Do All (Red, White, &) Blue States Think Alike on Marriage? You Might Be Surprised...

 

This guest post is from Cameron Wall, Regent Law Family Law student:

One would think the state of California and the state of Illinois, both of which share a lengthy history of voting “blue,” would have a near synonymous historical recognition of marriage- after all, it was only within five months’ time that both states legally recognized same-sex marriages as legal (Illinois in November of 2013 and California in June of 2013). Despite similar rulings on same-sex marriages, these heavyweight states, often toted as “champions of the left,” quite fascinatingly, hold incredibly differing perspectives on the recognition of marriage and property rights associated with marital contracts.

In California, for example, the case Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 665 (1976), established state-wide precedent that recognized marital property rights of couples that did not, in fact, possess a legally recognized marriage at the time. This was a landmark case for the people of California, as it recognized two individuals, who were not married according to the letter of California law, as enjoying the same property rights of those who were lawfully married. The Supreme Court of California reasoned this was a just determination because, in reality, these individuals held an implied marriage by contract- they acted like they were married, relied on each other for support, orally agreed to combine their efforts and share in the equity of their combined property, and lived together for nearly seven years. The court therefore held that partners in non-marital relationships may, in fact, bring claims of property division based on rights assigned by implied contracts, ultimately siding with the plaintiff’s quantum meruit argument and definition of marital rights under common law.

In a surprise twist of events, as California began to liberally extend their definition and recognition of marital rights, the Illinois courts stood stoic, doubling down on the more conservative understanding and recognition of marriage and marital property rights associated with marriage. For example, in the landmark case Hewitt v. Hewitt, 77 Ill. 2d 49 (1979), property claims by unmarried couples who were living together in a “marriage-like relationship” were held as invalid and unenforceable. The court determined these pseudo-marriages (implied marriages by contract) went against Illinois public policy, citing principles deeply rooted within the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which emphasized the preservation of marriage and explicitly rejected common-law marriages (implied marriages by co-habitation).

All in all, although it may seem like traditionally blue states may always vote the same and honor other blue states laws/policies, history shows us that this is not always the case, even with respect to hot-button topics like marriage rights and fairness in the distribution of property resulting from that particular state’s definition of marriage. Although Illinois and California often vote similarly, enact similar laws, and similarly lean to the left, Hewitt still remains controlling law in Illinois, and Marvin still remains good law in California today.