Jennifer Aniston - A Homewrecker

[Not Plain Jane]

Common law marriage IS recognized in the United States of America, but I just checked and it is recognized only in some states.


Common law marriage is recognized only in the following states:

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

Source: http://www.cadivorceonline.com/calpages/Alimony/commonlawmarriage.asp

Canada also recognizes common-law marriage.

----------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, the moral issues still apply in this triangle, regardless of whether you believe in common law marriage or not. What difference does it make in terms of the hurtfulness?

In other words, even if you (or Heidi) weren't living with your boyfriend (Justin) of Fourteen Years (!) and he cheated on you (with Jen), even if you had no legal rights, etc., I think most of us would see the dishonesty and cheating as morally wrong and as a betrayal of trust. At least I would.

I am happy for Jen that she has found a new guy, and I hope they will be happy. But it's just too bad there were these complications is all.

 

[Kosmonaut]

Both people have to purport themselves as married in order for common law marriage to exist. That's not the case here as far as we know.

To me, it doesn't matter if they were together one year or a hundred years; it's still wrong to cheat.

But, you know, it happens. *shrugs*

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Common law marriage IS recognized in the United States of America, but I just checked and it is recognized only in some states.


Common law marriage is recognized only in the following states:

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

Source: http://www.cadivorceonline.com/calpages/Alimony/commonlawmarriage.asp

Canada also recognizes common-law marriage.

----------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, the moral issues still apply in this triangle, regardless of whether you believe in common law marriage or not. What difference does it make in terms of the hurtfulness?

.

You need to sign a document agreeing you are entering a common law marriage. It's just not just shaking up your girlfriend. It's very different to what we are talking about here.

It makes absolutely no difference in terms of hurtfulness and i do not think anyone is going to claim differently, but when you are married there is a document that say that person is by law part of a couple. You can always claim your marriage was over when you decided to cheat, but that document you still make you a cheater in the eyes of the world. That's why it's always going to be more polemic and serious. This guy can always say is relationship was over before he started to date Jennifer, and that he was totally single. How will the newspapers prove otherwise? Is a non-story . A marriage certificate will give the media the right to create a story.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Well, speaking of stories, the latest aspect of Jen-Justin-Heidi is the speculation that Jen and Justin are now engaged! ha ha! Here's one link, but there are several more online (of course the newsrag touches on the devastation on Justin's fourteen year long partner, Heidi. No doubt, cheating hurts).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ings-More-just-friends.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[shoesexy]

Well, speaking of stories, the latest aspect of Jen-Justin-Heidi is the speculation that Jen and Justin are now engaged!

He ought to move the old girlfriend out before getting engaged to the homewrecker, doncha think???

 

[Not Plain Jane]

You need to sign a document agreeing you are entering a common law marriage.

^ Not according to the link I posted earlier. According to that website, these are the requirements in the USA for common-law:

...a common law marriage can occur only when:

-a heterosexual couple lives together in a state that recognizes common law marriages [I listed those states earlier - Cali doesn't apply so Justin is off the hook, ha ha, ]
-for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)
-holding themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife" and filing a joint tax return, and
intending to be married.
-Unless all four are true, there is no common law marriage.

According to the above, the only official document needed is filing a joint tax return. There is no common law marriage contract.

 

[pavonine]

Truth is that marriage/relationships only ever have as much significance as the two people involved in it attach to it. Relationships aren't in any way inferior to a marriage only because it doesn't have society's seal of approval. A marriage isn't any less likely to run its course than a long term relationship. Making sweeping generalisations isn't the done thing here, because nuance and context mater, as often as not. Which is why I feel very uncomfortable when people trot out words like homewrecker and man-eater. That, and it's almost always women who get called these names. The man is equally responsible, but he never gets called anything more than 'cheater'.

I personally know swinging couples and one of my friends' is in a polyamorous relationship. There are some married couples who choose not to be sexually exclusive only to their spouses. In such cases, extramarital sex isn't quite tantamount to cheating, because both couples indulge in extramarital sex with the full knowledge and support of their other halves. I also know unmarried couples who've been in monogamous relationships for decades. Cheating isn't necessarily always the deal-breaker, and there are many wives (and husbands) who choose to forgive and take their husbands (and wives) back. Think Cheryl Cole and Victoria Beckham and Coleen Rooney and Hillary Clinton. Relationships don't always end the moment there's a third person involved.

My point is that it's not really as black and white as some people make it out to be, and I wouldn't ever dare to judge people whom I do not know personally for their relationships. When everyone and their dogs wept for Jennifer when Brad left her for Angelina, though I did feel sorry for Jennifer, I never for a moment thought Angelina was the one to be blamed for Jen's misery. Most decent women wouldn't set out with the intention to break a relationship and 'steal' the man; sometimes, we fall in love not out of our volition; to use a cliche, love happens. As a woman, if I ever knew my partner was madly in love with another woman, and if I knew that he didn't love me the same way he loved her, I'd rather he leave me for her, than cling to him out of possessiveness. Of course it'd be horrendously painful for me, but I'd rather bear the pain and move on than live a delusional existence. Who knows, maybe I might fall in love all over again, and find someone who'd love me more than any other woman in the world. Honesty is the most important factor in a relationship; I'd be more sympathetic towards an honest man who'd leave his wife or partner for the woman he loves than a lying, disingenuous scumbag who lies to both women and cheats both of them due to his selfishness.

 

[kokobombon]

^I called him a douche, does that count?

 

[Not Plain Jane]

pavonine, good post

That's what I have been trying to say - things are complicated! Love, marriage, and all kinds of relationships are not "black & white". People can have "open marriages" for example, as you accurately pointed out.

"context and nuance" do matter, as you say. We don't know the full story of this Jen-Justine-Heidi situation. We don't know what agreements Justin and Heidi had; all we know is that she was apparently devastated by the break up. According to the press, of course. But that's all we know. We know Justin and Jen met during the production of "Wanderlust" last fall (ironic title much? ) but we don't know when they became romantically involved. They were spotted together as early as this May, right around when Heidi moved out of hers and Justin's house, and they made their official "public appearance" earlier this month. We know they have matching rings.

That's what we know from the press and photos.

Speculations lately are that Jen and Justin are engaged, which seems incredibly fast to me! Also the latest edition of "US Weekly" suggests Justin and Jen are living together.

 

[Fashionturnip]

the title of this thread is TOO>DAMN>MUCH!!!

 

[The_Ida]

The people involved in this so-called triangle are American so there's no point in judging them by what other countries say about unmarried couples. In the U.S. unmarried people can leave relationships when they choose without filing for legal separation or divorce. Indeed many commitment-phobes avoid marriage for that very reason.

Good luck to the tabloids trying to get mileage out of this. I'm guessing most Americans feel sorry for Justin's girlfriend only in the sense that she stayed with the guy for 14 years without getting married.

You completely missed the point. The point is that living with a person that you are in a relationship with for years is no different from marriage. Which is the reason that some countries have legislation on the subject. In Denmark you can choose to have your relationship registered by the authorities, and then you have the same rights as a married couple.

I don't believe that a piece of paper will improve or change my relationship (hence the not getting married-part), but if me and my BF had kids they would be legally secured in every way if we had our relationship registered.

 

[loladonna]

You completely missed the point. The point is that living with a person that you are in a relationship with for years is no different from marriage.

That is an opinion. To many people there is a difference between shacking up with someone out of wedlock and being married and legally bound to that person in a way that is formally recognized by the public.

The point I've been trying to make is that there is no deep-seated conspiracy to bury this Aniston story as has been implied. Her publicist doesn't really need to do any damage control since there just isn't much to the story. Unmarried people changing partners is not going to elicit public shock or scorn.

​

 

[pavonine]

That is an opinion. To many people there is a difference between shacking up with someone out of wedlock and being married and legally bound to that person in a way that is formally recognized by the public.

It is indeed a matter of opinion, isn't it? My stance on this is slightly ambiguous. Whilst I don't believe getting married or registering a relationship is in any way indicative of love or commitment, when I see some of my friends breaking up with their partners for the most ridiculous of reasons, I feel that if only they were married, they might perhaps not be so blase about it. I'm not painting everyone with the same brush, but I have friends who won't get married only because they feel it's easier to get out of a relationship than a marriage. It's a pragmatic approach, I'm told, because, hey, we don't know when we'll fall in or out of love, and if in case that happens, we should be able to follow our hearts without having to go through the motions of the regal rigmarole. But to me that seems quite unromantic to get into a relationship knowing it can end and making it easier beforehand to get out of the relationship whenever either of the two people feel it's over.

Of course, marriages can end as well, but well, like I said, I find it a bit unromantic. A lot of people see marriage as a trap, and marriage isn't most certainly for everyone, but I wouldn't sneer at those who DO want to get married and see marriage as not a trap but the ultimate tribute to their love. Whether marriage is required or not is truly a matter of opinion, and there really is no universal right or wrong when it comes to relationships. Every person is different, every person chooses to subscribe to their own morality. Some people are just not monogamous, and such a person is better off in an open relationship or an open marriage than be stuck with a partner who demands fidelity. Likewise there are some people who are serially monogamous, and fidelity is of course very important for such people. As long as nobody is lied to or cheated upon, I don't see why one paradigm is necessarily better or worse than another.

Being married to Jennifer didn't stop Brad from leaving her for Angelina; being unmarried to Heidi didn't stop Justin from leaving her for Jennifer. These men would have done the same irrespective of whether they were married or not, and if marriage is seen a bond which will somehow influence men NOT to leave their spouses, then, well, such a marriage is indeed a trap and reinforces the sceptics' belief. I don't think anybody should (or would) get married only because it chains their spouse to them and makes separation more difficult. Most people I've known have got married because they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives with their spouse. Like I said in the previous post, the truth is that a marriage only ever has as much significance as the two people involved in it attach to it; some see it as a piece of paper, and to them it is only ever a piece of paper. Some see it as a spiritual bond, and to them it is definitely a lot more than a piece of paper. What does routinely get my goat is when both these factions try to ram their opinion down the other's throat. Both these opinions can co-exist, without either of them necessarily having to be right or wrong.

 

[dreamss]

Open marriages! Stop me from going there. Marriages aren't traps. 1 should be very mindful when getting into a marriage; make sure that u can stay in it in good and in bad times. But if along the way you fall out of love or you just want out, hey you can leave. But IMO, i believe that only committed ppl who love their partners get married. Ppl who do not get married and have a long-term relationship...well, what happens to heidi is exactly what happens to them; 1 person leaves just like that without looking back.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Ppl who do not get married and have a long-term relationship...well, what happens to heidi is exactly what happens to them; 1 person leaves just like that without looking back.

Well, of course, one person left in Brad & Jen's marriage, too, and Brad seemingly has never looked back either. He has been with Angelina ever since. I guess the point is simply this: People can and do up and leave whether they married or not. It doesn't happen only to people living together. It happens in pretty much any kind of relationship.

-----------------------------

More specifically...

I find it interesting that Jen may be living with Justin now - what do we all think of that?! Or even more surprising, that they may be already (!) engaged. These arrangements imply she and Justin may have been together for a while, covertly. Either that, or they are moving the relationship along quickly.

Or it could be damage control: i.e., making the relationship sound serious perhaps offsets the negative press.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

HAS JENNIFER ANISTON TIED THE KNOT?


Jennifer Aniston has been spotted wearing a 'truth' ring /wenn.com

Monday June 20,2011
By Jasmine Coleman
Have your say(1)
HOLLYWOOD stars Jennifer Aniston and Justin Theroux have only just gone public with their new romance – but they already appear to be quite a match.
The former Friends actress sparked rumours of an early engagement when she and her new boyfriend were spotted wearing identical gold rings on their wedding fingers.

Continuing the his ’n’ hers theme, Aniston, 42, and 39-year-old Theroux also sported similar chunky gold watches as they walked out in New York.

Aniston, who has spoken openly about her desire to settle down, started dating the actor after they met on the set of their as yet unreleased comedy film Wanderlust last year.

She is believed to have asked Theroux to move into her Hollywood mansion. These pictures come days after Aniston was branded a “home wrecker” when it emerged Theroux’s girlfriend of 14 years, Heidi Bivens, had only just moved out of their home.

Ironically, Aniston had previously slated “uncool” Angelina Jolie for stealing Brad Pitt, her husband of five years. The pair met while filming Mr & Mrs Smith and now have six children.

Aniston, who has also dated actor Vince Vaughn and singer John Mayer, appeared with Theroux for the first time in public at the MTV Movie Awards earlier this mont

Express.UK

 

[Not Plain Jane]

(Double) Date Night With Jennifer & Justin!

Filed under: Jennifer Aniston > Love Line

Things continue to get serious for Jennifer Aniston and Justin Theroux!
Over the weekend, the newbie couple were spotted out at Il Buco in New York City with another couple. Onlookers reveal that Jen and Justin enjoyed a corner table and delicious food while looking "very animated" and happy. The foursome reportedly sat for over an hour, laughing and enjoying each other. One source even added:
"Jen looked beautiful and was very happy. They just looked very comfortable together. Justin was very relaxed."
Good, good. All good things to hear. But now, here's our question about the evening:
Did they go back to his place … or their place???

Perezhilton.com

 

[dreamss]

Well, of course, one person left in Brad & Jen's marriage, too, and Brad seemingly has never looked back either. He has been with Angelina ever since. I guess the point is simply this: People can and do up and leave whether they married or not. It doesn't happen only to people living together. It happens in pretty much any kind of relationship.

-----------------------------

More specifically...

I find it interesting that Jen may be living with Justin now - what do we all think of that?! Or even more surprising, that they may be already (!) engaged. These arrangements imply she and Justin may have been together for a while, covertly. Either that, or they are moving the relationship along quickly.

Or it could be damage control: i.e., making the relationship sound serious perhaps offsets the negative press.

well brad and jen are only 2 ppl out of a billion. married ppl don't just walk away without looking back. In most countries a divorce takes at least 3 months to be finalised. Within that 3 months, a lot of things can change. For example old feelings can be rekindled. In a relationship however, you can just wake up in the morning, get ur stuff and head to the door...without looking back. I'm just saying marriage ppl headed to divorce have a better shot at getting back together than boyfriend/girlfriend.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[rox_yr_sox]

Open marriages! Stop me from going there. Marriages aren't traps. 1 should be very mindful when getting into a marriage; make sure that u can stay in it in good and in bad times. But if along the way you fall out of love or you just want out, hey you can leave. But IMO, i believe that only committed ppl who love their partners get married. Ppl who do not get married and have a long-term relationship...well, what happens to heidi is exactly what happens to them; 1 person leaves just like that without looking back.

So, you more or less contradicted yourself. You start by saying marriages aren't traps, and then you end on saying because Heidi didn't have it sign-sealed-delivered in a legal commitment he could easily just leave her. So, basically, because she hadn't 'trapped' him in marriage, it was easy to break the relationship. Regarding the above post on divorcing people getting back together: you could equally say the divorce process further drives people apart, with the fighting, lawyers, division of property, making people hate each other even more from arguing. Of course, division of common goods goes on in other relationships, but so too could spilt up non-married couples just as easily get back together (and they wouldn't have all the legal worries about stopping the divorce process and wasted lawyers fees).

I do think some people may use marriage to 'trap' a person, so that their partner would feel more guilty about cheating/leaving. If two people love and trust each other, they may feel that its completely unnecessary to formalise their relationship. Or, they may not be able to if they're gay, because so many countries see those relationships as being 'unworthy' of marriage and 'unequal' with heterosexual relationships. This is one of the things that bothers me about people arguing that people who are married are in 'true' committed relationships. Gay couples aren't even offered this opportunity and I suppose some of you may see them as being some how less in love, less emotionally and morally committed (or maybe as evil sinners). (Marriage equality! Rah, rah, rah, etc...)

------

I don't particularly hate Justin or Jen because of their actions though and rush towards coupledom, leaving Heidi in their dust. From all the interviews I've read and seen with Justin, he comes across as a sensitive, genuine guy, so I doubt he deliberately meant to hurt anyone or deliver a crushing blow to Heidi. And hey, people do meet other people, whether they're married, in 30 year committed relationships or single, and sometimes fall in love or lust. It's better to be open and honest and break off a relationship, than stay in a relationship when you want someone else.

Regarding the living together thing, it does seem sudden, but maybe both felt ready, and Justin's previous relationship seems to suggest that he loves to co-hab! Also probably convenient for him if he wants to work in LA mostly and doesn't want to spring for a place (Jen is vastly more wealthy than him for sure). At least Justin seems like a change from the commitment-aphobe boyfriends she's had over the past 5 years, who were all mostly womanisers or eternal bachelors. A lowkey, relationship-friendly person like Justin could be just what Jen needs.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

A lowkey, relationship-friendly person like Justin could be just what Jen needs.

True. The "engagement rumours" are interesting too as they go more with her "good girl" image.

However, this ABC article talks about how Jen's image is changing, not only in her private life but on film too. Apparently there is even a topless scene in "Horrible Bosses" in which she plays a nastier character. The article says it would be her first such scene, but then it implies the scene may be cut from the final print of the film. Here is the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...roux-debut-matching-rings/t/story?id=13887183