Remember, to be common-law spouses, a couple must represent themselves as married, not merely live together. If they don’t get mail as Mr. & Mrs. Smith, didn’t sign as lease or mortgage as Husband and Wife, don’t file federal income taxes as “Married”, or other things like that, then common-law marriage provisions probably do not apply.

Now, to our hypothetical situation, where they act married in a common-law state. Now, he presumably knows that the divorce has not been granted, and therefore that he is not legally free to remarry, yet. Since he is not eligible to marry, he cannot do so. If she also knows this, then she’s taking her chances, and is unlikely to get any help from the courts.

If she doesn’t know that he’s still married to the first woman, then she might be able to get relief under “Putative Spouse” laws, which protect folks who honestly believe they are married, but in legal fact, are not. (Note that the bigamist would NOT be able to claim any rights as a putative spouse, b/c he knows that he is not legally married to the second woman.)

However, I’ve long since decided that what seems to be an irregularity to me is generally none of my business. It’s between those involved and the Lord, and unless I’m one of those, or called to sit on a council dealing with the matter, or made perfect thus able to judge all imperfection, I have to assume that I don’t know everything about it and let it go at that.

Especially since the common-law marriage assumes that people are living together without being civilly married and sealed as a married couple. The Church rewards certain unmarried couples who are living together without being married and punishes others. some people are excommunicated for it and others are welcomed into the Church and temples. Sometimes it has absolutely nothing to do with the “spirit of the law.” I knew a woman in a former branch who was YW president and living with her bf.

The practice was retained following the advent of Protestantism to prevent the conflicts which came from marriage across religious lines. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t recognize the authority of the various Protestant cults, and one Protestant cult might not recognize the ordinances of another as being valid. None would perform interfaith marriages — both man and woman had to be members of the same faith in order to be married in a church or chapel. Marriage under common law permitted a couple from different faiths to become husband and wife, while allowing the priests and preachers to accept the marriage as valid though not performed within the churches.

In the Colonial period, most indentured servants (that is, limited-time slaves) were not permitted to marry in church without permission from their employers, but could not be denied their rights under common law. The frontier period also brought a number of men travelling the country claiming to be ministers, yet with no authority under law to perform the marriages that they were paid for. A husband and wife might discover their “church” marriage false, but under common law they were still married, and thus their children were legitimate.

Today, common law marriage is no longer needed. Marriage under law is readily and cheaply available.

As far as telling your singles wards about common-law marriage, consider what used to be called the “BYU Turnaround,” where a couple would drive from Provo to Nevada on a long weekend, marry on arrival, have their honeymoon, then apply for annulment at the end of the weekend. While they were lawfully married, they were not LEGITIMATELY married, because they intended from the beginning to cancel the marriage. It is the spirit of his law which the Lord expects us to follow, not merely the letter.

Richard C–it is my understanding that the man wishing to be baptized need not settle for wife #1, but just needs to divorce excess wives. He could choose to divorce #1 and #2 and stick with #3. My guess is that the missionaries would steer him toward whichever wife was most likely to join the Church.

A common law marriage isn’t considered a marriage until it is one. no trial period. Second the CL marriage isn’t recognized in all states, and the application of a CL marriage doesn’t allways apply to other states. Some states that have CL marriage, only apply them for inheritence and distribution of assets.

As far as the church goes, it needs to have some proof of marriage (ie application with the court for recognition of marriage). There needs to be binding ties before it is a marriage. A self proclaimed CL marriage would probably not be enough.

Stephen, I will defer to your understanding of the Texas Civil Code. I just did a quickie findlaw search, as I had allready spent my .1 composing the reply. Plus here in Nevada, we have a code, but don’t always follow it, we like to think of jurisprudence as more of a guideline than a rule.

I’d check the more recent Texas Family Code.

Just FYI