My boyfriend and I have been living together for about a year-and-a-half now. We have plans to get married, buy a house, have children, etc., although we’re not engaged yet. Since shortly after we moved in together, I’ve occasionally found myself thinking of him as my husband and us as married. It always makes me do a quick mental correction, but it got me thinking about the state of marriage. Today, we assume that any couple that calls themselves “married” has had a civil and/or religious ceremony, but I imagine that the first people to create a word for “marriage” were simply describing long-term human pair-bonding, which I’m sure has been happening since before we had the capacity for speech. In other words, I’ve come to think of marriage as a word to describe a naturally-occurring form of relationship, rather than something requiring the OK of a higher authority. If a couple, for whatever reason, wanted to skip the ceremonies and just consider themselves married on the basis of their commitment to each other, I would consider that legitimate. I’m sure lots of people would disagree with me, and I’m interested in hearing what you think.
Common-law marriage has a pretty long history, and you can still engage in it in 11 US states (not Massachusetts) and other places, according to that article. So not only do some people agree with you, in quite a few places it’s legally OK.
Marriage includes certain legal rights attached to that status. You can be “married in your heart” all you want…but if somebody dies, becomes ill, or some other event that would trigger marital rights happens, you are either legally married…or you’re not.
You can consider your self to be whatever you want and more power to you, I say. If you want it to be recognized by society and gain the proscribed benefits for it you will have other hurdles.
The Government requires a license signed by you, your spouse, two witnesses and an officiant or in the case you describe in the OP if you cohabitate as spouses (i.e. shared residence, shared finances, shared tax burden) for a designated period (usually a number of years) then you are considered to be married, usually refered to as a Common law marriage.
Religions may require certain ceremonies be done or documents be signed to consider it official in the eyes of the church/god/holy leaders.
One of the things I always talk about when performing weddings, is how I’m not there to marry anybody. The marriage is there, it’s already happened. That day you looked into each others eyes and thought, “Yeah. This is right.” THAT was the marriage. All this gestures to the lovely flowers, the grinning friends and the teary grandmothers this is just a party where you’re shouting it out for the world to hear. I find most people are “married” about three to six months before the actual ceremony.
Legally, of course, you’re not married until you’ve gotten the piece of paper back in to the state or you’ve lived together long enough to be common law spouses, if that’s allowed in your state.
(Of course, paper or no paper, I’m still not “really married” in the eyes of my mother-in-law because it didn’t happen in a Roman Catholic church, but really there’s only so far you can go for some people.)
I wonder how she’d react to a handfasting in the sanctuary…
Marriage is a legal status. So, you can be committed, pair bonded, livin’ in sin or whatever, but it confers no legal rights (for the most part, and the trend is towards the elimination of common-law marriage, not its expansion).
So, I don’t think the term “marriage” indicates anything emotionally, but it does indicate something legally. And, IMHO, someone who had access to those rights, and voluntarily forgoes them for a reason like “we don’t need The Man to tell us we’re married” is crazy/stupid.
evlkitty and I got married in front of the fish tank on January 1 when nobody else was around. In Colorado you can do a full on religious ceremony, justice of the peace thing, or “self-solemnify” with nobody else around or officiating. Ya still gotta go to the DMV for the paperwork and get it recorded though.
I think OP is dealing with exactly the crux of the “marriage protection” debates that have been freaking all kinds of people out. Does “Marriage” mean what it has traditionally meant in the religious (and homophobic) context? or does “Marriage” simply refer to a formalized long-term agreement? Personally I think we need a new term, maybe “Civil Union” which is not gender-based and which confers all the legal rights of marriage; and leave “marriage” with the religious institutions where it belongs along with christenings, baptisms and exorcism. The religious overtones of your civil union are none of the government’s business.
So, the OP: There’s true love, and there’s contract love. You can have one or both or neither, but I think it’d be a mistake to not face the reality that you can’t have contract love without a contract, and contract love does not imply or require true love.
In my state, what you describe is covered under the Family Code under “informal marriage.” If you make:
(1) an agreement to be married;
(2) cohabitation in Texas; and
(3) representation to others that the parties are married
Ta-da! You’re married. If you separate, however, you only have two years to file a suit proving your marriage, so if your spouse moves out and wins the lottery the next day, get a lawyer pronto.
As always, the answer to this legal question depends on the law of the jurisdiction.
Your answer may well be right for the jurisdiction you’re in, but it’s not correct for the jurisdiction I’m in, Saskatchewan. Here, living together as spouses for more than two years triggers pretty much all of the rights and obligations of being married - support, property, testamentary, etc. And it’s not a common law marriage.
Anyone who has a legal issue in real life should contact a lawyer knowledgeable about the law in their jurisdiction to determine their rights and obligations.
Ain’t that a kicker? When someone’s too enlightened for marriage before the state but they want a gen-u-ine divorce.
I said “for the most part.” I should have said, “for the most part in the United States.”
Sorry bout that.
Seriously??? At the DMV??? I love the options, but I can’t get past the Department of Motor Vehicles…and Marriages.;
No, no… Department of Marriage Vows. Although I see how you’d be confused.
Wow, I wish you could perform my marriage ceremony!
I am aware of the advantages of civil marriage, and we fully plan to get married. (Best excuse for a party, ever!) I personally wouldn’t call myself married until after the ceremony; it would get confusing, I think.
Plane fare to Boston and I’m all yours, baby! 
You need to talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction. California, for example, requires a marriage license and a ceremony.
According to most civilian authorities, yes.
According to the Catholic Church, no. They have the same basic theories about it as WhyNot, the marriage is the compromise between those two people and the ceremony is merely an announcement of something which already exists.
According to your own religion if you have one, I imagine there’s some sort of pastor you can ask 
It was perfect actually because we’ve spent a lot of time in the garage and at the DMV (Not Department of Marriage Vows, but that IS cute) trying to get this project car licensed.
Hey, no biggie! I keep making this point in threads like these - there is no single Law of Marriage - there’s lots of regional variations on what the law is. I think it’s useful to keep reminding people of this point, since marriage issues keep coming up on these boards.