DOCSLIB.ORG

Estop in the Name of Love: a Case for Constructive Marriage in Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estop in the Name of Love: a Case for Constructive Marriage in Virginia William & Mary Law Review Volume 49 (2007-2008) Issue 3 Article 8 12-1-2007 Estop in the Name of Love: A Case for Constructive Marriage in Virginia Andrew W. Scott Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Family Law Commons Repository Citation Andrew W. Scott, Estop in the Name of Love: A Case for Constructive Marriage in Virginia, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 973 (2007), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol49/iss3/8 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr ESTOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE: A CASE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE MARRIAGE IN VIRGINIA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................... 974 I. THE STATUS OF COHABITATION AND MARRIAGE ........... 977 A. Defining M arriage ............................... 977 B. If It Looks Like a Duck and Walks Like a Duck ........ 980 C. "Let's Just Live Together". ....................... 982 D. Which Came First,the Chicken or the Bad Eggs? ...... 985 E. When It's Over .................................. 988 II. REMEDIES .......................................... 989 A. M arvin Remedies ................................ 990 B. Domestic Partnerships ........................... 991 C. Common Law Marriage ........................... 992 III. CONSTRUCTIVE MARRIAGE IN VIRGINIA ................ 999 A. The Legacy of Offield v. Davis ..................... 1000 B. Virginia's Take on Cohabitation ................... 1001 C. Current Virginia Recognition of Common Law Marriage .......................... 1003 D. Creating the Ties that Bind ....................... 1004 1. Equitable Estoppel ............................ 1005 2. Doctrine of Implied Partnership ................. 1006 E. Implications for Same-sex Relationships ............ 1008 CONCLUSION ......................................... 1009 973 974 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49:973 INTRODUCTION 'Without some supervision ... disputes are won not by justice but by strength. Although imperfect by any standard, the centuries' accretion of marriage laws are, today, society's painstakingly hammered consensus on how a couple should justly be treated." -E.J. Graff, What is MarriageFor? 1 In 1865, the Civil War ended in Virginia; in 2006, the Civil Union War in Virginia met with a similar fate. On November 7, 2006, the Commonwealth of Virginia amended its constitution with, among other things, the following provision:2 This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Common- wealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.3 The amendment is sweeping, to say the least. Not only does it prohibit the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and civil unions, it denies legal status to any couples involved in long-term non- marital cohabitation. Upon its passage, the amendment's supporters declared that the people of Virginia had spoken, and the message was clear: leave marriage alone.4 Such a sentiment is understandable. Marriage is the foundational economic, social, and religious unit in American culture. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and 1. E.J. GRAFF, WHAT IS MARRIAGE FOR? 212 (1999). 2. See Chris L. Jenkins, Ban on Same-Sex Unions Added to Va. Constitution, WASH. POST, Nov. 8, 2006, at A46. 3. VA. CONST. art. I, § 15-A. This amendment also defines marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman," foreclosing legal recognition of any form of same-sex union. Id. 4. Jenkins, supra note 2. 2007] ESTOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE 975 survival. 5 Marriage is of such significance that the Court has permitted extensive regulation of the institution under the state's police power.6 The state's interests in marriage are varied and substantial and include "keeping records, promoting health, and preventing child or incestuous marriages," as well as providing a safe, healthy, and nurturing environment for children and families; facilitating private networks of mutual support and obligation; and supporting public morality.7 Married people live longer,' make more money,9 have better-adjusted children, 10 and have a higher level of "subjective well-being"" than their nonmarried counterparts. In this way marriage is an important and beneficial institution for both couples and for society at large. Virginia's conclusion that it wants to protect the working model for such a successful, socially valuable, time-proven entity is hardly front page news. 2 From the standpoint of a state that clearly has articulated a public policy in favor of marriage, then, the relevant problem is not that too many people want to enter into marriage; rather, the problem is that Virginia is full of couples who cohabit but are not married. 3 According to the most recent U.S. Census estimate, there were a minimum of 128,363 unmarried-partner households 5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 527, 535 (1942)). 6. See id. at 7 (citing Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)). Although Loving struck down as unconstitutional a Virginia statue that prohibited interracial marriage, the Court noted that the State could regulate marriage under its police power. 7. David S. Caudill, Legal Recognition of UnmarriedCohabitation: A Proposalto Update and Reconsider Common-law Marriage,49 TENN. L. REV. 537, 558 (1982). 8. See LINDA J. WAITE & MAGGIE GALLAGHER, THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE 47 (2000) ("Compared to married people, the nonmarried ... have higher rates of mortality than the married: about 50% higher among women and about 240% higher among men." (citation omitted)). 9. See id. at 97 ("Married couples are far more affluent, on average, than singles."). 10. See id. at 38 ("Children living with cohabiting couples show poorer emotional development than children from married, two-parent families do." (citation omitted)). 11. Id. at 73 ("[The married have the highest level of subjective well-being ...." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 12. Apparently the Washington Post agrees, as it reported the news of the amendment's passage on page A46. Jenkins, supra note 2. 13. From this standpoint, the first part of Virginia's constitutional amendment, which limits accessibility to marriage, does not logically follow from a clear policy preference in favor of state-regulated marriage. See VA. CONST. art. I, § 15-A. For further discussion of the implications of this Note for same-sex marriage, see infra Part III.E. 976 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 49:973 in Virginia. 14 This translates to over 256,000 Virginians living in nonmarital cohabitation as of 2006. Statistics show that "[a]bout half of Americans from age thirty-five to thirty-nine have cohabited" at some point.15 If the aim of the new amendment to the Virginia Constitution is to encourage unmarried cohabiters to marry because they cannot hope to receive legal recognition for their less-than- marriage-but-more-than-just-dating relationships, then the new amendment may have some limited effect. Increased social accep- tance of cohabitation and a general aversion to marital commitment among cohabiters, 6 however, will strongly militate against that rather indirect incentive. This Note will argue that, in furtherance of its legitimate interest in regulating marriage, Virginia should adopt a form of common law marriage by estoppel known as "constructive marriage." 7 Because the extensive data on the benefits of marriage are available almost exclusively for male-female couples, and, more significantly, because same-sex marriage is now affirmatively banned by the Virginia Constitution, this Note will largely focus on heterosexual cohabita- tion and marriage." Part I will explain why nonmarital cohabitation should be strongly disfavored as a matter of policy. Part II will suggest that adoption of the doctrine of constructive marriage would be a timely, practical, and beneficial public policy for both the people 14. U.S. Census Bureau, http://factfinder.census.gov/ (under "Fast Access to Information," select "Virginia" in drop-down menu; then click "show more" next to "Social Characteristics" on the Virginia page) (last visited Nov. 30, 2007). The estimate is at the low end because the Census Bureau instructed that couples who were common law married could report in the category they thought to be "most appropriate." See U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY/PUERTO RICO COMMUNITY SURVEY: 2006 SUBJECT DEFINITIONS 65, availableat http://www. census .gov/acs/www/Downloads/2006/usedata/Subject Definitions.pdf (last visited Nov. 30, 2007). Virginia, however, does not recognize common law marriage. See Offield v. Davis, 40 S.E. 910 (Va. 1902). As a result, unmarried cohabiters who considered themselves to be common law married, but who were not legally married, could have reported in any category with which they identified. 15. WAITE & GALLAGHER, supra note 8, at 37; see also Larry Bumpass & Hsien-Hen Lu, Trends in Cohabitationand Implications for Children'sFamily Contexts in the United States, 54 POPULATION STUD. 32, tbl. 1 (showing similar rates of cohabitation for women between the ages of 25-44). 16. See Caudill, supra note 7, at 566. 17. This Note adopts the term "constructive marriage" from Professor David S. Caudill's article on the subject. See id. at 538-40. 18. A powerful argument could be made that constructive marriage would be as beneficial for same-sex couples as it has proven to be for heterosexual couples, but that is largely outside the scope of this Note. See infra Part III.E. 2007) ESTOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE and the State of Virginia. Part III will explore how constructive marriage comports with Virginia's constitutional, statutory, and common law, as well as the explicit and implicit public policy aims of the Commonwealth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Natural Law, the Marriage Bond, and Divorce
    Fordham Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 5 1955 The Natural Law, the Marriage bond, and Divorce Brendan F. Brown Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brendan F. Brown, The Natural Law, the Marriage bond, and Divorce, 24 Fordham L. Rev. 83 (1955). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol24/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Natural Law, the Marriage bond, and Divorce Cover Page Footnote Robert E. McCormick; Francis J. Connell; Charles E. Sheedy; Louis J. Hiegel This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol24/iss1/5 SYMPOSIUM THE NATURAL LAW AND THE FAMILYf THE NATURAL LAW, THE MARRIAGE BOND, AND DIVORCE BRENDAN F. BROWN* I. THE NATURAL LAW DICTATES MONOGAMXY N ATURAL law is that objective, eternal and immutable hierarchy of moral values, which are sources of obligation with regard to man be- cause they have been so ordained by the Creator of nature. This law con- forms to the essence of human nature which He has created. It is that aspect of the eternal law which directs the actions of men.' Although this law is divine in the sense that it does not depend on human will, neverthe- less, it is distinguishable from divine positive law, which has been com- municated directly from God to men through revelation, for natural law is discoverable by reason alone." Natural law has been promulgated in the intellect.
    [Show full text]
  • How Doma, State Marriage Amendments, and Social Conservatives Undermine Traditional Marriage
    TITSHAW [FINAL] (DO NOT DELETE) 10/24/2012 10:28 AM THE REACTIONARY ROAD TO FREE LOVE: HOW DOMA, STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS, AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES UNDERMINE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE Scott Titshaw* Much has been written about the possible effects on different-sex marriage of legally recognizing same-sex marriage. This Article looks at the defense of marriage from a different angle: It shows how rejecting same-sex marriage results in political compromise and the proliferation of “marriage light” alternatives (e.g., civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries) that undermine the unique status of marriage for everyone. After describing the flexibility of marriage as it has evolved over time, the Article focuses on recent state constitutional amendments attempting to stop further development. It categorizes and analyzes the amendments, showing that most allow marriage light experimentation. It also explains why ambiguous marriage amendments should be read narrowly. It contrasts these amendments with foreign constitutional provisions aimed at different-sex marriages, revealing that the American amendments reflect anti-gay animus. But they also reflect fear of change. This Article gives reasons to fear the failure to change. Comparing American and European marriage alternatives reveals that they all have distinct advantages over traditional marriage. The federal Defense of Marriage Act adds even more. Unlike same-sex marriage, these alternatives are attractive to different-sex couples. This may explain why marriage light * Associate Professor at Mercer University School of Law. I’d like to thank Professors Kerry Abrams, Tedd Blumoff, Johanna Bond, Beth Burkstrand-Reid, Patricia A. Cain, Jessica Feinberg, David Hricik, Linda Jellum, Joseph Landau, Joan MacLeod Hemmingway, David Oedel, Jack Sammons, Karen Sneddon, Mark Strasser, Kerri Stone, and Robin F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revised Family Code (2000) Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
    Federal Negarit Gazetta of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia The Revised Family Code Federal Negarit Gazetta Extra Ordinary Issue No. 1/2000 The Revised Family Code Proclamation No. 213/2000 Addis Ababa 4thDay of July, 2000 PROCLAMATION No.213/2000 THE REVISED FAMILY CODE PROCLAMATION OF 2000 Preamble WHEREAS, the family, being the natural basis of society, shall be protected by the society and the state, and that one of the means of protection is effected by regulating and governing family relation by law; WHEREAS, it has become essential to make the existing Ethiopian family law in accordance with the socio-economic development of the society and, above all, with the Constitution of the country, and, in particular, realizing that marriage shall be based on the free consent of the spouses, and that it is necessary to provide the legal basis which guarantees the equality of the spouses-during the conclusion, duration and dissolution of marriage; WHEREAS, it has become necessary to amend the existing law in such a way that it gives priority to the well-being, upbringing and protection of children in accordance with the Constitution and International Instruments which Ethiopia has ratified; WHEREAS, it is found necessary to settle disputes arising in family by a competent organ in a just and efficient manner; WHEREAS, in order to realize these objectives, it has become essential that a family law be enacted by the House of Peoples Representatives to be applicable in administrations that are directly accountable to the Federal Government; NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Article 55 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, it is hereby proclaimed as follows: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Proposed Defense of Marriage Amendment: What Will It Do and Why Is It Needed
    INDIANA PROPOSED DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: WHAT WILL IT DO AND WHY IS IT NEEDED MELISSA B. NEELY* INTRODUCTION Same-sex marriage has become one of the political and legal hot buttons of our time. Prior to 1993, only seven states had statutes that prohibited marriage between members of the same sex.1 Now, forty-five states either have statutes or constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage.2 With the passage of its Defense of Marriage Act in 1997, Indiana became one of those forty-five states.3 In the November 2006 elections, eight states had initiatives for Defense of Marriage Amendments to their state constitution.4 Seven of the eight states passed the amendments.5 All seven of these states already had a Defense of Marriage statute.6 In February 2004, Indiana State Senator Brandt Hershman proposed an amendment to the Indiana Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.7 One year later, the proposed amendment passed its first step on its way to adoption within the state constitution.8 This Note examines the potential effects and the purpose of Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Amendment. Part I of the Note reviews the history of the same-sex marriage movement in the United States generally and Indiana in particular. Part II of the Note examines how passage of the amendment would affect current Indiana law and the potential deprivation of benefits that same-sex couples would likely suffer. Part II also examines the effect the amendment would have on Indiana’s future passage of a Vermont-style civil union statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Annulment in Church and State
    DePaul Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Spring-Summer 1956 Article 2 Annulment in Church and State Albert A. Vail Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Albert A. Vail, Annulment in Church and State, 5 DePaul L. Rev. 216 (1956) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol5/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANNULMENT IN CHURCH1 AND STATE2 ALBERT A. VAIL SA RESULT of the position which a lawyer occupies in his com- munity and of the very nature of the practice of law, nearly every legal practitioner from time to time is consulted about marriage problems. Perhaps in no other type of problem, upon which we attorneys are consulted, do we have such a good opportunity to act as social physicians as in the case of marital problems which are presented to us. Many of the persons who present their marriage difficulties to the lawyer are Catholics. Regardless of the religious tenets of the attorney, he will recognize the fact that his Catholic client is bound by two systems of law, the civil and the ecclesiastical. Knowing this he will be conscious of the fact that if he is to reach a solution to the problem, a solution which will be truly beneficial to his client, it must needs be a solution which is in conformity with both systems of law to which his client is subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Effects of Marriage
    CHAPTER 9 Personal Effects of Marriage I. EFFECTS OF MARRIAGE tN GENERAL I. The Internal Conceptions "EFFECTS of marriage" is a modern legal concept cor­ responding to the comprehensive matrimonial legis­ lation which was developed in the course of the nineteenth century. Following the model of the German and Swiss codes, all recent European codifications of private law contain a chapter concerning the operation of marriage on the relations between the spouses themselves and between the spouses and third persons. The consequences of this arrange­ ment are many and' significant; the European doctrine at­ tributes much importance to the fact of marriage and considers many, if not all, the pertinent provisions as a separate com­ plex of rules within the system of law. At present, the term "effects of marriage" refers both to the personal relations and to the property of husband and wife. 1 The older codifications, compiled at the turn of the eighteenth century, acknowledged certain personal rights and duties of spouses but did not contain any extensive body of rules re­ ferring to the operation of marriage on property. They customarily treated the problem of property interests between spouses as it had been approached by the statutists, that is, by discussing the effects of marriage settlements,. at that time customary among propertied classes. Characteristically, today the settlement is still called in France contrat de mariage and in German, Ehevertrag, although it is not a contract of mar- 1 "Personal" and "property" relations, of course, as used above, do not exactly correspond to their meanings in private law.
    [Show full text]
  • Illicit Concubinage” in Louisiana’S Jurisprudence Brittanie Wagnon
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 76 | Number 4 Liber Amicorum: Alain A. Levasseur A Louisiana Law Review Symposium of the Civil Law Summer 2016 From Wedding Bells to Working Women: Unmasking the Sexism Resulting from “Illicit Concubinage” in Louisiana’s Jurisprudence Brittanie Wagnon Repository Citation Brittanie Wagnon, From Wedding Bells to Working Women: Unmasking the Sexism Resulting from “Illicit Concubinage” in Louisiana’s Jurisprudence, 76 La. L. Rev. (2016) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol76/iss4/20 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Wedding Bells to Working Women: Unmasking the Sexism Resulting from “Illicit Concubinage” in Louisiana’s Jurisprudence TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ 1384 I. First Comes Love, Then Comes Marriage? ................................ 1386 A. The Explosive Growth of Cohabitation and Its Clouded Origins ................................................................... 1386 B. Women’s Push for Cohabitation .......................................... 1389 II. Other Jurisdictions’ Responses to Cohabitation ......................... 1390 A. The American View of Cohabitation: Before and After ...... 1391 1. The Traditional Negative Status ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Overlooked Public Health Argument for Same-Sex Marriage
    Beyond Rights and Morality: The Overlooked Public Health Argument for Same-Sex Marriage John G. Culhane* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 7 II. PUBLIC HEALTH AND ITS CONNECTION TO MARRIAGE: PRELIMINARIES ................................................................................... 12 III. MARRIAGE AND PUBLIC HEALTH: THE MISSING ANALYSIS ............. 16 IV. THE MUTUALLY REINFORCING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE .................................................................... 23 A. The Argument for Marriage ..................................................... 24 B. Marriage Equality and Its Effects on Couples, Children, and Society ................................................................ 29 C. Applying the Data and Observations ....................................... 35 V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 37 I. INTRODUCTION As the debate about marriage equality1 has made its way through the courts, most of the discussion and analysis has focused on rights; specifically, whether denying same-sex couples entry into the institution of marriage violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and * © 2008 John G. Culhane. Professor of Law and Director, Health Law Institute, Widener University School of Law; Lecturer, Yale University School of Public Health. I am grateful to my two excellent research assistants, Janine Hochberg and Jonathan Harting. Thanks also to the editors
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Marry and State Marriage Amendments: Implications for Future Families
    THE RIGHT TO MARRY AND STATE MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE FAMILIES Mark P. Strasser I. INTRODUCTION The United States Supreme Court struck down state same-sex marriage bans in Obergefell v. Hodges,1 thereby invalidating state marriage amendments precluding such unions. However, precisely because the marriage amendments differ in wording and have been construed in different ways by the courts, Obergefell is unlikely to completely invalidate all of them. Thus, while all of the states will recognize same-sex marriage, some marriage amendments will likely be viewed as limiting the benefits that are permissibly accorded to non-marital couples (whether composed of individuals of the same sex or of different sexes) and their families (whether or not including children). Part II of this Article discusses the wording and interpretation of various state marriage amendments, exploring some of the limitations imposed by the amendments in addition to the restrictions on who may marry whom. Part III discusses the implications of some of the more robust amendments in light of current marriage demographics, noting how these limitations enshrined in the state constitutions may be very difficult to remove. The Article concludes by discussing some negative effects that these state constitutional amendments will likely have. II. THE DIFFERING MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS State marriage amendments vary significantly. Some are narrowly tailored to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage,2 while others © 2016, Mark P. Strasser. All rights reserved. Trustees Professor of Law, Capital University Law School, Columbus, Ohio. 1. 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). 2. See, e.g.,ALASKA CONST.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Marriage, Labor and Divorce
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive On the Economics of Marriage - A Theory of Marriage, Labor and Divorce. Grossbard, Shoshana San Diego State University 1993 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/81832/ MPRA Paper No. 81832, posted 09 Oct 2017 13:20 UTC ON THE ECONOMICS OF MARRIAGE A THEORY OF MARRIAGE, LABOR, AND DIVORCE Second Edition Shoshana Grossbard Springer Publishing In memory of my parents, Chaim Yehoshua and Chana Grossbard, who had the courage to have children after their mothers--Shoshana Propper and Esther Grossbard--perished in Auschwitz. Contents List of Tables and Figures ix Preface xiii Acknowledgments xvii INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE The Economics of Marriage in Perspective 5 1 The Economics of Marriage and Other Social Sciences 7 2 The Economics of Marriage and Belief Systems 17 PART TWO A General Theory of Marriage 23 3 A Theory of Allocation of Time in Markets for Labor and Marriage 25 4 Theoretical Implications for Marriage 54 PART THREE Sex Ratio Effects 85 5 Sex Ratios and Marriage, Cohabitation, Labor Supply, and Divorce: Time Trends 87 6 Sex Ratios and Married Women's Labor vii viii Contents Supply--Cross-City Comparisons 104 PART FOUR Compensating Differentials in Marriage 131 7 Compensating Differentials in Marriage and Married Women's Labor Supply, with Shoshana Neuman 133 8 Compensating Differentials and Intermarriage 142 PART FIVE Cohabitation, Divorce, and Polygamy 159 9 A Theory of Cohabitation and Marriage Formality 161 10 A Theory of Divorce and Labor Supply, with Michael C. Keeley 182 11 A Theory of Polygamy 214 PART SIX Marriage, Productivity, and Earnings 241 12 Investments in Spouse's Productivity at Work 243 13 A Market Theory of Virtue as General Human Capital 257 14 A Study of Spousal Help Among Israeli Managers, with Dafna N.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Partnership: Missing the Target? Margaret F
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2002 Domestic Partnership: Missing the Target? Margaret F. Brinig Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation Margaret F. Brinig, Domestic Partnership: Missing the Target?, 4 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 19 (2002). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/508 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Domestic Partnership: Missing the Target? MargaretF. Brinig* When I think of all the worries people seem to find And how they're in a hurry to complicate their mind By chasing after money and dreams that can't come true I'm glad that we are different, we've better things to do May others plan their future, I'm busy lovin' you.... The Grass Roots, Let's Live For Today, on Let's Live for Today (MCA Records 1967) Chapter 6, Domestic Partnerships, like many other parts' of the ALI Principlesof the Law of Family Dissolution, functions as a set of default rules.2 Under the ALI Principlesfor domestic partnerships, therefore, if the parties meet state presumptive requirements for domestic partnerships and have not otherwise contracted, the rules of Chapter 6 apply.' Usually, law sets default provisions to "Thanks to all the participants in the BYU symposium for their help, and especially to Steven Nock and Mark Strasser.
    [Show full text]
  • Polygamous Marriage, Monogamous Divorce
    HIGDON IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 9/25/2017 11:59 AM POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE, MONOGAMOUS DIVORCE MICHAEL J. HIGDON† ABSTRACT Could the constitutional right to marry also encompass polygamy? That question, which has long intrigued legal scholars, has taken on even greater significance in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges. This Article answers that question in a novel way by scrutinizing the practice of plural marriage through the lens of economic game theory, exploring the extreme harms that would befall the state should polygamy become law. More specifically, the Article delves into the ex ante consequences of legalization, not on practicing polygamists (as is typically the focus), but on sequential bigamists—that is, those who never intend to have more than one spouse at any given time but who nonetheless marry more than one person in their lifetime. The Article concludes that the state has a compelling economic interest in limiting marriage to two people. If polygamy were to become the law of the land, states could no longer prohibit bigamy. In turn, separating couples would lose one of the strongest incentives they currently have to choose formal divorce proceedings over the seemingly simpler option of mutual desertion: the threat of criminal charges for bigamy. In essence, a sequential bigamist could then marry multiple times in his lifetime without ever divorcing and, at the same time, without risking a criminal charge of bigamy. Such actions—dubbed “sequential polygamy”—would compromise the state’s interest in protecting its citizens from financial harms. After all, divorce proceedings provide the state with an opportunity to intercede into the process, thereby obtaining some assurance that those who are leaving a marriage are not doing so at their financial peril.
    [Show full text]