We have discussed the recognition (or lack thereof) of common law marriages in Pennsylvania here at Stuff I Make My Husband. In keeping with our overall theme of linguistic precision and how that applies in real worlds situations, we wanted to take this idea a step further to look into the linguistics of legal documentation and communication more generally. While this post does focus on the most common application of the words “marriage” and “divorce” (as they appear in the context of a state legal code), recognizing and applying the principles we discuss here can have a far-reaching impact on many facets of communication and use of language across a wide range of contexts. This is particularly true when addressing a dual language setting.
After all, saying someone is “married” is very different than saying someone “used to be married,” and both are very distinct from saying someone was never married at all. While it will not get as much press as the highly publicized definition of “is” by the president himself, language is critically important in the law. These are some common ways we see the courts attempt to clear up what it means to have been married at any point in time, with varying amounts of success.
The meaning behind the words is there common law marriage in pennsylvania is itself an interesting topic with a lot of linguistic history behind it. Common law marriage as a concept comes from English law and refers to a marriage that essentially was accepted as a marriage by local custom even if it didn’t fit the parameters of a formal, state sanctioned marriage. Instead, the mere holding out of the parties as being married (i.e. using the language of being married in all social settings) could constitute a common law marriage. This was because England didn’t have formal registries or ceremonial requirements, so this type of concept was fairly prevalent.
In America, though, formal statutes exist that actually define marriage. Pennyslvania law has such a statute, however, the language of the statute makes the existence of common law marriages in Pennsylvania a lingering issue. Pennsylvania’s law states that any person who was previously married under common law before 2005 (the year when the common law marriage provision in Pennsylvania law was repealed) can still rely upon the common law marriage in a court of law today. Because that the mere holding out as a married couple can in some cases be based on the use of language, let’s look into the statute, and the language therein, that the courts have used to explain the meaning behind the words common law marriage.
The first recommendation we can make is to NEVER leave your spoken word to interpretation if you are in a position where linguistics are critically important. Even if something seems like the simplest of phrases, leaving one’s spoken words to interpretation can lead to massive linguistic issues of incongruity. Indeed, even the use of the word “used to be” can be read to mean a strict termination of a relationship, or something with more potential for future contact.
And so it goes with common law marriage. Even if the courts attempt to explain it, the nuances of the language used can produce very real consequences. As noted by the courts in the consequences of the use of the word “or” can produce linguistic discrepancies. Indeed, the following example is a clear example of how the “or” can be read one way, or another:
While the parties are presumed to have contracted a valid marriage, when one of two people in a relationship pass away, questions arise as to whether the “surviving” spouse was legally married to the decedent. The dichotomy between the two interpretations lies in the use of the word “or.” If the decedent “and” the survivor had cohabitated for a period of at least three-years as husband and wife, a valid marriage was allegedly entered into. However, if the decedent “or” the survivor had a three-year period of cohabitation, with or without a valid marriage, a common law marriage is alleged to have existed.
But how does this really apply to an everyday situation? To understand the issues with “or” mentioned above, imagine taking English language classes where students are being taught the differences between “or” and “and,” and then a legal document is presented to them that uses the word “or” instead of “and.”
This is just one example of a document where the use of “or” could lead to the disqualifying of a marriage, and therefore the disqualification of the rights of a surviving spouse to inherit from the property of the deceased spouse.
There are a few ways that you can approach this kind of language-whichever way you choose to address the language issues depends on the context in which you are teaching.
In addition to the above, here are a couple of resources that may help educators teach legal terminology and concepts in a manner that can be understood and accepted. For more information on common law marriage, you can visit Wikipedia.