Enhance more types for partnership

[LarsRabe]

See https://www.webtrees.net/index.php/forum/8-translation/39079-partnership#10619

Or https://www.government.nl/topics/marriage-cohabitation-agreement-civil-partnership/marriage-civil-partnership-and-cohabitation-agreements
Or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
Or https://www.notaire-mariage-civil.ca/en/differences-between-marriage-common-law-or-civil-union/

More types in https://github.com/fisharebest/webtrees/blob/main/app/Elements/MarriageType.php are needed.

Thanks

[fisharebest]

More types in ... are needed.

I saw the forum post, but it did not give me enough information to implement this.

We have the following types.

            'CIVIL'     => I18N::translate('Civil marriage'),
            'PARTNERS'  => I18N::translate('Registered partnership'),
            'RELIGIOUS' => I18N::translate('Religious marriage'),

Marianne asked for a new type, which would also be 'Registered partnership' in English.

[LarsRabe]

a cohabitation agreement is not the same as a registered partnership or any form of marriage
a common-law relationship is also not the same as a registered partnership or marriage
a civil union is also different.
and then we have "lived together", which e. g. Family Search is using.

[fisharebest]

OK, just to be clear, I need someone (the webtrees community??) to suggest a list of keywords and corresponding English translations.

[LarsRabe]

okay, I'll see what I can come up with and will open a discussion for it on the forum.

[LarsRabe]

Forum topic for this issue
https://www.webtrees.net/index.php/forum/2-open-discussion/39091-marriage-registered-partnership-and-others

[LarsRabe]

@fisharebest
Over the last few days, I have been intensively researching the different life models. Since I haven't received a reply to my forum post, I assume that the following 7 types would make sense. Also see the definitions for those types:

TYPES

1. civil marriage
2. religious marriage
3. common law marriage
4. registered civil partnership (note the enhancement "civil")
5. civil union
6. cohabitation agreement
7. lived together

'CIVIL'        => I18N::translate('Civil marriage'),
'RELIGIOUS'    => I18N::translate('Religious marriage'),
'COMMON'       => I18N::translate('Common-law marriage'),
'PARTNERS'     => I18N::translate('Registered civil partnership'),
'UNION'        => I18N::translate('Civil union'),
'COHABITATION' => I18N::translate('Cohabitation agreement'),
'TOGETHER'     => I18N::translate('Lived together'),

DEFINITIONS

Civil marriage
A ceremonial marriage performed and recorded by a official person who is legalized by the authorities to do so. This kind of marriage is internationally fully recognised by any civil authority.

Religious marriage
A ceremonial marriage performed and recorded by a religious institution. This kind of marriage may or may not be recognised by the civil authorities.

Common-law marriage
A non-ceremonial marriage, also known as an irregular marriage. In history this kind of marriage was often fully recognised by the authorities. Nowadays, in most (Western) countries, it is no longer recognised.

A good example is this Danish rule (1241-1683): "If someone has a mistress in his house for three winters and apparently sleeps with her, and she commands him to keep her under lock and key, and apparently eats and drinks with him, then she shall be his wife and lawful mistress of the house."

Registered civil partnership
The classical registered partnership. The registration is (most often) performed and recognized by the authorities. In most countries, the couple has essentially the same legal rights and obligations as in a civil marriage, but there may be some limitations.

Civil union
A registered partnership solely meant for same-sex couples. This type of relationship is not officially accepted (or is even forbidden) in a lot of countries. In some countries - who have legalized this kind of partnership - the couple basically has the same rights and obligations as in a civil marriage or a registered civil partnership. In other countries, the legal rights and obligations are partly restricted.

Cohabitation agreement
A legal partnership in which the rights and obligations are drawn up by a civil-law notary. As a rule, this partnership is not recognised by the government as a marriage or registered civil partnership, but there may be areas in which analogous legal rights and obligations exist, e.g. fiscally.

• This is the one Marrianne asked for. And no, this is not the same a registered (civil) partnership.

Lived together
A intimate relationship between people, usually couples, who live together and share a common domestic life but who are not married (to each other or to anyone else) and without any formal agreements. This kind of partnership usually lacks any legal rights and obligations as in a civil marriage or a registered civil partnership.

Please let me know if you need more intel on this.

[ArnoS57]

Hi Lars and Greg,

I think Lars has done a very good job to find and explain these 7 relationships, they cover the most.
Maybe there can be an 8th: Unknown or Relationship unknown

[arbor95]

do not enter a TYPE.

[LarsRabe]

@arbor95 Franz, the existing logic in 2.1 is allready "TYPE".

[arbor95]

and TYPE can not be left empty?
In each case TYPE can be omitted!

[LarsRabe]

@arbor95 I think the question here is if we're using the correct wording: "TYPE" or "type"? The latter is more of a value.

The logic Greg is using is MARR:TYPE which for now has 3 values (or types). It's used for the kind of couple relationship as far as I got the programming logic correct.

[jkr-wrk]

Just want to add that these are the statements used by aldfaer:

1: civil : nl:huwelijk | en:marriage
2: registered : nl:geregistreerd partnerschap | en:registered partnership
3/4: partners : nl:samenleven | en:living together
unknown : nl:relatie | en:relationship
none: nl:geen relatie | en:no relationship
not given : nl:onbekende relatievorm | en:unknown kind of relationship

So translating Partners to 'Registered civil partnership' would create wrong assumptions.

Translating 'registered' to 'registered civil partnership' would solve.
Translating 'partners' to a legal agreement is strange, because 'partners' as a word does not sound like any official statement.

But I can understand that starting to label it 1 MARR to begin with implies that there is an official binding. Using ANUL if it's known that there was no legal binding, could maybe clear things.

[LarsRabe]

@jkr-wrk "Partners" is only the internal programming codeword. It's shown as "registered partnership" in the english GUI or the equivalent in other languages.

[jkr-wrk]

Partners is the imported and exported string used in the GEDCOM.

This will indicate to other software what relation this people have. Because I know one program that translates Partners as people living together it would be strange to pick this in this software as a legal bond. Also because naming it 'registered' or something else like 'legal bond' would better explain the relationship is not just two people feeling like they like each other as 'Partners' might do.

[jkr-wrk]

In MyHeritage, when people live together it is:

1 EVEN
2 TYPE MYHERITAGE:REL_PARTNERS

So it correctly states it is not a marriage. But states there was an EVENt that made them RELational PARTNERS, i guess.
MyHeritage does not know other forms of marriage. It uses MARR to state marriage and MARC to state a marriage_contract.
I did not find a function to make the marriage Type something like Civil union.

[LarsRabe]

@jkr-wrk this discussion is going in the wrong direction. Ths sole purpose of this issue is to enhance the various kinds of partnership (couple relationships) in webtrees.

I'm not a programmer. So how this is done to achive this and how valid GEDCOM will be exported by webtrees, I leave that up to Greg.

[mariannevanharten]

May be related to this topic?:

1 NAME Jane /Doe/
2 TYPE MARRIED

will in Dutch shown as "aangenomen huwelijksnaam"; in English "married name".
These words redirect to a marriage. Now I am looking for another word which is not related to the connection type. Any suggestions?

[jkr-wrk]

May be related to this topic?:

1 NAME Jane /Doe/ 2 TYPE MARRIED

will in Dutch shown as "aangenomen huwelijksnaam"; in English "married name". These words redirect to a marriage. Now I am looking for another word which is not related to the connection type. Any suggestions?

Do you mean this list:
https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#enumset-NAME-TYPE

List should be expended with a LEGAL name change event. At least in the Netherlands that is an official way to change a first or last name without marriage. For now it would be "OTHER"

[fisharebest]

@LarsRabe - thanks for your research and information.

There are lots of points here. It is perhaps easier to consider them individually.

GEDCOM 5.5.1 gives one example of MARR.TYPE (GEDCOM 7.0 does not say anything about it):

1 MARR
2 TYPE Common Law

So I will use COMMON LAW as the keyword, rather than COMMON.

The concept of common-law marriage is widespread in both time and geography, so it should be easy to translate to other languages

[fisharebest]

There are two types of cohabitation:

• formal - cohabitation agreement
• informal - lived together

Since these both indicate that the couple were not married, then it isn't really a "marriage type".
It's more of a "not-married type"!

Would it be better if these were family facts

0 FAM
1 FACT
2 TYPE Lived together
2 DATE FROM 1999 TO 2012
2 ADDR ...

[fisharebest]

For "marriage equivalents" - i.e. civil partnerships/unions, I guess there are two cases

• countries where the same system applies to same-sex and different-sex couples
• countries where different systems apply

Having two terms for the same thing causes issues. e.g. CHR and BAPM are the same thing in many languages, and it becomes impossible to know which option is being selected or what is the difference between them.

Translating 'partners' to a legal agreement is strange, because 'partners' as a word does not sound like any official statement.

webtrees inherited this from PhpGedView, and we have had PARTNERS => "Registered partnership" for 20 years.
I guess it was written before civil partnerships/civil unions became common.

I would prefer to replace it with something like: UNION => "Civil union"
But changing it now could upset lots of people...

[LarsRabe]

@fisharebest
I've been away for sometime, so I only now have time to respond. First, thanks for the follow up.

There are lots of points here. It is perhaps easier to consider them individually.

I'll do it likewise.

GEDCOM 5.5.1 gives one example of MARR.TYPE (GEDCOM 7.0 does not say anything about it):

1 MARR
2 TYPE Common Law

So I will use COMMON LAW as the keyword, rather than COMMON.

That will help a lot of cases.

Yet the question remains: how to document the person never married (e.g. my uncle never married and hat no children, both with 100% certainty) in a userfriendly way? I saw GEDCOM 7 has the "NO" structure for this. So what I would like to see in the UI is, that under the Marriage Section this can be simply done (like "TYPE = none"). I think you"ll be able to programm it to create valid GEDCOM 7 in the background.

[LarsRabe]

@fisharebest

webtrees inherited this from PhpGedView, and we have had PARTNERS => "Registered partnership" for 20 years. I guess it was written before civil partnerships/civil unions became common.

I would prefer to replace it with something like: UNION => "Civil union" But changing it now could upset lots of people...

I would suggest to change it into

'PARTNER`SHIP`'     => I18N::translate('Registered `civil` partnership'),

I believe that would be a good compromis for both cases.

[LarsRabe]

@fisharebest

Would it be better if these were family facts

0 FAM
1 FACT
2 TYPE Lived together
2 DATE FROM 1999 TO 2012
2 ADDR ...

Yes, I agree this is a tricky one. As I understand the GEDCOM-Specs correctly, it is, in fact, not capable of creating all kind of relationsships like the ones I showed.

But in GEDCOM 7 Marriage, Divorce, Banns etc. are created as a "Familiy Events" (under 3.3.1.2). Am I right in the assumption this will be in GEDCOM:

0 FAM
1 MARR
2 TYPE
2 DATE
1 DIV
2 DATE

Would it therefore be possible to create a userfriendly mask in the UI for your proposal? And... maybe change the title of the Marriage Section into "Couple Relationsships", so all of the relationships-variations can be handled in one spot?