From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 02:19:04 MST
Chris Hibbert wrote:
> California is not one of these. (People always ask "Doesn't California have
> Common Law marriage?") If you tell people you are married, then after a while
> it becomes true. No ceremony, no certificate, etc. If you maintain that you
> are not married, and don't file together, and make sure everyone knows you
> aren't married, then you're not married. The laws vary from place to place,
> but that's the fact in California. We're not married. In some places, living
> together as a couple would be sufficient for one of us to claim that we were
> married against the other's wishes, or for the government to insist that it
> were true, and force us to accept the benefits of that status.
>>And I have never known
>>a HR department to demand a marriage license as proof of
>>eligibility for work related partner benefits of apparently
>>straight couples. So I don't think there is that much of a case
>>for what you describe.
> Certainly, we could get work-related benefits by saying we were married. But
> then we would be, and the IRS could make us file as a couple rather than as
> individuals. Every time I've asked, and every time my SO has asked, the
> answer has been "spouses only". If were in SF (I'm reasonably sure) or
> Berkeley (I assume) we could get benefits if we were gay and registered
> partners. I don't know of any place where we've worked or lived where that's
> been true.
The last time I was married it was optional whether you filed as
married or as individual. Perhaps this has changed? I can't
see why it would though or how or why they would track this. I
don't think it is that easy in SF unless you work for the city
but I haven't checked into it recently.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:35 MST