Being dropped from Insurance

[anteater]

It would appear that Zigner is not prepared to agree to disagree.

I don't see why Zigner should "agree to disagree." There isn't anything to disagree about.

A common law marriage is a marriage. Period.

Whether an employer is permitted to disregard that, I don't know.

But, in taking this to what may seem an extreme... Could an employer decide that the employer will not recognize a marriage unless there is a religious ceremony?

 

[Beth3]

No kidding. (And it WAS only semantics on my part. Sheesh. It must be ****tail time somewhere...)

 

[Tink11464]

If the state recognizes our marriage, the federal government recognizes our marriage, friends, family, schools, and even our CHURCH, recognize our marriage - - it certainly should not be any employers business as to how we were married if it is a legal, binding marriage. That's my issue - - - we have a LEGAL marriage (I know Beth3 - I'm still not getting it), but for someone to suggest we have a domestic partnership - I wonder if you get it.

Currently, only nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common-law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. In Pennsylvania: the law was amended to read "No common-law marriage contracted after January 1, 2005 shall be valid".

1998 is clearly well before 2005 -- therefore - VALID.

 

[cbg]

Because the state has chosen to recognize common law marriages incurred before 2005 as legal does not obligate another entity to do so as well.

 

[anteater]

Because the state has chosen to recognize common law marriages incurred before 2005 as legal does not obligate another entity to do so as well.

I guess I really am lost on this.

Do other "entities" get to pick and choose which legally-recognized marriages to recognize?

I repeat my earlier question:

Could an employer decide that the employer will not recognize a marriage unless there is a religious ceremony?

 

[Tink11464]

But if I had a piece of paper from a judge or preist, that is more legal than the marriage I have now?

The key statement from the employer is, "Pennsylvania doesn't recognize common law marriages". That is their reasoning for wanting to drop me from my husband's insurance. CLEARLY that statement is not 100% true. Pennsylvania DOES recognize common law marriages - - those PRIOR to 2005. So their reasoning is not warranted.

 

[cbg]

The state of Pennsylvania no longer recognizes common law marriages. They have opted to grandfather ones that were incurred prior to 2005.

I could find nothing in the laws of PA, and I looked, that would obligate other entities to recognize the grandfathering. If the state of PA was still recognizing common law as a valid form of marriage, and not just grandfathering earlier ones, we'd be having a different conversation.

 

[Zigner]

Because the state has chosen to recognize common law marriages incurred before 2005 as legal does not obligate another entity to do so as well.

But, the policy is SILENT on the matter. So (setting aside the slippery-slope scenario that anteater is (quite rightly) putting forth), it falls upon the applicable state definition of a marriage. Since the STATE recognizes the OP's marriage as a valid marriage, then so shall the insurer.

 

[Tink11464]

Can an employer choose not to insure me because I am not the same religion as they are? Because I am too heavy? Because I am not blonde? I mean - how can an employer decide where to discriminate? A legal marriage is a legal marriage. It shouldn't matter HOW I do it - - If I get married in Jamaica - i don't have a marriage license from the states - - should that be MORE legal than what I have?

 

[Zigner]

The state of Pennsylvania no longer recognizes common law marriages. They have opted to grandfather ones that were incurred prior to 2005.

That is a misstatement. The state DOES recognize common-law marriages that were entered in to prior to 2005. This is not a matter of "grandfathering." (There go those semantics again, lol)

I could find nothing in the laws of PA, and I looked, that would obligate other entities to recognize the grandfathering.

Because it's not "grandfathering."

If the state of PA was still recognizing common law as a valid form of marriage, and not just grandfathering earlier ones, we'd be having a different conversation.

 

[Zigner]

Perhaps we ought to go straight to the source:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/23/00.011.003.000..HTM

§ 1103. Common-law marriage.
No common-law marriage contracted after January 1, 2005,
shall be valid. Nothing in this part shall be deemed or taken to
render any common-law marriage otherwise lawful and contracted
on or before January 1, 2005, invalid.
(Nov. 23, 2004, P.L.954, No.144, eff. 60 days)


So, what does this mean? It means that common-law marriages entered in to prior to 1/2/05 are perfectly valid and recognized. This is not a "grandfather" clause.

 

[Beth3]

Can an employer choose not to insure me because I am not the same religion as they are? Because I am too heavy? Because I am not blonde? I mean - how can an employer decide where to discriminate? That is based upon specific laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, gender, handicap, age, etc. These examples are not relevant to your situation.

If I get married in Jamaica - i don't have a marriage license from the states - - should that be MORE legal than what I have? Whether it should or not is irrelevant; the fact is that if you had a marriage license from Jamaica (or anywhere else in the world), you wouldn't be having the current difficulty.

 

[Tink11464]

cbg - - wouldn't grandfathered in - be those BEFORE the 2005 date are valid??

 

[Tink11464]

"§ 1103. Common-law marriage.
No common-law marriage contracted after January 1, 2005,
shall be valid. Nothing in this part shall be deemed or taken to
render any common-law marriage otherwise lawful and contracted
on or before January 1, 2005, invalid.
(Nov. 23, 2004, P.L.954, No.144, eff. 60 days)"

THANK YOU ZIGNER for that!!!!!

 

[Tink11464]

I'd also like to thank Beth3 -- - - for someone who didn't want to beat a dead horse yesterday - - I appreciate you coming back to try and re-kill it again and agian.

I appreciate the feedback from everyone - truly - I just know that this situation is one that i shouldn't have to bow down to anyone telling me that my marriage is not valid when I know it is.

Like I said before - i know many people who have had that piece of paper to say they are married and it was as valuable as the toilet paper in my bathroom.