Texas Cons ution Election November 8

[greywheel]

I guess the courts here in Bexar county would disagree with you, but maybe the Texas Legislature wouldn't. I think that if two people are willing to act as if they're married and tell everyone that they're married, the need for an explicit agreement between them is kind of irrelevant. They are functionally married when they do those things, and I'm not sure it's possible to act as if you're married and tell people you're married and somehow not have agreed to be married.

Anyway, why do you think it's so important for the standard to be more stringent for common law marriages?

Geez, I am starting to understand why people are worried about the wording on proposition 2. It seems to me that the argument going here is wether an implicit agreement is an agreement.

According to the link I provided above. It is.

Q: He has introduced me as his wife, although I have not introduced him as my husband. We have not taken any other actions that would hold us out to the world as being married. Are we in a common law marriage?
A: It depends on whether you tried to correct the impression that you were married. If you did, you may have some argument that you had not agreed to be married. But if you knew that you were being introduced in this fashion and did nothing to correct the impression that you were married, you may well be in a common law marriage.

[SWC Bonfire]

^^^Examples of how this is BS. It should be formal, written down, recorded, or else it's heresay and not a marriage. As much as I prefer a handshake deal, this is a major contract with serious ramifications and as such should be treated with a lot more formality.

[greywheel]

I agree.
It's scary to think I might have been considered married to some of my ex-girlfriends if they simply called me husband once in public and I did not correct them on the spot.