We don’t mind saying that we like marriage. We think it is generally a good idea and it would be a Good Thing if more people were married. Not that it’s always easy. For example, if you want to get married in Kansas, you have two options. The first is to go to the local courthouse, pay $69.00 to the Clerk of the District Court and then continue with the wedding plans. We’ll get to the other one in a minute, because the Legislature is in session and State Representative Joe Patton (R-54th) wants to do some tinkering.
Mr. Patton seems like an all right guy to us, despite being a politician. In non-technical terms, what he wants to do is to allow people with no money to file a poverty affidavit with the clerk and get married without paying the $69.00. The bill, House Bill 2585, lives here in.pdf form.
According to the Lawrence Journal-World:
Rep. Joe Patton, R-Topeka, said he proposed the measure to help people get married because studies show that marriage has a lot of positive outcomes, such as improved well-being of children and adults and greater earnings
Joe Patton wants to encourage marriage. for family members.
“However, many couples don’t marry because they can’t afford to pay the marriage license fee,” Patton said.
“Eliminating the financial burden to marry for those with limited incomes in our state would have a positive impact on the number of marriages in our state which would lead to stronger families and society,” he said.
Naturally, not everybody thinks this is a good idea. In Kansas, most proposed legislation has a “Fiscal Note” attached to it, describing the best guess of the Director of the Budget as to how much money the State would gain or lose, and how, if the legislation were to be passed. In this case, the Director is not optimistic:
The Office of Judicial Administration states that HB 2585, as written, could require more of the judge’s time for proper review and approval of the poverty affidavit. In addition, the funds that currently receive a portion of marriage license fees would be adversely affected. These funds include, the Protection from Abuse Fund, the Children and Family Investment Fund, the Crime Victims Assistance Fund, the Judicial Branch Nonjudicial Salary Adjustment Fund, and the State General Fund. A statement of the precise fiscal effect cannot be determined.
A .pdf version of the note lives here. Our calculations show that the $69.00 is broken down like this:
We just don’t like the sound of the Judicial Branch Nonjudicial Salary Adjustment Fund, and it’s an open question as to how much abuse is actually prevented by the Prevention from Abuse Fund. To us, they both sound like innovative methods for siphoning money off of the hoi polloi and onto the ever-growing class of public employees and non-profit agencies.
Likewise, the Emporia Gazette has weighed in against changing the law. Executive Editrix Gwendolyn Larson writes in today’s edition:
A proposal by a Topeka lawmaker to waive marriage license fees strikes us as a waste of time during a legislative session in which the state’s budget should be the top priority.
…
We are not opposed to marriage, but we believe a new law is unnecessary.
First, we find it difficult to believe that couples who want to marry cannot find the $69 to pay for the license. If they are not living together already, there will be more than enough cost savings in consolidating rent or mortgage payments as well as utilities and other household expenses to find an extra $70.
Second, the marriage license fee — like other fees paid through the state’s district courts — helps pay for the court system. At a time when state budget cuts are forcing the judicial branch to consider mandatory staff furloughs — ordering workers to stay home without pay — it makes no sense to take away a source of revenue.
The whole thing lives here.
We’ve been a little skittish about poverty affidavits ever since we got fired for suggesting to a client that filing a poverty affidavit was how she would tell the court that she had no money. We do think Ms. Larson is wrong about taking away a source of revenue not making any sense, since most of the money the state takes in now is squandered, frittered away, lost or used for corrupt purposes.
Unfortunately, we have to agree with her when she says that the law isn’t necessary. Which brings us to the second way you can get married in Kansas.
If you don’t want to pay the $69.00 for a marriage license, then don’t pay it. Kansas is one of several states that recognize common law marriage. As the ever-helpful Kansas Bar Association explains,
Common Law Marriages
A common law marriage is a marriage by agreement of the two persons without any formal ceremony or license. A common law marriage will be recognized in Kansas if the couple considers themselves to be married and publicly holds themselves out to be married and if they are legally eligible to marry. No minimum period of cohabitation is required.
Common Law marriages are subject to the same legal obligations and privileges that apply to marriages with licenses. Once a common law marriage is established, the couple must get a court ordered divorce to terminate the marriage.
The Bar Association has more interesting stuff about married life here.
So, if you and your sweetie are legally allowed to get married (meaning you’re not underage, or long-lost siblings, or one of you is in a persistent vegetative state or something creepy like that) and you actually intend to get married (meaning you really mean that you want to be married), and you go around telling people that you’re married (which you can do by having a wedding and a reception), in Kansas, you’re married. And you’ve saved $69.00 which you can put toward the deposit on your water bill. Or something.
The one drawback, proving the existence of the marriage gets a little tricky without a formal license. This is where you would use a document called an “Affidavit of Common-Law Marriage”. Most often, these are used by one spouse to get health insurance or employee benefits for the other spouse without paying the $69.00 to the Clerk of the District Court. A .pdf example of the form (from the Kansas State University web site) lives here.
What Mr. Patton has overlooked is that the law currently allows any two competent adults to a) make an honest man and/or woman of their partner and b) stiff the likes of the Judicial Branch Nonjudicial Salary Adjustment Fund. This sounds like a desirable outcome to us.
