Bad news for unconventional relationships – yesterday, a Pennsylvania appeals court… Bad news for unconventional relationships – yesterday, a Pennsylvania appeals court abolished common law marriage. That is, marriage in which both parties consider themselves spouses, but never obtained a legal marriage.

The court accepted John Kretz’s claim that he should receive the pension benefits of his common law wife, Janet Stamos, after her 1994 death.

But it then struck down the institution of common law marriage in Pennsylvania, saying that the designation was vague and confusing – which could lead to fraud from people wanting to profit off another’s death – according to a Sept. 18 Associated Press article.

It also included a grandfather clause in the decision, meaning that current common law marriages will be protected legally, while future common law marriages will receive no legal protection.

In Pennsylvania, common law marriage applies only to couples living together for a significant amount of time, who treat one another as spouses and intend to marry. Given this vagueness, defining when a common law marriage began – upon dating, cohabitation or private vows – becomes difficult.

The court’s role is to strike down laws that it finds wanting. In this case, if it found the law wanting, it is now up to legislative bodies to reassess the laws and determine how to clarify them.

Resultantly, the Pennsylvania Legislature should draft a new, clearer definition of what a common law marriage is, and of the status of those in one. Doing so would give the court a clear guideline as to how to parcel out benefits and give people like Kretz and Stamos a financial safety net if their partner dies.

Common law marriage gave the rights of legal marriage to people who are not technically married – rights that can include insurance coverage, tax deductions and, in the case brought before the court, a widower receiving his – common law – wife’s pension benefits.

Marriage is a messy business. Whether it’s treated as state or religious institution, it engenders the issue of what a married couple is. For instance, is the union of two people of the same gender less a marriage than that of a heterosexual couple married on an accidental night in Las Vegas?

And are two people who exchange private vows, as Kretz and Stamos did, but not officially married, deserving of the same rights as people who schlepped to the Justice of the Peace?

This court seems to think that Pennsylvania requires a better litmus test than currently exists, which the legislature needs to provide.