Also known as: intact marriages · subsisting marriage · valid marriage
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A marriage in which no proceedings for separation or divorce have been instituted. Courts traditionally decline to intervene in financial or personal disputes between the spouses absent gross and dangerous neglect.
Iris Irons and Ira Irving exchanged vows at a ceremony where Ira had consumed substantial alcohol. They continued living together without filing any separation papers. When a later dispute arose over the marriage's validity, the court examined capacity solely at the time of the ceremony because the marriage remained intact.
Ingrid Innes faced questioning about statements made by her husband Israel Irving during their marriage. No divorce action had been filed and the couple still resided together. Because the marriage was intact, Ingrid could decide whether to testify in the federal criminal proceeding.
Ines Ibarra and Idris Ives cohabited for several years, used a joint bank account, and introduced themselves publicly as spouses. They never initiated divorce proceedings. A court assessed whether their conduct satisfied the consent, cohabitation, and holding-out requirements while the marriage remained intact.
Iris Irons and Ingrid Innes formed a common law marriage in a state that still recognizes it. They later moved to a state that had abolished common law marriage but filed no divorce action. The receiving state treated the intact marriage as valid under choice-of-law principles.
Ira Irving obtained a marriage license and participated in a ceremony performed by a member of the clergy. The couple never sought separation or divorce. Because both license and solemnization occurred, the intact marriage satisfied the formal requirements of most states.
Israel Irving and Ines Ibarra, a same-sex couple, obtained a lawful marriage in their home state. They remained together without any dissolution proceedings. A federal court required equal treatment of their intact marriage for purposes of survivor benefits and other marital incidents.
The petitioners were fourteen same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners were deceased. They lived in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. Those states defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman under their constitutions and statutes. The petitioners filed suits in federal district courts in their home states. They sought marriage licenses or recognition of marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. James Obergefell and John Arthur traveled from Ohio to Maryland to marry aboard a medical transport plane because Arthur suffered from ALS; Obergefell later sought to be listed as surviving spouse on Arthur's death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan nurses, adopted three children but could not both serve as legal parents under state adoption rules. Army Reserve Sergeant Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York before DeKoe's deployment to Afghanistan and later settled in Tennessee. Each district court ruled in the petitioners' favor. The respondents appealed. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed the district court judgments. The petitioners sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. Same-sex couples had begun establishing families after substantial cultural and political developments in the late twentieth century. Earlier litigation had addressed the legal status of gays and lesbians, including challenges that reached the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas.
View caseA marriage ceases to be intact once proceedings for separation or divorce have been instituted. Until that point, courts traditionally refuse to enter support decrees unless gross and dangerous neglect is shown.
No. Legal marriage continues until a court enters a final decree of divorce. Separation without filed proceedings leaves the marriage intact for purposes such as spousal privileges and court reluctance to intervene in financial disputes.
Spousal immunity and marital communications privileges may be invoked only during a valid marriage. When the marriage remains intact, the witness spouse in federal court decides whether to testify, and both spouses may assert the communications privilege.
…complaint was also dismissed, the trial court finding that Illinois law and public policy require such claims to be based on a valid marriage. The appellate court reversed, stating that because the parties had outwardly lived a conventional married life, plaintiff’s conduct had not “so affronted public policy that she should be…