Long term relationship, not married. I don't get it

[Leaffan]

@Palo_Verde

My father and step mother were together for 35 years. When he was diagnosed with cancer and it was clear he would die soon, they got married double quick. So she could inherit his money, have access to his pension, etc. But it made me wonder why they’d been so long about it. What if he’d been killed in a freak accident and they didn’t have time to do the last minute marriage? She’d be screwed then.

Wouldn’t a will have accomplished the same thing?

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Dogzilla

<snip>
I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why people get married in the first place. Near as I can tell, either people think they must have permission from god to have sex or permission from the state to consider themselves legitimate. I say neither religion nor government has any right to define my relationships for me.

I don’t think that’s why most people get married.

@elbows

<snip> We feel like, we are never together because we swore to be, in front of God and family, forever. We’re always together because we choose to be. That’s a powerful thing, on it’s own, I think.

I don’t think you can discount how powerful it is to stand up before your friends and family and make an avowed commitment to each other, though.

@Norse

<snip>
I found out afterwards that it did have an emotional impact on us, more than I had expected. And it was actually a very nice party that fine day more than twenty years ago

It does have an emotional impact; before Jim and I were married, we were together because we wanted to be, and after we got married, we were still together because we wanted to be, but there is also the memory of how we stood up together and told everyone that we are committed to each other.

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

<snip>This, I think, reflects the values of Quebec society. And probably of other societies as well, which explains why many people opt not to marry.

I think I’ve heard that couples tend to marry more in the rest of Canada than in Quebec. Anecdotally, it seems to me that people tend to live together for a couple of years then get married in Western Canada.

On preview: What Olives said. If marriage doesn’t mean anything to you, I’m not saying you’re wrong. Marriage does mean something to a lot of people, though, for a lot of varied reasons.

[The_Lovely_Margo_Lane]

@Dogzilla

You know, I’m in the exact opposite camp. A domestic partnership can (slightly more expensively but it can be done) have all the same legal rights and benefits you list in the OP. (1. Jointly owned property - easy, don’t have to be married; 2. Tax benefits - I think there’s actually a penalty, but I’m not sure about that. Depends on the income of each person; 3. Power of attorney/visitation rights - you can do that with one quick trip to an attorney’s office and not have to be married; 4. Inheritance rights - Make a will, no need to get married; 5. Combined bills/bank accounts - No need for marriage here either.)

I fail to see the point of marriage. Why not just live together and merge finances, like a business partnership? Any children still have all the same legal rights (and whatever name you give them). I look at my gay couple friends’ relationship and note there are no significant differences between them and my straight married couple friends’ relationships. The only difference is the gay couple had to go to a lawyer to get power of attorney and inheritance rights. You can make anyone an insurance beneficiary. You can will your stuff to anyone.

I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why people get married in the first place. Near as I can tell, either people think they must have permission from god to have sex or permission from the state to consider themselves legitimate. I say neither religion nor government has any right to define my relationships for me.

Super good point, and of course you like anyone else can organize your life and relationships how you please.

I think that for many, getting married is a representation that the relationship is more than a simple contract between two people, it’s the creation of a distinct and recognized family unit. It is of course possible to create families in other ways and those families aren’t less valid in any way. But getting married can be a formal (legally and culturally) way to say “this person is now [part of] my family.”

The romantic idea espoused above, that unmarried but committed folks are choosing every day to stay together is is lovely. But it’s not the only way to be with someone. If I get married again, it will be specifically to say that I can’t just walk away, any more than I can easily walk away from another family member. I can cut family out of my life, but it’s not easy and I don’t do it for less than earthshaking reasons. My divorce came about due to circumstances that would have caused me to cut off contact with a sibling or a parent (of course it’s not really a graceful analogy but I hope it’s clear). I would break up with my boyfriend for far smaller reasons though I do love him immensely.

This ability to create family ties that are understood to all is the #1 reason why I feel strongly that same-sex marriage is so important and can’t be replaced by “domestic partnerships”. The way I see it, a domestic partnership is a valid thing and the best way of organizing a household for many people - gay and straight. But (to me) marriage is what I describe above - a family tie affecting more than just the romantic relationship.

[Fat_Chance]

@Kansas_Beekeeper

I know several couples who are not married, but are very committed. As I understand them, they do it out of principle: they feel that marriage may force people stay together because divorce is so complicated, on many levels. It’s important to them stay together out of love and personal commitment and responsibility, not out of legal commitment.

Not agreeing with them, just sayin’. I’m happily married.

I agree. My now ex-girlfriend of 10 years and co-owner of a house, took a few months to finally decide to end our relationship and move out. Being married would have prolonged that for many more months, and possibly even kept us trying to be together for years, while we were both unhappy. As much as it hurt, I wanted her to stay or go based on how she felt about me - not because of homes, money, marriages, divorces, etc.

[Dogzilla]

@treis

It’s not just because. There’s a myriad of reasons, but let’s talk SS benefits for one. If your husband dies today, you are not eligible for his SS benefits. If you were married, you would be. That’s potentially tens of thousands of dollars, and maybe even 100k. That’s a steep price to pay, for little obvious benefit.

Okay, let’s talk SS benefits. I am not married to my BF. If he died tomorrow, I would not be eligible for his benefits. Well. He is a small business owner. I make a hell of a lot more than he does. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, my income probably beat his every single year. (Before he started his business, he worked low-level service gigs, i.e., waiter, bartender, barback, heavy stuff mover at Lowe’s, etc.) Even if we were married, I wouldn’t make a claim against his SS benefits because I would get more by filing against my own.

My mother was married to my dad for 11 years. When she retired last year, she was told she was entitled to file her SS claim against his earnings. She made so much more in the 30 subsequent years after the divorce that filing against his earnings made no sense. She got like twice the money filing on her own behalf.

What else ya got?

[treis]

@Edward_The_Head

Ok lets. Why are people so excited about money like this? One should always make sure that you can live by yourself otherwise you’re over extending. Even so a divorce, with children, can cost close to 100k as is, per person. That of course depends on where you live, but I wouldn’t be surprised if by the time everything is all said and done and my children turn 18 if it costs me a lot more then that. Just getting my ex out of my house, which I used my money to buy and I lost 100k in value I still had to pay my ex 10k when she left me.

In the grand scheme of things I will keep more money by not getting married then ever getting married again and getting divorced. Every time I’ve seen someone get divorced there is a ton of money lost in lawyers, selling of homes and everything else. There is no monetary incentive to get married, especially for social security. Quite frankly it’s ‘lame’ to want to get married just for some possible extra security until you start to draw the money anyway.

Divorce is easy, fast, and cheap.

The problems you describe are inherent in any long term relationship with shared assets. Instead of divorce proceedings, you would have to have proceedings to dissolve join property. The latter, in my not legal opinion, is more complicated and expensive.

It is true that marriage confers property benefits, but this is a zero sum game. If Spouse A saves 20k by not being married after a break up, Spouse B loses that 20k. So yeah, I completely see “I don’t want to have to give her money if we break up” as a compelling reason. A dickish reason, to be sure, but one that saves you money. Of course, you have to wonder why the other party is happy with this.

[wonky]

@The_Lovely_Margo_Lane

This ability to create family ties that are understood to all is the #1 reason why I feel strongly that same-sex marriage is so important and can’t be replaced by “domestic partnerships”. The way I see it, a domestic partnership is a valid thing and the best way of organizing a household for many people - gay and straight. But (to me) marriage is what I describe above - a family tie affecting more than just the romantic relationship.

Agreed. I’m getting married because I have chosen someone to be my closest family member. It can be a powerful statement for some people, and it really isn’t all about money or rights. I want people to be able to choose it OR to be able not to choose it for themselves.

[treis]

@Dogzilla

Okay, let’s talk SS benefits. I am not married to my BF. If he died tomorrow, I would not be eligible for his benefits. Well. He is a small business owner. I make a hell of a lot more than he does. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, my income probably beat his every single year. (Before he started his business, he worked low-level service gigs, i.e., waiter, bartender, barback, heavy stuff mover at Lowe’s, etc.) Even if we were married, I wouldn’t make a claim against his SS benefits because I would get more by filing against my own.

My mother was married to my dad for 11 years. When she retired last year, she was told she was entitled to file her SS claim against his earnings. She made so much more in the 30 subsequent years after the divorce that filing against his earnings made no sense. She got like twice the money filing on her own behalf.

What else ya got?

There’s two people in a relationship. If your BF makes less than you, then it stands to reason he would be better off collecting your SS benefits.

[Dogzilla]

Another point of clarification for my part: I am not now, nor I have I ever been, interested in having children.

I can concede the point that, for many people, marriage is about the family unit thingy, where they want kids brought up in a married household (for reasons that are unclear to me seeing as how there are many single-parent and non-traditional family units pretty much everywhere). When kids are involved, the arguments for marriage kind of make sense to me, to a certain degree.

For me, in my life, no. I haven’t read any argument in this thread that is compelling enough to get me to consider changing my position and thinking maybe I ought talk to that BF about getting married. I still can’t really understand why a family can’t have a cohesive, loving, financially stable lives unless there is a marriage certificate involved. You know. If a kid is born between unmarried parents, and the actual parents’ names are both on the birth certificate, both parents are still on the hook to be responsible for that kid regardless if they are married or not. If you’re the named dad on the BC, you can still file for custody and make custody arrangements and you have rights to your kid. Your babymama can marry someone else if she wants, but her husband can’t adopt your kid unless you sign it over to them. It’s still your kid, whether you’re spending time and/or money or not.

So I’m still not seeing what difference it makes. Aside from “it’s cheaper to get married than it is to hire a lawyer and draw up POA papers and a will and name your SO as a beneficiary.” It’s also cheaper to get a lawyer and draw up legal and financial protection papers than it is to get a divorce.

[Dogzilla]

@treis

There’s two people in a relationship. If your BF makes less than you, then it stands to reason he would be better off collecting your SS benefits.

That may be true, but he would also get VA benefits and then there’s his family’s trust fund*, which he stands to inherit a significant portion of.

In our specific case, we’d both be better off financially solo.

• I suspect that, even if I married him, I may not be entitled to any of that anyway. He could always insist on a pre-nup, which I would have no problem with, seeing as how I wouldn’t marry just for money in the first place. I have no intention or desire to lay any manner of claim on his mom’s estate. I am not with him because of Mama’s Trust Fund. I am with him 'cause he’s awesome.

[The_Lovely_Margo_Lane]

@jsgoddess

Agreed. I’m getting married because I have chosen someone to be my closest family member. It can be a powerful statement for some people, and it really isn’t all about money or rights. I want people to be able to choose it OR to be able not to choose it for themselves.

And, right back around to answer the OP’s actual question, this is a very significant action that a particular couple can have good reasons to not want to make, either because they feel they can create a more meaningful “intentional family” without legalities, or because they don’t want those family ties, only the romantic ones, or anything in between.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@treis

Divorce is easy, fast, and cheap.

So you live in a fantasy world that bears only a tangential relationship to the reality that everyone else here lives in?

Stranger

[treis]

@Dogzilla

That may be true, but he would also get VA benefits and then there’s his family’s trust fund*, which he stands to inherit a significant portion of.

In our specific case, we’d both be better off financially solo.

• I suspect that, even if I married him, I may not be entitled to any of that anyway. He could always insist on a pre-nup, which I would have no problem with, seeing as how I wouldn’t marry just for money in the first place. I have no intention or desire to lay any manner of claim on his mom’s estate. I am not with him because of Mama’s Trust Fund. I am with him 'cause he’s awesome.

I don’t have a problem with “it doesn’t make financial sense and we don’t feel like it” as a reason.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@Cat_Whisperer

I think I’ve heard that couples tend to marry more in the rest of Canada than in Quebec.

I remember it well; MichaelEmouse said that something like 60% of babies born in Quebec are born “out of wedlock” (which is true) and you seemed completely befuddled by this revelation. But it seems to me that in English-speaking Canada and (especially) in the US the idea of a child born “out of wedlock” still conjures images of broken families, teen pregnancies and other social problems. As if, if you’re planning to have children, it’s a given that you’ll marry. I don’t think terms like “out of wedlock” or “bastard” are even used in Quebec anymore, and as said you’ve got plenty of long-term unmarried couples having (completely planned) children. It’s just a relatively minor cultural difference regarding our views of family. I wonder if there is also a greater percentage of families with two working parents in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada and the US. It’d certainly be plausible.

Anecdotally, it seems to me that people tend to live together for a couple of years then get married in Western Canada.

I know some people who’ve married (my cousins, for example), and if someone I know gets married I wouldn’t be surprised, but it’s not something that I’d necessarily expect. One of my friends had a son last year; he’s not married with his partner, I never expected that they would marry, and I don’t think anybody thought it was something they should have to do.

[treis]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

So you live in a fantasy world that bears only a tangential relationship to the reality that everyone else here lives in?

Stranger

At least in this world we can read entire posts.

[Edward_The_Head]

@treis

Divorce is easy, fast, and cheap.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?

Easy? How do you figure that, at the bare minimum, which I’ve been through, you go to court 2-3 times and spend 8-10 hours on crap. That’s if you only own a house together and no kids. If you do have kids, it’s at least 3-4 times that. Here’s one estimate of 60,000-120,000 in Montgomery county Maryland where I live. That’s cheap to you?

It’s not fast either, you must wait at least one year to get your court date for divorce.

Easy is subjective, but I wouldn’t say it’s easy.

Without all of that I don’t need a lawyer at all, even with kids. In Maryland the child support is done by a formula, you can not deviate from that formula very easily. Get a lawyer to do the formula and you’re done.

The problems you describe are inherent in any long term relationship with shared assets. Instead of divorce proceedings, you would have to have proceedings to dissolve join property. The latter, in my not legal opinion, is more complicated and expensive.

Again see the above link, divorce is expensive. In just the past year I’ve spent close to 20,000. There are still things that come up that I need a lawyer for. Had I not been married and had the same kids, the only thing to do would be set up the child support and care of the kids. Takes much less time. Plus in a marriage there’s all sorts of going back and forth between the lawyers as to who had how much in their 401K the day you got married, how much in the bank, how much in the house, all of which takes hours to do.

It is true that marriage confers property benefits, but this is a zero sum game. If Spouse A saves 20k by not being married after a break up, Spouse B loses that 20k. So yeah, I completely see “I don’t want to have to give her money if we break up” as a compelling reason. A dickish reason, to be sure, but one that saves you money. Of course, you have to wonder why the other party is happy with this.

Or in my case we each had our own bank accounts along with joint ones. All she has to do is know she’s getting a raise, not say anything, then keep the 20k in her account. Take that 20k pay it to the lawyer then poof no more money. This is what happened to me. She then made me pay half of the taxes we owed on the taxes she didn’t pay on the new raise.

Quite frankly if I ever live with someone again I can’t see myself getting married. I see little point to it having been through it twice now. The next time I will own the house, she can live with me and pay for food, then save her money. Everyone wins that way.

[Dogzilla]

@treis

I don’t have a problem with “it doesn’t make financial sense and we don’t feel like it” as a reason.

Thank you. Apparently, some people around here do.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

I remember it well; MichaelEmouse said that something like 60% of babies born in Quebec are born “out of wedlock” (which is true) and you seemed completely befuddled by this revelation.<snip>

If by “befuddled” you mean, “surprised because I’d never heard that before,” then yes, yes I was.

[treis]

@Edward_The_Head

You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?

Easy? How do you figure that, at the bare minimum, which I’ve been through, you go to court 2-3 times and spend 8-10 hours on crap. That’s if you only own a house together and no kids. If you do have kids, it’s at least 3-4 times that. Here’s one estimate of 60,000-120,000 in Montgomery county Maryland where I live. That’s cheap to you?

It’s not fast either, you must wait at least one year to get your court date for divorce.

Easy is subjective, but I wouldn’t say it’s easy.

Without all of that I don’t need a lawyer at all, even with kids. In Maryland the child support is done by a formula, you can not deviate from that formula very easily. Get a lawyer to do the formula and you’re done.

Again see the above link, divorce is expensive. In just the past year I’ve spent close to 20,000. There are still things that come up that I need a lawyer for. Had I not been married and had the same kids, the only thing to do would be set up the child support and care of the kids. Takes much less time. Plus in a marriage there’s all sorts of going back and forth between the lawyers as to who had how much in their 401K the day you got married, how much in the bank, how much in the house, all of which takes hours to do.

And it took my parents a few hours and maybe a grand to file for divorce.

Look, there is divorce and there is splitting up joint assets from a long term relationship. You think that breaking up with someone in this situation is easy as just saying see ya!, but it’s not. Joint property must be determined and disposed of, and that can be complicated. Whether something is expensive and drags out in courts has little to do with marriage status. It is whether the two people want to fight about it.

[Dogzilla]

@Edward_The_Head

Quite frankly if I ever live with someone again I can’t see myself getting married. I see little point to it having been through it twice now. The next time I will own the house, she can live with me and pay for food, then save her money. Everyone wins that way.

I’m not having that. Our engagement is off! :mad:

Ha ha

I wouldn’t see the logic of selling my house to go live with a guy, where the bills are all in his name and all I have to pay for is food. What happens to my credit rating in that case if it suddenly looks like I’m not responsible for anything? :dubious:

If we were in love and thinking of shacking up, I’d suggest one of two things:

1. We can both sell our houses and buy a duplex together. You live in one half, I live in the other half. If we split up, one of us can pay rent or buy the other out. OR

2. You live in your house and I’ll live in my house and we’ll get together as often as we feel like it for sex, booze, and food.

How’s that?