that shes Canadian.

She says they "are legally recognized as common-law". I don't know where she is, but "legally" implies they are married. If not, she needs to leave that part out, or clarify it better.

Actually I think what it "feel like" to the couple in question (the LW and her domestic partner/common-law-spouse/what­ever) is the CENTRAL issue here. She feels like making him dance like a trained monkey because his younger brother had a church wedding before he did suggests that his relationship to her has no meaning. I would find it insulting if my partner's sister told me I'm not part of his family because we're not married, and I'm happy she doesn't feel that way. I would have no problem telling her directly that I thought her attitude was offensive, though, so I guess I'm a bit more direct about things than the LW. The LW's partner should tell his brother's fiance he won't be submitting to this ritual because it'll be much worse to piss off the woman who shares a home with him than the one who only shares a family tie to his brother.

Well in Canada it is a legal relationship status - its just not marriage.

Its like domestic partnerships in the U.S. - they arent marriages, but they are a type of legally recognized relationship.

I agree with you Gearhead. Since it is the LW who wrote the letter it is her interpritation of her relationship with her SO. I dated my husband for 6 years before we got married. I wanted certain things taken care of first (my dad wanted me to have an AA degree first and I wanted us to have our own place). One of the big things that bothered me is that people seemed to put more value on a marriage then on a non-married committed relationship. I could see their oppinion change as they realized that my husband and me were not married. (They would find out after they asked how long we were married). My husband and me married about a year ago. A few months after the wedding a friend (who had been married for a couple of years) asked me how it felt to be married. I was puzzled by the question and told her it felt no different then before we were married. She looked at me as if I had lost my brains somewhere and then preceded to explain to me that marriage changes everything. I pointed out that my husband and me had been together for almost 7 years and been living together for 5 of those years, how can a ceremony change any of that? It just does was her response.

I'm sorry, I got kind of rambly there. What I was intending to say was what I would do: I would express my feelings over the dance to my husband and to anyone else if they should broach the topic. After stating my feelings I would drop it. If my husband decided to go through with it, I would let him start the dance and then... Join him! I'm not going to let him take crap by himself, even if he is choosing to take it. (And if the guests asked why I did that I would explain to them how my husband and me feel towards each other.)

I would find it insulting if my partner's sister told me I'm not part of his family because we're not married

You know, technically, you are not family. by definition a family is a unit made up of people connected by birth, marriage or adoption. It can also define a household. So you could consider your partner family but his family would not be your family by definition.

I guess that I am making this point because I am really sick of people who "by choice" don't get married but expect to be treated as if they are. If you don't want to be married more power to you but don't expect to be given the same status as those people who have made the legal commitment. "marriage is just a piece of paper" or "my commitment is just as good or better without it being legal" are all nice sentiments but if you are not married you are not a part of his extended family.

However defined, it seems to me that the LW and the bride are going to be a part of each other's lives going forward, and the bride can choose either to be inclusive toward the LW or to exclude her.

I dunno; maybe it's because I come from a small family. I don't have that many relatives; I can't afford to look for reasons to push them away.