I've sent the following to Utah State Representatives and the Governor. I'd like your support in making changes to this Law, so that other families do not have to suffer as we are now. 

"In Utah, according to Statue 30-1-4.5.  Validity of marriage not solemnized, a marriage which is not solemnized according to this chapter shall be legal and valid if a court or administrative order establishes that the marriage arises out of a contract between a man and a woman. It has to be filed within one year after the relationship ends (one or both partners have died or the partners have separated). (Ref: Statute 30-1-S4.5) Guidance provided by the State of Utah states that both parties must consent. Evidence given as examples are anecdotal at best and leaving it up to the subjective interpretation of the court. (Ref. Utah Guidence) Based on the definition of a forced marriage, which is is a marriage that takes place without the consent of one or both people in the marriage. Consent means that you have given your full, free, and informed agreement to marry your intended spouse and to the timing of the marriage. Therefore, if someone has passed away, I’d argue that no court can order an unsolemnized marriage is legal and valid without the decedent's informed, explicit (not subjective, implicit) consent because it will be considered forced which is illegal.  

Though the rights of a deceased person are diminished considerably, I’d argue anything that would apply retroactively to some point during a living person’s life, that the decision should be made with the full rights of a living US Citizen in mind. Afforded by our constitution, people have the right to live the way they want to live in life, whether that means living with someone married or unmarried. Forcing such a thing on someone after they no longer have a voice in this world, violates the rights they had while they were alive. Additionally, Federal Law prohibits the marriage of a person postmortem so I find it odd that the State of Utah would allow something that clearly violates this Federal precedent given that proper consent cannot be obtained without being considered ‘forced.'

The Estate of my Mother, Lee Ann Duncan, is currently in such a position. My Mother, in life was adamant that she would never again marry after my Father. She never again wanted to put herself in a position where she could be left financially devastated. She re-built her life without the help of any man and was clear in her intentions about her stance on marriage in her relationships. When my Mom signed her Last Will and Testament, stating in writing that she is an unmarried woman, I can guarantee you that she didn’t think for one second her boyfriend would be able to sue her estate and try to take half of everything she worked for, subsequently usurping her written distribution. She had the right to purchase, pay for, and separate her assets in life as she saw fit. We are now forced to find people, who are willing to speak for my Mother and her views on not only marriage in general but to this individual in particular. We are forced to prove what she would not have wanted this, which would otherwise supersede her wishes clearly written in her Last Will and Testament. The fact that anyone can potentially take from her in death what she was not willing to give in life is an egregious overreach of the government to allow such a thing.  

I implore you to consider revising this law, to protect the decedent and their rightful heirs from these opportunistic people who often abuse it to gain access to what is rightfully not theirs to take. The Court should not be put in the position nor should it have the authority to allow the solemnization of a marriage where informed, explicit consent has not been given by both parties. I would even go as far as to say, this law allows for coercion of the decedent by the Court itself, based on its very subjective examples of evidence to prove consent. At minimum, the definition of consent in this case should be revised to written, informed, explicit consent and to include requirements its such as: proving the deceased person was aware of a law that could solumenized the relationship after death, and that the decedent explicitly wanted in writing such a union to take place. I can assure you that the number of families who have been ripped apart, and estates drained of their worth far outweighs any benefit to those who would legitimately seek such a union postmortem. Our society is ever changing allowing for more couples to marry in life than ever before. In Utah, the couple need only apply and the marriage license can used immediately. The requirements to marry are not so invasive that it should be allowed to be sought as an afterthought. The importance of marriage should not be allowed to BE an afterthought. To continue to support a concept that is completely archaic is to imply that laws are not flexible enough to be grow in parallel with society, when we all know that they are. Please, I beg your attention to this matter because I wouldn’t wish what my family is being put through on anyone. The unimaginable pain that I feel in losing my Mom, my best friend, is exponentially exacerbated by the possibility that a marriage could be forced upon her. I often tell people, “If death is the wound, the aftermath is the salt.” Save my children and siblings, I’ve give anything to have her back. The vultures who circle above us to pick apart what is left are many, in part because of the door that the State of Utah opens with a law such as this one.