Jump to content


Photo

Form of Marriage

Marriage

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Power

Mike Power

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 12:56 AM

My suggestion: To include in the Marriage Fact the capability to define the actual form of marriage
  • and for this to be reflected in the text of appropriate reports.
"Marriage : A legal, common-law or customary event of creating a family unit of a man and a woman as a husband and wife". (Getting the Most out of RootsMagic V4, etc, p310)

This definition is fairly broad in its scope, Despite this, however, the Marriage Fact in RM is restrictive and does not allow for any specific description or statement of a particular form; its just "marriage". Any further definition would have to be via the marriage fact note (messy!).

As I understand it (and a result of browsing on Wiki) we have:
  • the normal legal marriage, of course;
and the various "irregular" forms
  • Common law or de facto marriages;
  • Domestic partnership;
  • Civil partnership;
  • sui juris marriage;
  • marriage by habit and repute;
  • etc
My understanding is that these "irregular" but legally recognised forms are just different variations of the same thing; its really a matter of local custom, idiom or legal definition.

Another category that should be added is the "non marital" relationship. See note from Wikipedia at bottom of page.) Certainly under Australian law couples in both common law relationships (long term) or just cohabiting (shorter term) have recognized legal rights and responsibilities.

My suggestion:
  • Include in the "Edit Person / Marriage fact" data entry screen, a pull-down menu allowing the selection of a form of marriage.
  • A possible refinement: allow the user to insert their own, locally-used terms.
Whatever is selected would then be reflected in the text of appropriate reports.
  • Albert married Virginia Kau....on 24 Jan 1947 at....
  • Albert commenced a de facto relationship with Virginia Kau..
  • Albert was in a common-law relationship with Virginia Kau from 24 Jan 1947 to 13 Dec 1963
  • Albert was in a non-marital relationship with... from 24 Jan 1947 to 13 Dec 1963

(The latter examples two using RM's "dual dates" capability.)


I don't think that there is anything "new age" or "trendy" about what I'm suggesting; Its simply dealing with long-established practices. (I happen to hold very conservative views about marriage, actually.)

For your consideration and comment please.

Non-Marital Relationships - From Wikipedia

Common law marriage should not be confused with non-marital relationship contracts, which involves two people living together without holding themselves out to the world as spouses and/or without legal recognition as spouses in the jurisdiction where the contract was formed. Non-marital relationship contracts are not necessarily recognized from one jurisdiction to another whereas common law marriages are, by definition, legally valid marriages worldwide - provided the parties complied with the requirements to form a valid marriage while living in a jurisdiction that still allows this irregular form of marriage to be contracted - as was historically the case under the common law of England (hence the name, "common law marriage").

(An observation: At what point does 'marital' become 'martial'? I suppose it might depend where one places "I" in the relationship, no?)

Edited by Mike Power, 05 October 2012 - 10:39 PM.


#2 Romer

Romer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2073 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 01:15 AM

This topic is actually a timely one, as I've noticed that upcoming official rollout of FamilySearch Family Tree will allow two forms of marriage -- Marriage and Common Law. RM will need to develop some way to interface with FT for at least those two marital forms, whether by establishing a new Common Law fact to supplement the existing Marriage fact or by building upon the existing Marriage fact by adding the ability to specify further within it as to Common Law.

It seems also to be a good time to consider whether or not it's desired that these other forms are to be incorporated and, if so, which ones.

#3 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8474 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 08:58 AM

Confirming enhancement request is in our tracking system.
Renee
RootsMagic

#4 Paul Harris

Paul Harris

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 28 September 2012 - 10:54 AM

Peter,

The default Marriage Fact in RM is just a variation of a Family Fact . You can create as many other Family Fact variations as you want, and you can call them whatever you want, and you can have their sentences say whatever you want about them. If you need help in accomplishing what you want, there are a great deal of friendly folks here that will help you.

The power to get what you are asking for is already in your hands if you would just explore the possibility of creating some new Fact Types, yourself. RM gives you amazing control in this area. I don't see a single example that you have presented that is not doable and requires no further program development to achieve.

Paul

#5 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:11 AM

Or, instead of creating user defined facts, you could enable the description for the Marriage fact and enter whatever you want in the fact description about the circumstances of the marriage.

Sentence:
[Husband] and [Wife] were married< [desc]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place]>< [Date]>.

Description:
in a Civil ceremony
at her parent's home
in a religious ceremony [Place details - name of church]
while sitting in a buggy with the minister on horseback
while skydiving
by James Smith, Justice of the Peace,
by common-in-law

#6 Glenn

Glenn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

Sentence:
[Husband] and [Wife] were married< [desc]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place]>< [Date]>.

Description:
by common-in-law


by his/her partner's mother/father? Are they "duly authorized"? :huh:


Good real estate may be based on location, location, location;
but
good sources are based on citation, citation, citation!


Glenn


#7 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 05 October 2012 - 12:38 PM

Sentence:
[Husband] and [Wife] were married< [desc]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place]>< [Date]>.

Description:
by common-in-law

by his/her partner's mother/father? Are they "duly authorized"? :huh:


Sorry. That should have been by common-law.