Is there "Common Law" marraige in Colombia?

NewBoy says on Apr 22, 2006, 12:30:

G5 I don't know what Colombian law says about common law marriages.

BUT if you live with sombody for two years or longer and you are not married, that person is intitled to half your assets.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gator says on Apr 22, 2006, 14:08:

Yes. In Colombia Law 54 of 1990, Civil Code, known as the Patrimonial Deed between Permanent Partners (Common Law Marriage), by which a man and a woman, without being married, preovided they make a permanent communal life, cohabitate as a couple for more than two years and act in all respect as if they are married. All their possessions are shared at 50% each except those owned before the relationship begain.


"SIC FRIATUR CRUSTUM DULCE. OBESA CANTAVIT."

"Credidi pretio parvo emere et magno vendere tibi in animo fuisse!" .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 22, 2006, 15:02:

Yes And it also covers people who are not formally divorced, so that means an ugly legal battle can start between the non married ex and the first ex if they guy had not settled his first marriage´s divorce.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 16:10:

wow...... thanks and I am enlightened And I thought this Colombian girl in Miami was just telling me a bunch of nonsense!!

I was hoping Juanalejo would post. Juan, while we may have political differences, I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and overall knowledge as to how things work in Colombia. I would never debate you in that respect. In fact, I am shocked about this.

OK, so obviously most men know about this. So my question is that as this two year threshold approaches, are there instances where men (or women) make the decision that they just don't want to be married, and therefore move out on the significant other for the purpose of avoiding this status "being imposed" upon them? Or in the alternative, can the two parties enter a written agreement before they are considered married, that expressly states that they are living together but do NOT want to be considered married. I have to believe that there are instances of this nature. Otherwise, there has to be a lot of guys with a lot of assests aquired in that two year period that do not want to share those assets in the event things go sour.

And.....one more clarification from Gator's comment. This is only applies to assests aquiered during the marraige...correct? In other words if I am a millionare (USD) at the time I begin to cohabitate, and I can prove as such, and I don't aquiere any new assets during the marraige, but in fact may have less assets at the time the marraige is terminated, I don't have to compensate the woman in any respect ....correct?

Thanks guys

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 16:10:

wow...... thanks and I am enlightened And I thought this Colombian girl in Miami was just telling me a bunch of nonsense!!

I was hoping Juanalejo would post. Juan, while we may have political differences, I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and overall knowledge as to how things work in Colombia. I would never debate you in that respect. In fact, I am shocked about this.

OK, so obviously most men know about this. So my question is that as this two year threshold approaches, are there instances where men (or women) make the decision that they just don't want to be married, and therefore move out on the significant other for the purpose of avoiding this status "being imposed" upon them? Or in the alternative, can the two parties enter a written agreement before they are considered married, that expressly states that they are living together but do NOT want to be considered married. I have to believe that there are instances of this nature. Otherwise, there has to be a lot of guys with a lot of assests aquired in that two year period that do not want to share those assets in the event things go sour.

And.....one more clarification from Gator's comment. This is only applies to assests aquiered during the marraige...correct? In other words if I am a millionare (USD) at the time I begin to cohabitate, and I can prove as such, and I don't aquiere any new assets during the marraige, but in fact may have less assets at the time the marraige is terminated, I don't have to compensate the woman in any respect ....correct?

Thanks guys

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Apr 22, 2006, 16:57:

G5, perhaps you can explain something about Common law marriage in the US. Say for example I am in a state that recognizes Common law marriage and move to a state that doesn't recognize it. Would the marriage still be considered valid? I find it strange that the states and even counties and cities have different laws, but I guess that is what a republic is all about. Seems like a huge waste of paprework to me. Why can't all citizens or residents of the US have the same laws throughout the land.

Similarly why can't all cars use a standard oil filter so that there aren't 500 types on the shelves.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kernow62 says on Apr 22, 2006, 16:57:

G5, perhaps you can explain something about Common law marriage in the US. Say for example I am in a state that recognizes Common law marriage and move to a state that doesn't recognize it. Would the marriage still be considered valid? I find it strange that the states and even counties and cities have different laws, but I guess that is what a republic is all about. Seems like a huge waste of paprework to me. Why can't all citizens or residents of the US have the same laws throughout the land.

Similarly why can't all cars use a standard oil filter so that there aren't 500 types on the shelves.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:13:

Well Kernow.....good points and questions OK......the easy answers first.

The reason that there cannot be uniformity in the are of family law from state to state is something called the US Consititution. The US Constitution states that the powers for the federal government to enact laws are limited. In general, unless the Constitution states that something is exclusively a federal area, the states are left on their own to decide how a given area of law is adminstered. For example, Immigration, bankcruptcy, and interstate commerce, are areas that the federal government as exclusive jurisdiction over. Ballot access for federal office is also exclusively federal. Where the constitution does not grant federal jurisdiction (every other area) the states are delegated the power to decide, by applying local norms and customs how any are of conduct should be regulated.

Family law is an example of that. While the state of California is one of the few, and as far as I know the only state that has a common law provision for marraige, other states may not desire to have common law marraige. You are right!! It is sort of indicative of a "republic" form of govenment. Sometimes the line is not so clear. Back in the 60's the US Supreme Court said that executing a person that has not killed someone is a form of cruel and unussual punishment which is barred by the US Consittution. Many state's rights people argued that they had no right to address this issue of Capital punishment because what punishment a state applied for local crimes, was a right delegated to the states.....Obviously the US Supreme Court did not see it that way.

As to the marraige problem....well let me say this. Under the Full Faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, any court decision, or status that is legally conferred on someone or entity in one state, is given the same recognition in another state. Common law marraige poses some problems however. I don't know when the status attaches. That would determine if someone may or may not be married in California, would have to be given recognition in Illinois. That is not an area I am familiar with and I have not had to be familiar with this scenario because I have never had a client in that position

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:13:

Well Kernow.....good points and questions OK......the easy answers first.

The reason that there cannot be uniformity in the are of family law from state to state is something called the US Consititution. The US Constitution states that the powers for the federal government to enact laws are limited. In general, unless the Constitution states that something is exclusively a federal area, the states are left on their own to decide how a given area of law is adminstered. For example, Immigration, bankcruptcy, and interstate commerce, are areas that the federal government as exclusive jurisdiction over. Ballot access for federal office is also exclusively federal. Where the constitution does not grant federal jurisdiction (every other area) the states are delegated the power to decide, by applying local norms and customs how any are of conduct should be regulated.

Family law is an example of that. While the state of California is one of the few, and as far as I know the only state that has a common law provision for marraige, other states may not desire to have common law marraige. You are right!! It is sort of indicative of a "republic" form of govenment. Sometimes the line is not so clear. Back in the 60's the US Supreme Court said that executing a person that has not killed someone is a form of cruel and unussual punishment which is barred by the US Consittution. Many state's rights people argued that they had no right to address this issue of Capital punishment because what punishment a state applied for local crimes, was a right delegated to the states.....Obviously the US Supreme Court did not see it that way.

As to the marraige problem....well let me say this. Under the Full Faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, any court decision, or status that is legally conferred on someone or entity in one state, is given the same recognition in another state. Common law marraige poses some problems however. I don't know when the status attaches. That would determine if someone may or may not be married in California, would have to be given recognition in Illinois. That is not an area I am familiar with and I have not had to be familiar with this scenario because I have never had a client in that position

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:30:

Tinto...that's an easy situation...but....... In the California example that Kernow mentioned.....I am not so sure how FF&C would apply or WHEN it would apply. That depends on at what point, and under what circumstances the marital status is conferred upon a couple cohabiting. In other words if two people would have to be married for 5 years as a married couple would normally be married, and 6 years have passed with both parties are now living in a state that does not recognize common law marraige, I can assure you, I or any other divorce lawyer would be able to make a compelling argument that the marital status does not exist if I can prove that they did not live like a married couple. On top of it, I also would go so far as to say that common law marraiges may NOT be recognized in states where a marraige of this type is not recognized.

One more problem with your above statement. Evasionary marraiges are not entitled to full faith and credit. In other words, if a person leaves the state they reside in merely to marry in another state, for the sole purpose of avoiding a condtion of marraige that is required in the state both parties reside in, such a marraige would be considered evasionary and would therefore NOT be entitled to full faith and credit by the couples state of lawful residence.......

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:30:

Tinto...that's an easy situation...but....... In the California example that Kernow mentioned.....I am not so sure how FF&C would apply or WHEN it would apply. That depends on at what point, and under what circumstances the marital status is conferred upon a couple cohabiting. In other words if two people would have to be married for 5 years as a married couple would normally be married, and 6 years have passed with both parties are now living in a state that does not recognize common law marraige, I can assure you, I or any other divorce lawyer would be able to make a compelling argument that the marital status does not exist if I can prove that they did not live like a married couple. On top of it, I also would go so far as to say that common law marraiges may NOT be recognized in states where a marraige of this type is not recognized.

One more problem with your above statement. Evasionary marraiges are not entitled to full faith and credit. In other words, if a person leaves the state they reside in merely to marry in another state, for the sole purpose of avoiding a condtion of marraige that is required in the state both parties reside in, such a marraige would be considered evasionary and would therefore NOT be entitled to full faith and credit by the couples state of lawful residence.......

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:30:

This is why it's easy to sidestep a certain state's restrictions on marriage. If you can meet another state's residency requirements and get married there (say in a first cousin situation), the other state has to recognize the marriage. This is also why there was such a panic among the conservative states when a few liberal states started to recognize gay marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause would have required them to recognize these marriages as valid.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:30:

This is why it's easy to sidestep a certain state's restrictions on marriage. If you can meet another state's residency requirements and get married there (say in a first cousin situation), the other state has to recognize the marriage. This is also why there was such a panic among the conservative states when a few liberal states started to recognize gay marriage. The Full Faith and Credit clause would have required them to recognize these marriages as valid.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:32:

On a related note...is everything centralized and uniform in Colombia across all departments? Things like tax rates, driving age, drinking age, motor vehicle laws, family law, employment law, health care statues and so on. ALso, is there such a thing as in-department vs. out-of-department tuition costs?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:32:

On a related note...is everything centralized and uniform in Colombia across all departments? Things like tax rates, driving age, drinking age, motor vehicle laws, family law, employment law, health care statues and so on. ALso, is there such a thing as in-department vs. out-of-department tuition costs?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:34:

That's true UTC But the key is residency!! A gay couple that are otherwise considered lawful residents of Illinois, cannot go for a weekend trip to California to marry, and then return to Illinois, and expect Illinois to give FF&C to such a marraige......


Such a marraige is not a valid one and is not entitled to full faith and credit because it is evasionary.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 22, 2006, 17:34:

That's true UTC But the key is residency!! A gay couple that are otherwise considered lawful residents of Illinois, cannot go for a weekend trip to California to marry, and then return to Illinois, and expect Illinois to give FF&C to such a marraige......


Such a marraige is not a valid one and is not entitled to full faith and credit because it is evasionary.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 22, 2006, 18:21:

Mr. G I would highly doubt you can enter an agreement consenting not to be considered "married". The purpose of the law is precisely ensuring that regardless, people hold up to the responsibility of living together and what ever is produced within that living together is attributed to the couple and not to one of them. This also protects lots of women who in Colombia fall to men´s arms and the men leave them behind as we say in Colombia "viendo un chispero". I am no lawyer but I know in Colombia the law does say that you can not renounce to rights even if that is your will. Same like in inheritance issues that no matter how much your father dislikes you he can not take away all of your inheritance. These laws are designed to protect the weaker party.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 22, 2006, 18:21:

Mr. G I would highly doubt you can enter an agreement consenting not to be considered "married". The purpose of the law is precisely ensuring that regardless, people hold up to the responsibility of living together and what ever is produced within that living together is attributed to the couple and not to one of them. This also protects lots of women who in Colombia fall to men´s arms and the men leave them behind as we say in Colombia "viendo un chispero". I am no lawyer but I know in Colombia the law does say that you can not renounce to rights even if that is your will. Same like in inheritance issues that no matter how much your father dislikes you he can not take away all of your inheritance. These laws are designed to protect the weaker party.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 22, 2006, 21:00:

Sooner or Later These issues become topics. This same topic was discussed a few weeks ago, but this time in more detail.

I suppose I'm lucky in a way. The girl I'm with told me all this years ago. She is considered my wife, plain and simple. Plus this makes the relationship "acceptable" in the eyes of local people.

This is only one reason why I've always said that owning property in Colombia is NOT something I'd recommend.

The lawyers in Colombia,, know the law,,, so to speak. Like most things I'd hate to deal with a service originated in Colombia,, and don't think it can't happen.

Maybe G5 knows,, but 15 years ago,, unless the amount was over 30K you simply settled. There are exceptions of course, mainly if a corporation is faced with lots of litigation, thus staff attorneys supervising "contract" attorneys.

I saw something about "child support". Yep,, same thing,, don't think they don't go after the smallest of amounts. I've seen 20 or 30K monthly support payments levied.

Those owing a house in Colombia, married, especially with kids should only hope the wife agrees to sell the house and give you half. Why sell when they can stay there for free,, really,, what are you going to do about it?

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 22, 2006, 21:00:

Sooner or Later These issues become topics. This same topic was discussed a few weeks ago, but this time in more detail.

I suppose I'm lucky in a way. The girl I'm with told me all this years ago. She is considered my wife, plain and simple. Plus this makes the relationship "acceptable" in the eyes of local people.

This is only one reason why I've always said that owning property in Colombia is NOT something I'd recommend.

The lawyers in Colombia,, know the law,,, so to speak. Like most things I'd hate to deal with a service originated in Colombia,, and don't think it can't happen.

Maybe G5 knows,, but 15 years ago,, unless the amount was over 30K you simply settled. There are exceptions of course, mainly if a corporation is faced with lots of litigation, thus staff attorneys supervising "contract" attorneys.

I saw something about "child support". Yep,, same thing,, don't think they don't go after the smallest of amounts. I've seen 20 or 30K monthly support payments levied.

Those owing a house in Colombia, married, especially with kids should only hope the wife agrees to sell the house and give you half. Why sell when they can stay there for free,, really,, what are you going to do about it?

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

anamis says on Apr 23, 2006, 00:41:

I think it's also worth noting that in Colombia living together before marriage is not common - in a very Catholic country it is pretty much unacceptable. Where I grew up it simply doesn't happen, and it was only recently that it started becoming more common to move out of your parents' house for any reason other than marriage. And that's only because people are marrying later in life as more women enter the workforce. So if you live together that long the state decides that you are married in order to make it acceptable. It's also like what Juanalejo said - it protects the weaker party.

I think in like Sweden they do something similar, don't they? And that's why so few people get married, because just living together gives you all the same benefits and tax breaks and such? Although in Colombia it has the opposite effect:)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

anamis says on Apr 23, 2006, 00:41:

I think it's also worth noting that in Colombia living together before marriage is not common - in a very Catholic country it is pretty much unacceptable. Where I grew up it simply doesn't happen, and it was only recently that it started becoming more common to move out of your parents' house for any reason other than marriage. And that's only because people are marrying later in life as more women enter the workforce. So if you live together that long the state decides that you are married in order to make it acceptable. It's also like what Juanalejo said - it protects the weaker party.

I think in like Sweden they do something similar, don't they? And that's why so few people get married, because just living together gives you all the same benefits and tax breaks and such? Although in Colombia it has the opposite effect:)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:22:

Tinto... I'm going to take a stab at your question.

Now, I don't actually, KNOW the answer, but why should everybody else have all the fun on this forum? Why should I let an actual lack of knowledge or experience limit my opportunity to opine? Hell, I might even invent some bogus credentials to support my yanked-out-of-my-ass opinion... did you know that I graduated from a Colombian law school? :)

T: "Is everything centralized and uniform in Colombia across all departments? Things like tax rates, driving age, drinking age, motor vehicle laws, family law, employment law, health care statues and so on. ALso, is there such a thing as in-department vs. out-of-department tuition costs?"

Yes. No.

Colombia is not a federal republic like ours... it is a centralized republic, modeled after the Napoleonic system, which makes a great deal of sense if you think about its colonial history.

So - while we tend to equate Departments with States, that isn't a valid analogy. Departments don't have their own legislatures and court systems. Obviously, they have their own executives, because they are by definition administrative units... but there is only one set of rules, and that originates in the legislature in Bogota. The courts that enforce those rules are national, and should be the same wherever they are located.

A better analogy than comparing Departments to States would be to say that all of Colombia is like one of our States.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:22:

Tinto... I'm going to take a stab at your question.

Now, I don't actually, KNOW the answer, but why should everybody else have all the fun on this forum? Why should I let an actual lack of knowledge or experience limit my opportunity to opine? Hell, I might even invent some bogus credentials to support my yanked-out-of-my-ass opinion... did you know that I graduated from a Colombian law school? :)

T: "Is everything centralized and uniform in Colombia across all departments? Things like tax rates, driving age, drinking age, motor vehicle laws, family law, employment law, health care statues and so on. ALso, is there such a thing as in-department vs. out-of-department tuition costs?"

Yes. No.

Colombia is not a federal republic like ours... it is a centralized republic, modeled after the Napoleonic system, which makes a great deal of sense if you think about its colonial history.

So - while we tend to equate Departments with States, that isn't a valid analogy. Departments don't have their own legislatures and court systems. Obviously, they have their own executives, because they are by definition administrative units... but there is only one set of rules, and that originates in the legislature in Bogota. The courts that enforce those rules are national, and should be the same wherever they are located.

A better analogy than comparing Departments to States would be to say that all of Colombia is like one of our States.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:33:

Juanalejo....wrong You said it all yourself. "I am no lawyer." And that about says it all.

Let me inform you, in this country, and in every state, people enter into agreements (such agreements must be in writing) that would change, or negate a right, obligation or status, that the law would otherwise confer upon you absent this written agreement to the contrary. The best example of that are the laws of Intestate Sucession. In almost every state I know, if a person dies without a will, in almost every state that I can think of, the state designates what percentage of the decedent's estate shall pass to his child. On the other hand if a person has a will and he so designates that his child is not entitled to anything, that mandate takes precedent of the state law, and you have effectively disinherited your child.

There are many other example of where a status conferred by law, can be amended, altered or negated. It's called "waiver." So Juam, you are totally incorrect in your above assertion.

COMMON LAW MARRIGE
May I add Juan that time......in and of itself, is NOT ths issue in determining whether a common law marraige exists in the US. It may be sufficient in Colombia but it takes a hell of a lot more than time to prove a common law marraige here.

The capacity to to enter into a common law marriage requires the ability to understand, the marital contract, its duties and responsibilities, no existing marriage and the requisite ages, now 18. The present agreement requires a present explicit intent to be married and not an intent to marry in the future. This is the hardest requirement to explain and to prove. The question becomes whether the conduct of the parties in a particular case is sufficiently indicative of a marriage to infer the existence of an agreement. FInally, holding out to the public. This requirement mandates that the parties must publicly and professedly live as husband and wife. In other words, one cannot move in as boyfriend an girlfriend, and then assert because merely of the passage of time assert that there is a marital relationship. One must prove that you and the other party have been "holding out" as a married couple. Trust me, that is not easy. There are various types of activities which constitute a holding out to the putlic as husband and wife including, cohabitation, using the same last name, filing joint tax returns, opening joint bank or savings accounts, joint ownership of property, pooling resources, the woman using the man's last name on a driver's license and in daily affairs, designating the other person as spouse and beneficiary on insurance policies, having children and generally gaining a reputation in the community as husband and wife.

Such a case will depend on the facts of the case. Lack of a continuous cohabitation for even a short time may lead to a rejection of one's claim that a common law marraige exists. Where the parties' acts are inconsistent in their oral characterization of their relationship, the court may find no common law marriage. And where one party consistently denies the existence of an agreement to marry, the court may find no common law marriage. Lastly, evidence is adduced at trial and the party that denies that there was ever an intent to marry, can often present an ample body of evidence and witnesses to rebut the other party's claim that such a marraige existed.

So I think you guys see, it is not too difficult to defeat the claim as to existance of a Common law marraige if these requirements are not met. And it should be this difficult. Since the law provides an option for marraige by simply marrying, the law sets this high standard so as to not cause the existance of a relationship where none was intented

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:33:

Juanalejo....wrong You said it all yourself. "I am no lawyer." And that about says it all.

Let me inform you, in this country, and in every state, people enter into agreements (such agreements must be in writing) that would change, or negate a right, obligation or status, that the law would otherwise confer upon you absent this written agreement to the contrary. The best example of that are the laws of Intestate Sucession. In almost every state I know, if a person dies without a will, in almost every state that I can think of, the state designates what percentage of the decedent's estate shall pass to his child. On the other hand if a person has a will and he so designates that his child is not entitled to anything, that mandate takes precedent of the state law, and you have effectively disinherited your child.

There are many other example of where a status conferred by law, can be amended, altered or negated. It's called "waiver." So Juam, you are totally incorrect in your above assertion.

COMMON LAW MARRIGE
May I add Juan that time......in and of itself, is NOT ths issue in determining whether a common law marraige exists in the US. It may be sufficient in Colombia but it takes a hell of a lot more than time to prove a common law marraige here.

The capacity to to enter into a common law marriage requires the ability to understand, the marital contract, its duties and responsibilities, no existing marriage and the requisite ages, now 18. The present agreement requires a present explicit intent to be married and not an intent to marry in the future. This is the hardest requirement to explain and to prove. The question becomes whether the conduct of the parties in a particular case is sufficiently indicative of a marriage to infer the existence of an agreement. FInally, holding out to the public. This requirement mandates that the parties must publicly and professedly live as husband and wife. In other words, one cannot move in as boyfriend an girlfriend, and then assert because merely of the passage of time assert that there is a marital relationship. One must prove that you and the other party have been "holding out" as a married couple. Trust me, that is not easy. There are various types of activities which constitute a holding out to the putlic as husband and wife including, cohabitation, using the same last name, filing joint tax returns, opening joint bank or savings accounts, joint ownership of property, pooling resources, the woman using the man's last name on a driver's license and in daily affairs, designating the other person as spouse and beneficiary on insurance policies, having children and generally gaining a reputation in the community as husband and wife.

Such a case will depend on the facts of the case. Lack of a continuous cohabitation for even a short time may lead to a rejection of one's claim that a common law marraige exists. Where the parties' acts are inconsistent in their oral characterization of their relationship, the court may find no common law marriage. And where one party consistently denies the existence of an agreement to marry, the court may find no common law marriage. Lastly, evidence is adduced at trial and the party that denies that there was ever an intent to marry, can often present an ample body of evidence and witnesses to rebut the other party's claim that such a marraige existed.

So I think you guys see, it is not too difficult to defeat the claim as to existance of a Common law marraige if these requirements are not met. And it should be this difficult. Since the law provides an option for marraige by simply marrying, the law sets this high standard so as to not cause the existance of a relationship where none was intented

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:46:

Colombia Mr. G, in Colombia that can not happen, and I am no lawyer but I know my rights, I learn them in school. And no in Colombia you can not under any circumstance agree to resign to your rights. A woman can not agree to renounce to the money made during the relationship, a father can not deny his son of all his inheritance, or for that matter me when I wrote my will I was entitled to give away X ammount, the rest has to go by law to my legal inheritors. (there is a limit to how much you can give away). About the US I have no idea and I have no interest in knowing as this thread is about Colombia and this is where I live.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:46:

Colombia Mr. G, in Colombia that can not happen, and I am no lawyer but I know my rights, I learn them in school. And no in Colombia you can not under any circumstance agree to resign to your rights. A woman can not agree to renounce to the money made during the relationship, a father can not deny his son of all his inheritance, or for that matter me when I wrote my will I was entitled to give away X ammount, the rest has to go by law to my legal inheritors. (there is a limit to how much you can give away). About the US I have no idea and I have no interest in knowing as this thread is about Colombia and this is where I live.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:55:

OK Juan....fine...I get your point but Juan....I was not comparing common law marraige in Colombia to the US. But like I said above, you know Colombia, but don't sound silly and try telling me about the law in the US. I came here and asked you about a legal status in Colombia, not to debate what I know and understand in the US.

Also Juan....you might want to reread my above post..While you posted, I edited the post where I described just how difficult it is to prove the exsistance of a common law marraige in the US. If Colombia does not impose a similar standard...and they may because you are not a lawyer in Colombia either so I am not sure you fully understand the concept, then Colombia's system will allow the potential for fraudulent claims of marraige where none was ever intended.

It makes no senst to confer the status of marraige on two people just because they happen to have been cohabitating.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 08:55:

OK Juan....fine...I get your point but Juan....I was not comparing common law marraige in Colombia to the US. But like I said above, you know Colombia, but don't sound silly and try telling me about the law in the US. I came here and asked you about a legal status in Colombia, not to debate what I know and understand in the US.

Also Juan....you might want to reread my above post..While you posted, I edited the post where I described just how difficult it is to prove the exsistance of a common law marraige in the US. If Colombia does not impose a similar standard...and they may because you are not a lawyer in Colombia either so I am not sure you fully understand the concept, then Colombia's system will allow the potential for fraudulent claims of marraige where none was ever intended.

It makes no senst to confer the status of marraige on two people just because they happen to have been cohabitating.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:10:

Potential I guess there could be the potential, but that what lawyers are there for, to help the judges decide. But in Colombia that law was designed to protect all those women (many with very little education) who fell under the hands of men who were only interested in sex and company and that at the end of the few years of company were left behind with nothing.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:10:

Potential I guess there could be the potential, but that what lawyers are there for, to help the judges decide. But in Colombia that law was designed to protect all those women (many with very little education) who fell under the hands of men who were only interested in sex and company and that at the end of the few years of company were left behind with nothing.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:21:

"Protecting the weaker party" ?? Please....

Rgarding this "Protecting the weaker party" concept,,,,,that makes no sense. I can understand this concept when you are talking about the need for product liabilty laws to protect us from corporations that market poorly made items. That is an example of protecting the weaker party. Medical Malpractice is another example because when you go to a doctor, you have not a clue whether he has done the right tests, or diagnosed you correctly. But to confer a legal status on people where none was intended, that is not protecting the weaker party. What you guys fail to understand is unlike in the examples I gave above, the two parties had the mental capacity to decide whether they wanted their relatioship to be considered a marraige by simply doing one act......GETTING MARRIED. I think it is wrong for the governmet to impose a status on people where none was intended in the first place.
"Protecting the weaker party".what a bunch of bunk!!! Have the people in Colombia become so willing to give up their power of decision so as to let the government decide whether they should or should not be a married couple? If it was such a good idea to have common law marraige, trust me, you would see many more states in the US that have it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:21:

"Protecting the weaker party" ?? Please....

Rgarding this "Protecting the weaker party" concept,,,,,that makes no sense. I can understand this concept when you are talking about the need for product liabilty laws to protect us from corporations that market poorly made items. That is an example of protecting the weaker party. Medical Malpractice is another example because when you go to a doctor, you have not a clue whether he has done the right tests, or diagnosed you correctly. But to confer a legal status on people where none was intended, that is not protecting the weaker party. What you guys fail to understand is unlike in the examples I gave above, the two parties had the mental capacity to decide whether they wanted their relatioship to be considered a marraige by simply doing one act......GETTING MARRIED. I think it is wrong for the governmet to impose a status on people where none was intended in the first place.
"Protecting the weaker party".what a bunch of bunk!!! Have the people in Colombia become so willing to give up their power of decision so as to let the government decide whether they should or should not be a married couple? If it was such a good idea to have common law marraige, trust me, you would see many more states in the US that have it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:26:

Colombia That gives me a very clear understanding that you do not understand Colombia or its people, for me it is more than clear what the purpose of the law is there for, but then again I live here and understand this culture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:26:

Colombia That gives me a very clear understanding that you do not understand Colombia or its people, for me it is more than clear what the purpose of the law is there for, but then again I live here and understand this culture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:31:

Juan makes a point...... So maybe that is why prostitution is so prevelant in Colombia. People who want to use a woman for sex, are so worried about living with a young hottie and then having her declare them being married two years down the road, these guys figure that it is easier to go get a hooker and avoid this problem. This of course assumes that the sole reason that the man was cohabitating with the woman if the first place was for to provide him with sexual gratification.......

So there, a new reason as to the root causes of wide spread prostitution in Colombia. Maybe if they reconsidered this common law marraige stuff, men would be more willing to "help a young lady out" even if it's only for a short period. But, some help is better than no help. :)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:31:

Juan makes a point...... So maybe that is why prostitution is so prevelant in Colombia. People who want to use a woman for sex, are so worried about living with a young hottie and then having her declare them being married two years down the road, these guys figure that it is easier to go get a hooker and avoid this problem. This of course assumes that the sole reason that the man was cohabitating with the woman if the first place was for to provide him with sexual gratification.......

So there, a new reason as to the root causes of wide spread prostitution in Colombia. Maybe if they reconsidered this common law marraige stuff, men would be more willing to "help a young lady out" even if it's only for a short period. But, some help is better than no help. :)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:38:

My mum is a lawyer and Juanal My mum is a lawyer and what Juanalejo said its correct.
and Poco you said "Those owing a house in Colombia, married, especially with kids should only hope the wife agrees to sell the house and give you half. Why sell when they can stay there for free,, really,, what are you going to do about it?" another option would be to put the property in your children name, neither you or your wife can sell the property in case of a divorce, the kids will own the property and they are not allowed to sell it until they reach the age of 18. I think this is what they call Patrimonio Familiar

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:38:

My mum is a lawyer and Juanal My mum is a lawyer and what Juanalejo said its correct.
and Poco you said "Those owing a house in Colombia, married, especially with kids should only hope the wife agrees to sell the house and give you half. Why sell when they can stay there for free,, really,, what are you going to do about it?" another option would be to put the property in your children name, neither you or your wife can sell the property in case of a divorce, the kids will own the property and they are not allowed to sell it until they reach the age of 18. I think this is what they call Patrimonio Familiar

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:39:

Example Your example, Mr. G, further enhances my understanding of your lack of knowledge of Colombian culture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:39:

Example Your example, Mr. G, further enhances my understanding of your lack of knowledge of Colombian culture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:41:

Tinto..... For the reason I outlined above, maybe this law has the unintended side affect of making prostitution so widespread in Colombia? Certainly an argument can be made. I can see the correlation. Easily

And I never said the the US is perfect. But it's better than any place you know of. You live here don't you? And by the way, there are millions who have protested in the streets, so that they and the other several million who are here illegally can stay here. Those pregnant Mexican ladies don't risk their lives (literally) crossing the border to have their child here for nothing.

And by the way, I don't know about up where you are, but here in Chicago, the hospitals, (the best ones like Northwestern) are filled with illegal Mexican that, while they may not know a word of English, they are able to find their way to free health care. Good for them!!

Free health care, and freedom of choice are two very unrelated concepts.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:41:

Tinto..... For the reason I outlined above, maybe this law has the unintended side affect of making prostitution so widespread in Colombia? Certainly an argument can be made. I can see the correlation. Easily

And I never said the the US is perfect. But it's better than any place you know of. You live here don't you? And by the way, there are millions who have protested in the streets, so that they and the other several million who are here illegally can stay here. Those pregnant Mexican ladies don't risk their lives (literally) crossing the border to have their child here for nothing.

And by the way, I don't know about up where you are, but here in Chicago, the hospitals, (the best ones like Northwestern) are filled with illegal Mexican that, while they may not know a word of English, they are able to find their way to free health care. Good for them!!

Free health care, and freedom of choice are two very unrelated concepts.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:51:

Juan....can you ever set aside your agenda? This issue has nothing to do with Colombian culture. It has to do with freedom of choice.

Colombian culture is not nearly as progresive as you think it is. When it comes to protecting women, the Colombian government has decided to trump the desires of two people living together sole for the purpose of "protecting the weaker party" (the woman) However, In the area of women's rights, and sexual harrasment, Colombia barely rises above the neanderthal era. I never hear or read any of the liberals on this site contribute anything sensible in that area.

Give me a break.....

By the way Juan, something tells me that if the US grants amnesty (or some version of it) to all these illegals, suffice to say, all those illegal Colombians that are here will been in line in a heart beat to take advantage of this opportunity. When you combine that fact with all the falso marraiges I have seen in the last couple of years, it certainly tells me (and anyone with a modicum of common sesne) that the US is a far better country to live in than Colombia.

Like I have said before, Colombia's biggest defenders on this web site still happen to live in the US.....that's why this site is so comical....a cesspool of hypocracy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:51:

Juan....can you ever set aside your agenda? This issue has nothing to do with Colombian culture. It has to do with freedom of choice.

Colombian culture is not nearly as progresive as you think it is. When it comes to protecting women, the Colombian government has decided to trump the desires of two people living together sole for the purpose of "protecting the weaker party" (the woman) However, In the area of women's rights, and sexual harrasment, Colombia barely rises above the neanderthal era. I never hear or read any of the liberals on this site contribute anything sensible in that area.

Give me a break.....

By the way Juan, something tells me that if the US grants amnesty (or some version of it) to all these illegals, suffice to say, all those illegal Colombians that are here will been in line in a heart beat to take advantage of this opportunity. When you combine that fact with all the falso marraiges I have seen in the last couple of years, it certainly tells me (and anyone with a modicum of common sesne) that the US is a far better country to live in than Colombia.

Like I have said before, Colombia's biggest defenders on this web site still happen to live in the US.....that's why this site is so comical....a cesspool of hypocracy

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:59:

What? Put the property in the children's name????? "the kids will own the property and they are not allowed to sell it until they reach the age of 18. I think this is what they call Patrimonio Familiar"

Yea Juan,,,,,maybe you are right. I don't understand Colombian culture. If what Kat says is true, I would be better of not understanding it. If someone can tell me that a country that allow the parents to put the name of the family home in a child's (and minor's) name, is a country that has it's house in order, (no pun inteneded)I sure would like to hear that logic.....

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 09:59:

What? Put the property in the children's name????? "the kids will own the property and they are not allowed to sell it until they reach the age of 18. I think this is what they call Patrimonio Familiar"

Yea Juan,,,,,maybe you are right. I don't understand Colombian culture. If what Kat says is true, I would be better of not understanding it. If someone can tell me that a country that allow the parents to put the name of the family home in a child's (and minor's) name, is a country that has it's house in order, (no pun inteneded)I sure would like to hear that logic.....

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:02:

Mr. G Not only fake marriages, but also fake political asylums. Has anybody denied them? And did you also see just a few weeks back when all the legalization protests were being held, that 90% of Colombians want to remain as such regardless of having a US passport, and 75% would return to Colombia if they had the same economic opportunity as they had in the US. So no it has nothing to do with which is a better country (that is something so subjective) it has all to do with money. That is why people migrate in most cases, not only from Colombia but from any where else, and not only to the US but also to Europe and many other countries.

And by the way what is funny is that this site has more permanent posters from your country than from mine, yet it is site that talks about my country not yours. So there has to be something about this country that attracts you on an almost permanent basis.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:02:

Mr. G Not only fake marriages, but also fake political asylums. Has anybody denied them? And did you also see just a few weeks back when all the legalization protests were being held, that 90% of Colombians want to remain as such regardless of having a US passport, and 75% would return to Colombia if they had the same economic opportunity as they had in the US. So no it has nothing to do with which is a better country (that is something so subjective) it has all to do with money. That is why people migrate in most cases, not only from Colombia but from any where else, and not only to the US but also to Europe and many other countries.

And by the way what is funny is that this site has more permanent posters from your country than from mine, yet it is site that talks about my country not yours. So there has to be something about this country that attracts you on an almost permanent basis.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:12:

Who is this masked man ? Now, I don't actually, KNOW the answer, but why should everybody else have all the fun on this forum? Why should I let an actual lack of knowledge or experience limit my opportunity to opine? Hell, I might even invent some bogus credentials to support my yanked-out-of-my-ass opinion... did you know that I graduated from a Colombian law school? :)

This is all I could read before my eyes started watering from laughing and is why I never have my coffee near the keyboard.


PS: Much more Common Law Information but not Colombia. Canadians I know say Common Law can be a problem. Depending on the side you're on of course.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:12:

Who is this masked man ? Now, I don't actually, KNOW the answer, but why should everybody else have all the fun on this forum? Why should I let an actual lack of knowledge or experience limit my opportunity to opine? Hell, I might even invent some bogus credentials to support my yanked-out-of-my-ass opinion... did you know that I graduated from a Colombian law school? :)

This is all I could read before my eyes started watering from laughing and is why I never have my coffee near the keyboard.


PS: Much more Common Law Information but not Colombia. Canadians I know say Common Law can be a problem. Depending on the side you're on of course.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:18:

Tinto and Juan Tinto.....

I know how the illegal Mexicans get medical care here. My question was a rhetorical one, not one of legitimate inquiry. Trust me, as a lawyer working here, dealing with these people every day, I can tell you I have "heard" and "seen" it all.

Also, I did not say that Colombia's common law marraige is THE cause of prostitution in Colombia. But based upon what I am reading here, it is not so far fetched to say it is not a contributing factor as to how wide of a scale it exists. You cannot deny that. Good grief. Mexico is a poor country too....yet in no way shape or form, does prostitution exist to the degree that it does in Colombia. And, uh hum,,,,,,by the way, there is no common law marraige in Mexico.......

And Juan.

"So no it has nothing to do with which is a better country (that is something so subjective) it has all to do with money."

I like that line. Soooo, let me understand something. You don't think that people who have more money in one country wouldn't find it a "better place to live in", than people who lived in a country with less money or to put it more accurately, next to no money?

Sorry Juan, I don't think you can be poor but happy in any country....not even Colombia. And the 12 million illegals that are here would probably agree with me.

And as to my frequent returns to Colombia....I still have family there. They probably don't live too far from you. I have friends there too. I visit with friends and family alike. Juan, on my next trip, I would even be up for a visit with you. A coffee? A beer? That meeting should prove interesting.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:18:

Tinto and Juan Tinto.....

I know how the illegal Mexicans get medical care here. My question was a rhetorical one, not one of legitimate inquiry. Trust me, as a lawyer working here, dealing with these people every day, I can tell you I have "heard" and "seen" it all.

Also, I did not say that Colombia's common law marraige is THE cause of prostitution in Colombia. But based upon what I am reading here, it is not so far fetched to say it is not a contributing factor as to how wide of a scale it exists. You cannot deny that. Good grief. Mexico is a poor country too....yet in no way shape or form, does prostitution exist to the degree that it does in Colombia. And, uh hum,,,,,,by the way, there is no common law marraige in Mexico.......

And Juan.

"So no it has nothing to do with which is a better country (that is something so subjective) it has all to do with money."

I like that line. Soooo, let me understand something. You don't think that people who have more money in one country wouldn't find it a "better place to live in", than people who lived in a country with less money or to put it more accurately, next to no money?

Sorry Juan, I don't think you can be poor but happy in any country....not even Colombia. And the 12 million illegals that are here would probably agree with me.

And as to my frequent returns to Colombia....I still have family there. They probably don't live too far from you. I have friends there too. I visit with friends and family alike. Juan, on my next trip, I would even be up for a visit with you. A coffee? A beer? That meeting should prove interesting.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:27:

Poco.... Keyboards are cheap. You can pick them up here in Chicago for as little as 5 dollars. On the other hand if you are talking about a lap top key board, that is a different story. I managed to spill the coffee twice on my laptop. I have a Compaq Armada M700 (a real icon), and the coffee never drips below the Keyboard. But the keyboard needs replacing, but keyboards for my old M700 are available on line for no more than 35 dollars. Try and get a new lap top and pick up a keyboard for 35 dollars.....good luck

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:27:

Poco.... Keyboards are cheap. You can pick them up here in Chicago for as little as 5 dollars. On the other hand if you are talking about a lap top key board, that is a different story. I managed to spill the coffee twice on my laptop. I have a Compaq Armada M700 (a real icon), and the coffee never drips below the Keyboard. But the keyboard needs replacing, but keyboards for my old M700 are available on line for no more than 35 dollars. Try and get a new lap top and pick up a keyboard for 35 dollars.....good luck

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:28:

12 million people who actually had to make an effort not to pull out there flags when protesting on the street, and whose main concern was how much money they contribute to the US economy........once again it boils down to money.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 10:28:

12 million people who actually had to make an effort not to pull out there flags when protesting on the street, and whose main concern was how much money they contribute to the US economy........once again it boils down to money.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 23, 2006, 11:55:

Laptop - Computing & entertainment outside the home I use a laptop for almost everything. Recently needed a new hard drive. A ten minute install and one day reloading all the programs and "stuff". So much for the 300,000 MTBF statistics on drive reliability. I use the desktop as a "backup" and if it is really important, like my photo collection of different animals copulating, the backup is also on a net based server. I need to learn about TV screen capture. Animal Planet being the likely location of a new source.

"Legal" has much to do with reported statistics. My impression is that cities in MEXICO are similar to Colombia. Texas is on the border so maybe that sways my opinion.

I am inclined to think prostitution has very little to do with Common Law marriages in Colombia. I am more inclined to believe the VERY common "Amante" relationship might be a VERY SMALL contributor.

I've tried to get a handle on different words like Amante (lover). The cultural definitions seem to be this:

Girl Friend: Just that, no sex, the kids swear “it’s just a girl friend”.

Prostitute: Directly paid for sex.

Amante: Not directly paid for sex. A man, usually married, keeps a woman for sex and of course companionship :) The man “contributes” to her cost of upkeep. Ie: pays her rent, chips in on food, etc. The woman is “expected” to only have one man,, but the man can have as many Amantes as he can afford, although one would seem enough.

Men do NOT live with their Amante. Women DO NOT ask the man for money, nope, only prostitutes ask for money. It appears this relationship can be terminated by the man or woman. He might quit “helping” the woman or if he does not “help enough” he is subject to being “replaced” or he is no longer considered exclusive by the woman and she likely seeks a replacement.

Wife: Live with the same woman long enough and you’ve got a common law wife. Although I don’t know how often this happens.

Colombia surprises me quite often. This statement caused some serious pondering:

I think it's also worth noting that in Colombia living together before marriage is not common - in a very Catholic country it is pretty much unacceptable.

Living in a rural area where there are ZERO North Americans and almost ZERO visitors, coupled with the lack of local wealth gives me a better perspective on how average Colombians live and what they believe or think. My biggest problem has always been perception. Once perceived I can usually answer why.

Now that it has been mentioned, there is a tendency to believe Colombian women don’t normally live with a man full time before marriage. This is yet another item reinforcing my opinion that rural Colombia is similar to the rural U.S. 40 years ago.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 23, 2006, 11:55:

Laptop - Computing & entertainment outside the home I use a laptop for almost everything. Recently needed a new hard drive. A ten minute install and one day reloading all the programs and "stuff". So much for the 300,000 MTBF statistics on drive reliability. I use the desktop as a "backup" and if it is really important, like my photo collection of different animals copulating, the backup is also on a net based server. I need to learn about TV screen capture. Animal Planet being the likely location of a new source.

"Legal" has much to do with reported statistics. My impression is that cities in MEXICO are similar to Colombia. Texas is on the border so maybe that sways my opinion.

I am inclined to think prostitution has very little to do with Common Law marriages in Colombia. I am more inclined to believe the VERY common "Amante" relationship might be a VERY SMALL contributor.

I've tried to get a handle on different words like Amante (lover). The cultural definitions seem to be this:

Girl Friend: Just that, no sex, the kids swear “it’s just a girl friend”.

Prostitute: Directly paid for sex.

Amante: Not directly paid for sex. A man, usually married, keeps a woman for sex and of course companionship :) The man “contributes” to her cost of upkeep. Ie: pays her rent, chips in on food, etc. The woman is “expected” to only have one man,, but the man can have as many Amantes as he can afford, although one would seem enough.

Men do NOT live with their Amante. Women DO NOT ask the man for money, nope, only prostitutes ask for money. It appears this relationship can be terminated by the man or woman. He might quit “helping” the woman or if he does not “help enough” he is subject to being “replaced” or he is no longer considered exclusive by the woman and she likely seeks a replacement.

Wife: Live with the same woman long enough and you’ve got a common law wife. Although I don’t know how often this happens.

Colombia surprises me quite often. This statement caused some serious pondering:

I think it's also worth noting that in Colombia living together before marriage is not common - in a very Catholic country it is pretty much unacceptable.

Living in a rural area where there are ZERO North Americans and almost ZERO visitors, coupled with the lack of local wealth gives me a better perspective on how average Colombians live and what they believe or think. My biggest problem has always been perception. Once perceived I can usually answer why.

Now that it has been mentioned, there is a tendency to believe Colombian women don’t normally live with a man full time before marriage. This is yet another item reinforcing my opinion that rural Colombia is similar to the rural U.S. 40 years ago.

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a pussy." Quote - General Tommy Franks

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Apr 23, 2006, 12:41:

Actually G5 I think its right the Patrimonio de Familia, its protects the kids amd the mother. not only from divorces but from "embargos "and so on. how many wife and kids have been left in the streets. I've got some property in Colombia, and if my husband one day decided to leave me I put them in my kids name.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Apr 23, 2006, 12:41:

Actually G5 I think its right the Patrimonio de Familia, its protects the kids amd the mother. not only from divorces but from "embargos "and so on. how many wife and kids have been left in the streets. I've got some property in Colombia, and if my husband one day decided to leave me I put them in my kids name.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 23, 2006, 14:02:

Kat, Kat, Kat. Larry is never going to leave you. You might leave him to meet Elmo under the bridge but Larry is never going to leave you.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 23, 2006, 14:02:

Kat, Kat, Kat. Larry is never going to leave you. You might leave him to meet Elmo under the bridge but Larry is never going to leave you.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 15:26:

UTC...are you nuts? She is going to leave Larry (her hubby I presume) for Elmo? I doubt it. At the same time, if she does leave Larry for Elmo, than Larry can always try and hit it off with one of Elmo's daughters. At least he can say he has experience with Colombian woman

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 15:26:

UTC...are you nuts? She is going to leave Larry (her hubby I presume) for Elmo? I doubt it. At the same time, if she does leave Larry for Elmo, than Larry can always try and hit it off with one of Elmo's daughters. At least he can say he has experience with Colombian woman

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 15:33:

Tinto....I'm glad you noticed it..... I am always extending an olive branch to Juanalejo. I did it at the ver begining of this thread when he responded and I gave deference (as I have over and over again) about his personal knowledge of Bogota and the way things are done there. And what's his response? It's always a personal attack. Always. That invite to a personal meeting was the most recent attempt to work with the guy. So what does he do? He demurs me by making another post and does not even address my offer.....

What can I say.....what a gentleman the guy is.

I admit it. I have gotten into it with people, and I almost always take the initiative to try and patch things up. I did it with Mario, Miamimike, (has anyone heard from him) and others. We're sort of family here. It makes no sense to be bitter and harbor resentment.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 15:33:

Tinto....I'm glad you noticed it..... I am always extending an olive branch to Juanalejo. I did it at the ver begining of this thread when he responded and I gave deference (as I have over and over again) about his personal knowledge of Bogota and the way things are done there. And what's his response? It's always a personal attack. Always. That invite to a personal meeting was the most recent attempt to work with the guy. So what does he do? He demurs me by making another post and does not even address my offer.....

What can I say.....what a gentleman the guy is.

I admit it. I have gotten into it with people, and I almost always take the initiative to try and patch things up. I did it with Mario, Miamimike, (has anyone heard from him) and others. We're sort of family here. It makes no sense to be bitter and harbor resentment.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

anamis says on Apr 23, 2006, 16:16:

You should know by now that the easiest way to piss off anyone that speaks Spanish is to assume that they are the same as the Mexicans.

So the US is better because Mexicans want to live there? What kind of logic is that? And why should I give a shit what they do? You need to realize that just because Colombia or any other country does things differently than your country that does not make it a bad system.
[There was a lot more to this post. I deleted it because it was written in anger and I don’t want to cause more trouble. But I’m still pissed.]

We have common law marriage in Colombia, but it’s not a huge issue because UNLIKE IN THE US it is not common for people to live together before marriage, so it's not like people are looking for an alternative. People just date. If they want to get married, they do. And that's that, it’s a different culture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

anamis says on Apr 23, 2006, 16:16:

You should know by now that the easiest way to piss off anyone that speaks Spanish is to assume that they are the same as the Mexicans.

So the US is better because Mexicans want to live there? What kind of logic is that? And why should I give a shit what they do? You need to realize that just because Colombia or any other country does things differently than your country that does not make it a bad system.
[There was a lot more to this post. I deleted it because it was written in anger and I don’t want to cause more trouble. But I’m still pissed.]

We have common law marriage in Colombia, but it’s not a huge issue because UNLIKE IN THE US it is not common for people to live together before marriage, so it's not like people are looking for an alternative. People just date. If they want to get married, they do. And that's that, it’s a different culture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 16:47:

Mr Anamis......clarify please First, I don't know who you are addressing. Secondly, as almost all other members of this site know, I was born in Colombia, but I recognize that your all of 1 week and 3 days as a member of this site might have prevented you from knowing this fact. That said, I don't know where your above quote, repeated below, fits into the equation:

"You should know by now that the easiest way to piss off anyone that speaks Spanish is to assume that they are the same as the Mexicans."

I think natural born Colombian like myself would know your above assertion perhaps better than you do.

But consider this, all Colombians that live in the US, are benefiting from the political force that the Mexicans and Mexican American community represents in this country. To prove my point, I only ask you this:

Do you you think that the number of illegal Colombians all by themselves would ever cause one bit of controversy as to whether or not amnesty should be granted to those those here illegaly? The answer is a reounding "NO". To put it another way, if you removed all the illegal Mexicans, the issue as to whether or not to grant amnesty to the remaining people who are here illegally would be......just that.....a non issue. That said, all illegal Colombians, who stand no chance of ever obtaining lawful residency in the US, should thank their lucky stars that the Mexicans are spearheading this drive, and that they as Colombians can get on the bandwagon and enjoy the ride all the way to the finish line.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Apr 23, 2006, 16:47:

Mr Anamis......clarify please First, I don't know who you are addressing. Secondly, as almost all other members of this site know, I was born in Colombia, but I recognize that your all of 1 week and 3 days as a member of this site might have prevented you from knowing this fact. That said, I don't know where your above quote, repeated below, fits into the equation:

"You should know by now that the easiest way to piss off anyone that speaks Spanish is to assume that they are the same as the Mexicans."

I think natural born Colombian like myself would know your above assertion perhaps better than you do.

But consider this, all Colombians that live in the US, are benefiting from the political force that the Mexicans and Mexican American community represents in this country. To prove my point, I only ask you this:

Do you you think that the number of illegal Colombians all by themselves would ever cause one bit of controversy as to whether or not amnesty should be granted to those those here illegaly? The answer is a reounding "NO". To put it another way, if you removed all the illegal Mexicans, the issue as to whether or not to grant amnesty to the remaining people who are here illegally would be......just that.....a non issue. That said, all illegal Colombians, who stand no chance of ever obtaining lawful residency in the US, should thank their lucky stars that the Mexicans are spearheading this drive, and that they as Colombians can get on the bandwagon and enjoy the ride all the way to the finish line.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

anamis says on Apr 23, 2006, 17:45:

It's Ms - Ana Maria. My fam It's Ms - Ana Maria.
My family's originally from Villavicencio but I moved to Bogota at a young age. I am in the US for university. So yes, I know that assumption "perhaps better than you do."

Did you come to the US illegally?
I don't see how this discussion veered in that direction, but my point was that you cant use the Mexicans to say that one country is "better" than another ("it's better than any place you know of. You live here don't you? And by the way, there are millions who have protested in the streets, so that they and the other several million who are here illegally can stay here.") Since you choose to live in the US, I see that is your opinion, but it isn't mine. And I took offense to the fact that in your posts you are condescending and make assumptions about people ("better than any place you know," "I understand better than you do," etc.)

I don't have much to say about that immigration law. I came to the US legally, so it doesn't affect me, and I don't have much desire to stay anyways. I'm going home next month.

So even if what you say is true, what does any of that have to do with common law marriage?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

anamis says on Apr 23, 2006, 17:45:

It's Ms - Ana Maria. My fam It's Ms - Ana Maria.
My family's originally from Villavicencio but I moved to Bogota at a young age. I am in the US for university. So yes, I know that assumption "perhaps better than you do."

Did you come to the US illegally?
I don't see how this discussion veered in that direction, but my point was that you cant use the Mexicans to say that one country is "better" than another ("it's better than any place you know of. You live here don't you? And by the way, there are millions who have protested in the streets, so that they and the other several million who are here illegally can stay here.") Since you choose to live in the US, I see that is your opinion, but it isn't mine. And I took offense to the fact that in your posts you are condescending and make assumptions about people ("better than any place you know," "I understand better than you do," etc.)

I don't have much to say about that immigration law. I came to the US legally, so it doesn't affect me, and I don't have much desire to stay anyways. I'm going home next month.

So even if what you say is true, what does any of that have to do with common law marriage?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 18:00:

Mr. G Thank you very much for the invitation but no, I decline. A conversation between me and you can easily turn into a discussion of why you believe the USA is the best country on earth and me thinking that Colombia is not the all dark, dangerous and corrupt country you think it is. So thank you very much, but no. Plus Colombia is to enjoy, so why waste your time in purposeless discussions, when you can finally enjoy life?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 23, 2006, 18:00:

Mr. G Thank you very much for the invitation but no, I decline. A conversation between me and you can easily turn into a discussion of why you believe the USA is the best country on earth and me thinking that Colombia is not the all dark, dangerous and corrupt country you think it is. So thank you very much, but no. Plus Colombia is to enjoy, so why waste your time in purposeless discussions, when you can finally enjoy life?

0 funny, 0 helpful.