Why do people get married?!

[Fudgie]

I think common law marriages should be recognised in every state. If married people are going to get these benefits, then so should common law. I believe in some states, you're recognised as common law when you live together for 10+ years. That's commitment to me! I see absolutely no reason why common law couples shouldn't get recognised just because they didn't do a ceremony.

 

I think it's kinda weird that a couple can know each other for 2 weeks and get married in Vegas with full benefits but yet a couple who have been living together for 10+ years don't get to be recognised at all.

 

Some people may say "if they love each other why not get married?" well, I don't believe that marriage automatically = love and if you don't have it, you don't have love. Not everyone believes in the institution of marriage. A lot of common laws are those with previous divorces. They fall in love again and maybe they just dono't want to go through with it again. I can totally understand that. Maybe they feel that marriage will screw up the good thing that they have.

 

A family friend of mine has been common law with a man for like 14 years now. She has been through 2 bad marriages and doesn't feel the need to do it all again. They are totally happy living together and being committed to each other. He's an awesome guy and feels the same way. I wish they could get the financial/legal benefits too because aside from that marriage license, I don't see them as different from ANY married couple.

[FarthestEdge]

The legal problem with recognizing common-law marriages is that legitimate claims of common-law relationships will be completely eclipsed by people who live together purely for economic reasons, are not in a partnership, but claim to be for tax benefits. If there is a way to exploit the system, people will do so. The government is in no mood especially now, to give people an easy way to cheat on their taxes.

 

Having said that, where I live, they are partially recognized. It's pretty convoluted actually- cohabitation exists for tax purposes (after a set time frame), but not right to property, No decision rights are granted in a medical emergency, and a common-law spouse can be denied access to a patient because they are 'not family'. Child support obligations accrue, but spousal support do not (at least not without some serious proof in court that one relied on another), some employer drug plans recognize a couple after 3 months, others it's a year or not at all...unless there are children...and so on.

 

I think that's the thing with cohabitating, legally, it's ambiguous. If you are married, you have declared the nature of your relationship to the state, sworn on a document that you intend to be a domestic partnership, and so it is clear that you are entitled to the benefits and responsible for the burdens (certain tax benefits are actually lost on marriage because "household income" is the threshold so both partners lose the benefit, whereas cohabitators often claim single status and BOTH get the benefit).

 

I am not implying in any way that marriage is superior to cohabitation...to each his own. But from a legal/taxation perspective, that marriage certificate does make it very clear.

[FarthestEdge]

.

 

I think it's kinda weird that a couple can know each other for 2 weeks and get married in Vegas with full benefits but yet a couple who have been living together for 10+ years don't get to be recognised at all.

 

.

 

I think it's pretty sad..and a big reason the 'stats' that are being repeated here over and over are so alarming. But that's why I don't think stat's have any predictive value on my marriage. Britney Spears marrying her HS boyfriend after a drunken night out bears no resemblance whatsoever with the 3 years I cohabitated with my spouse before marriage. So her "failure" has no parallels with my life. Her, or the millions of other people who married with little or no thought as to whether or not they were actually prepared for a lifetime to the person standing next to them....

[Seraphim]

I think it's pretty sad..and a big reason the 'stats' that are being repeated here over and over are so alarming. But that's why I don't think stat's have any predictive value on my marriage. Britney Spears marrying her HS boyfriend after a drunken night out bears no resemblance whatsoever with the 3 years I cohabitated with my spouse before marriage. So her "failure" has no parallels with my life. Her, or the millions of other people who married with little or no thought as to whether or not they were actually prepared for a lifetime to the person standing next to them....

 

I agree, I spent 5 years with my husband before marriage and a year living together. So when someone gets married after 6 weeks of knowing each other and gets divorced in less than a year I do not believe they reflect my relationship either.

[Fudgie]

Oh of course not, FE. Your marriage sounds awesome. I remember that whole Spears thing. I actually had that in mind when I typed my post. I just think it's really messed up that you can get married after knowing each other for a day (heck, I'm sure people have done it) and get full benefits while others don't.

 

I think common laws should at least be recognised for legal rights, if no financial. The medical stuff you mentioned is so important. So is ownership of property once their SO passes away. I could see people taking advantage of the financial stuff but the legal stuff? That's not taking advantage. You're just delegating property and rights to the person who lives with you for a very long time. If they weren't getting money, I could care less if they were "romantically" involved or maybe just really good friends who didn't want to be with others. If a couple wanted legal rights in a common law setup, I'm fine with them having them.

[FarthestEdge]

I don't disagree in principle Fudgie. But there'd need to be a way to distinguish true C/L partnerships from simply two people who live in an apartment together...like a Domestic Partnership declaration or something like that...but then again, for many who avoid marriage for it's legal constraints, this would be likewise distasteful.

 

But the state also has a right to ensure that you are a domestic partnership, not just two people sharing the rent. After all, I believe many of those rights are based on the assumption that you will support one another in times of financial hardship, so that they are not reliant on the state...roomates generally don't do that, whereas partners do.

 

I don't know the answer. With rights come responsibilities, and 'fair' is a subjective term....

[tresqua]

I agree, I spent 5 years with my husband before marriage and a year living together. So when someone gets married after 6 weeks of knowing each other and gets divorced in less than a year I do not believe they reflect my relationship either.

 

Victoria, you lived with your husband for a year prior to the marriage. The statistics conclusively state (and this is also referenced in that article that was linked in this thread), that couples who live together before marriage have a higher failure rate than those that do not.

[Seraphim]

Victoria, you lived with your husband for a year prior to the marriage. The statistics conclusively state (and this is also referenced in that article that was linked in this thread), that couples who live together before marriage have a higher failure rate than those that do not.

 

As you know I do not care what stats have to say because hey I am still married. I still think I have a better chance than someone who married in a drunken haze.

[FarthestEdge]

As you know I do not care what stats have to say because hey I am still married. I still think I have a better chance than someone who married in a drunken haze.

 

Honestly, I'd have more faith in a fortune teller telling me my marriage was doomed to failure than I have in stats about thousands of marriages that are not mine. And that isn't saying much...

 

Actually, come to think of it, I did have a psychic very clearly tell me once that I would be divorced between my first and second child...that I would have a boy and a girls and they would have different fathers....hmmmm. And yet here I am, with two boys with the same father...now how did fate befall that upon me?!?!?

 

(Where is that smiley that bangs it's head against the bricks?...)

[Seraphim]

Honestly, I'd have more faith in a fortune teller telling me my marriage was doomed to failure than I have in stats about thousands of marriages that are not mine. And that isn't saying much...

 

Actually, come to think of it, I did have a psychic very clearly tell me once that I would be divorced between my first and second child...that I would have a boy and a girls and they would have different fathers....hmmmm. And yet here I am, with two boys with the same father...now how did fate befall that upon me?!?!?

 

(Where is that smiley that bangs it's head against the bricks?...)

 

 

Hahaha for sure!

[tresqua]

As you know I do not care what stats have to say because hey I am still married. I still think I have a better chance than someone who married in a drunken haze.

 

I don't have to look at the statistics to say you're probably right.

[Glowguy]

I am looking at this question as someone who has never been married but who is deciding whether it is a good option for the rest of their life. I am actually pretty impulsive and not adverse to taking risks, but for me a successful marriage is one that does not end in divorce, has no instance of infidelity or similar abuse during the course of it's lifetime (i.e. the vows are actually upheld), and the two people don't hate each other or regret the decision when they reflect back on it at the end of their lives. I think most people can agree the chances of that happening are pretty dismal and the failure rate is far worse than 60%.

 

That's just my two cents, but I'll stick with committed relationships and leave marriage for those who are more optimistic about the prospects. I still think there is very little benefit for a man. Any financial tax benefits are negated by future losses upon divorce. I am a firm believer that marriage has absolutely no bearing on a couple's ability to raise a child well or their love and commitment for each other. Any woman who insists on getting married to maintain a relationship is prioritizing the institution over their partner and is the wrong woman for me. Societal pressure and conformity are probably the primary reasons that so many people continue to get married. Logic certainly isn't one of them.

[FarthestEdge]

I am looking at this question as someone who has never been married but who is deciding whether it is a good option for the rest of their life. I am actually pretty impulsive and not adverse to taking risks, but for me a successful marriage is one that does not end in divorce, has no instance of infidelity or similar abuse during the course of it's lifetime, and the two people don't hate each other or regret the decision when they reflect back on it at the end of their lives. .

 

Well, you should do what seems right to you...

 

I will say that (since you guys are so keen on statistics) statistically, married men live longer than unmarried men. Additionally, couples wealth increases at a faster rate than single people (all other things equal)- two can live cheaper than one, so if you pick the right partner, your assets will grow faster. Keep in mind too that if you have children, married or not, it connects you to the mother for 18-life.

 

I think the thing is to really know your potential partner, be sure you agree on basic childrearing, financial, religious (at least with respect to any children) and lifestyle philosophies, be sure your long-term dreams and goals are congruent..in short don't marry someone because she's cute and a minx in the sac...be sure the fundamentals are good...

 

Those things help to increase your chances that you'll be in the 40-50% that STAY together.

 

And as a backup, get a prenup/ cohabitation agreement if you're concerned about your assets.

 

Some things to consider if marriage has ever been on your mind.

[OptomisticGirl]

Victoria, you lived with your husband for a year prior to the marriage. The statistics conclusively state (and this is also referenced in that article that was linked in this thread), that couples who live together before marriage have a higher failure rate than those that do not.

 

I completely and utterly disagree with this. You don't know someone until you live with them. If I had just married my ex without living with him we would have divorced. People change and this is one of those things my fiancé and I are having to sacrifice on doing ourselves (because he too believes people should live together before marriage for the same reasons I do) but our situation doesn't call for it.

[Huntress0527]

I completely and utterly disagree with this. You don't know someone until you live with them. If I had just married my ex without living with him we would have divorced. People change and this is one of those things my fiancé and I are having to sacrifice on doing ourselves (because he too believes people should live together before marriage for the same reasons I do) but our situation doesn't call for it.

 

I agree. I would not be getting married if I didn't live with my fiance first. I wouldn't want to find out all of the annoying habits until after the wedding if we didn't live together. It's easy to put your best self forward when you don't live together but when you do there is no hiding. You really see if you are compatible for one another or not.

[teabee]

I think that if people want to get married and it feels right, then it is right. Do it. Even if it ends in divorce, that doesn't mean the decision wasn't right to begin with. I don't see divorce as meaning failure, it means things changed. The only thing that is screwy is that people want to make a choice at one period in their life, and have it continue to be the right choice until the end of all time. I think it's a success to get married if it feels right, and also a success to know when it's time to end a relationship if it comes to that.

[OptomisticGirl]

I agree. I would not be getting married if I didn't live with my fiance first. I wouldn't want to find out all of the annoying habits until after the wedding if we didn't live together. It's easy to put your best self forward when you don't live together but when you do there is no hiding. You really see if you are compatible for one another or not.

 

Exactly. If we could do it financially we would be living together as well before marriage. But while we don't have that, we have lived wit other people before and know our own pet peeves as well as its not going to be all sunshine and roses.

[rocio]

Glowguy, why do you assume the man would necessarily be the one to lose financially? If the wife has higher earnings, it could be the other way around. Unless you would refuse to be with a woman who makes more. I have little sympathy for a man who can't stand his woman making more money, and who relies on her to take care of the kids but whines about the prospect of making support payments.

 

If you don't want that outcome, then find a successful woman, support her in her career, and refuse to be considered the inferior parent.

[Glowguy]

Glowguy, why do you assume the man would necessarily be the one to lose financially? If the wife has higher earnings, it could be the other way around. Unless you would refuse to be with a woman who makes more. I have little sympathy for a man who can't stand his woman making more money, and who relies on her to take care of the kids but whines about the prospect of making support payments.

 

If you don't want that outcome, then find a successful woman, support her in her career, and refuse to be considered the inferior parent.

 

I agree and that's not what I meant. I should have been a little more careful in the phrasing. I meant that as a man I see no benefit. I can't really comment the other way around, but I see little benefit for women too. Of course, the woman could potentially lose more if she has a higher earning power, but courts generally are more sympathetic towards the mother so the balance tips slightly in their favor when it comes to marriage. Of course, I'm not saying that based on first hand experience and I'm not well informed when it comes to legal matters so take it with a grain of salt.

[tresqua]

I completely and utterly disagree with this. You don't know someone until you live with them. If I had just married my ex without living with him we would have divorced.

 

You disagree with proven data that clearly demonstrates that people who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce?

 

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's cold hard facts based on proven data. The cars you drive, the computers you use, the machines that fabricate your food and clothing are all based on engineering which is based on those very same mathematical formulas.

 

You can't disagree. At least not with any degree of accuracy.

 

No matter how much you don't want to believe it.

 

Additionally, couples wealth increases at a faster rate than single people (all other things equal)- two can live cheaper than one, so if you pick the right partner, your assets will grow faster.

 

Not if one of those partners is my now exwife.

[FarthestEdge]

You disagree with proven data that clearly demonstrates that people who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce?

 

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's cold hard facts based on proven data. The cars you drive, the computers you use, the machines that fabricate your food and clothing are all based on engineering which is based on those very same mathematical formulas.

 

You can't disagree. At least not with any degree of accuracy.

 

No matter how much you don't want to believe it.

 

 

 

Not if one of those partners is my now exwife.

 

I love the way you cherry-pick among stats and personal experience to support your contention that marriage is for morons....I give you a statistic, like those which you have, throughout this thread, clung to like barnacles on a ship, and you reject it using anecdotal evidence from your personal life...the same kind of contention which you have rejected at every turn when presented by us.

 

Careful...your bias is showing.....;D

[OptomisticGirl]

Yes, I do. You seem to live your life by the statistics Tres, and that's your right, but the vast majority of us don't. I view each situation as different and don't base my major life decisions off of other people's Sometimes I flop, sometimes I make it but to me, that's life. Your suppose to flop and your suppose to screw up - otherwise what do learn? If you only live your life by statistics you really aren't living your life, are you? You are living your life based off other people's experiences and letting that dictate your own choices.

 

I'm sure many marriages do fail because people cohabitat before marriage. But on the other hand, I believe more marriages fail because people don't, just as I believe having sex before marriage can't harm the future marriage. These are my opinions - and based on my own experiences - but you tend to only shove the negative statistics down our throats that suit your opinion Tres.

 

I don't believe in it because I know the other side of the statistic you quote - the side were marriages fail because people don't live together. No one can ever do everything 100% perfect in a relationship but you seem to see things as black and white Tres and are solely fixated on the negative aspect of marriage and the statistics behind it. It actually makes me feel very sad for you.

You disagree with proven data that clearly demonstrates that people who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce?

 

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's cold hard facts based on proven data. The cars you drive, the computers you use, the machines that fabricate your food and clothing are all based on engineering which is based on those very same mathematical formulas.

 

You can't disagree. At least not with any degree of accuracy.

 

No matter how much you don't want to believe it.

 

 

 

Not if one of those partners is my now exwife.

[tresqua]

you seem to see things as black and white Tres and are solely fixated on the negative aspect of marriage and the statistics behind it. It actually makes me feel very sad for you.

 

Black and white would be 100% vs 0%.

 

I've been citing odds closer to 60/40 "against".

 

I love the way you cherry-pick among stats and personal experience to support your contention that marriage is for morons....I give you a statistic, like those which you have, throughout this thread, clung to like barnacles on a ship, and you reject it using anecdotal evidence from your personal life...the same kind of contention which you have rejected at every turn when presented by us.

 

I am not stating nor implying that marriage is for morons but I am suggesting that people proceed with extreme caution before tying the knot because it's a recipe for disaster more often than not.

 

This recent sub-debate is about the success rates of marriages for couples who cohabitate before marriage and here too, the odds are that cohabitating couples who later marry will have a higher likelihood of divorce than those who don't.

 

This has nothing at all to do with my personal bias and everything to do with the proven results of controlled reliable, legitimate studies.

 

 

Tres and are solely fixated on the negative aspect of marriage and the statistics behind it. It actually makes me feel very sad for you.

 

Don't feel sorry for me. I've been there and done that and I'm quite satisfied in my antimarriage, post divorce lifestyle which includes several moderate duration relationships with no strings attached.

[OptomisticGirl]

That's what I mean though. I can have a discussion with someone about how the divorce rate is 60/40 and not in favor of marriage, but you are only fixated on the 60%. You forget there is a 40% there that DOES work but you are only promoting the bad. Even I as someone for marriage can promote the bad side of marriage but when you only promote the bad (or good) of a situation - I don't know... it's just kind of pointless, right?

 

And your argument for no cohabitation before marriage is rather biased Tres. We have all stated that accoridng your statistic 40% of marriages DO make it - but you continually throw up how YOUR marriage didn't and because YOUR marriage didn't that just proves your statistic even more. But when I put my experience in to your statistic and show you it's wrong you claim I have no right to do so because this isn't an opinion argument, it's a statistical argument... when you threw YOUR experience into your own statistical argument about why marriage is bad.

 

Interesting.

[tresqua]

That's what I mean though. I can have a discussion with someone about how the divorce rate is 60/40 and not in favor of marriage, but you are only fixated on the 60%. You forget there is a 40% there that DOES work

 

Most of those remaining 40% don't work either. They're just together for the kids, or it's too expensive to divorce, or they're afraid to start their lives over, that sort of thing.

 

And your argument for no cohabitation before marriage is rather biased Tres.

 

The statistics clearly demonstrate that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate. That's it, there's no bias, I'm just citing the numbers.