|
Grex > Femme > #91: Reasons to get married or just live together | |
|
| Author |
Message |
keesan
|
|
Reasons to get married or just live together
| 
Apr 13 22:08 UTC 1998 |
This discussion started in relation to whether couples do or should get
married around the time they have children. What are the reasons for getting
legally married or not? How does this affect your income taxes, social
security income, inheritance taxes, hospital visiting privileges, rights to
retain an apartment in a rent-controlled area, to make decisions for someone
who is in a coma, to decide what happens to their remains? Would you get
married just to get free health insurance? Would you do so for social
reasons, so that your children can tell their friends, so that your parents
can tell their parents? Do some people not get married in order to make some
sort of statement, or because they believe they will behave different with
each other if they are married?
|
| 71 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 1 of 71:
|
Apr 13 22:15 UTC 1998 |
My grandfather and his second 'wife' were never legally married, they just
went through a religious ceremony. This was because she would not, if
married, have been allowed to continue collecting social security as a widow.
They were 'unmarried' for about 20 years and died in their 90s. She treated
all of us like her own grandchildren.
My partner says that once he married, his wife completely changed the
way she behaved with him, was no longer on courting behavior. He would
therefore not recommend to anyone (including a friend who keeps asking, and
whose girlfriend adopted a child without him), that they marry. It is not
always advantageous to be treated as family rather than friend.
One couple that we know got married because one member insisted on it
before she would support the other's business until it got going. Jim was
against this, I was not. They seem like very compatible people, and neither
of them appeared to be acting unnaturally before marriage. I don't think in
their case marriage made a bit of difference. We know another case of a
couple where the woman left after about two weeks of marriage and took with
her the car that her new husband had just bought and registered in her name.
We told him to be grateful that she had left sooner instead of later, and not
to waste money on lawyers. Would anyone get married against the advice of
numerous friends?
|
mta
|
|
response 2 of 71:
|
Apr 14 16:23 UTC 1998 |
I did. I don't recoomend it. That marriage was a disaster. ;)
|
valerie
|
|
response 3 of 71:
|
Apr 14 20:12 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 4 of 71:
|
Apr 14 21:01 UTC 1998 |
I don't really understand the people who think unmarried couples with kids
are Evil. That said, in my own case I can't see wanting to have kids with
someone I don't feel ready to marry.
|
keesan
|
|
response 5 of 71:
|
Apr 14 22:19 UTC 1998 |
Orinoco, how does a piece of paper make two people into a family?
Valerie, would a religious ceremony (in the 'church' of your choice) make your
relatives happy? It would serve as a public declaration of some sort, and
give relatives an excuse for a party of some sort. Marriages used to require
some sort of public parade, in order to have lots of witnesses to a union,
now you only need two witnesses ando ne state official. Paintings also served
as public documents (van Eyck?). Have you tried asking your mom and grandma
why they care about the official formalities? I don't think my mother could
ever come up with any logical reason for pushing me to get married.
Eventually she stopped, but if I had had kids, I suppose she might have kept
nagging.
|
janc
|
|
response 6 of 71:
|
Apr 15 16:42 UTC 1998 |
A religious ceremony would make both of us unhappy - we are not religous.
We've never discussed wedding ceremonies in any detail, but while we might
find us a Unitarian or Universal Life person to perform the wedding, the
ceremony would almost certainly not mention any aspect or version of God.
I suppose that one could manage some kind of non-religous religous wedding
in which we take some kind of vows to each other, but that seems stupid. If
we are going to do it at all, we should do it in some form that is legally
recognized.
I think our families would be happier if we were married, but they are pretty
happy as is, and I don't think any of them would want us to marry for their
sakes. I expect we will marry someday, but we aren't in a hurry to meddle
with a relationship that works. And, although Valerie is reluctant to be wed,
she seems to really like weddings, so we'll probably do it in fair style when
we do it. I really don't care much one way or the other. I feel so committed
to Valerie now that I would have a hard time taking a wedding ceremony
completely seriously since it would seem so redundant. We've chosen to have
a baby together. That's a far deeper commitment and a far stronger tie
between us than a marriage. At this point, a wedding seems like a minor
formality, hardly worth a lot of fuss. Except that holding a big fuss with
Valerie could be fun, whether or not it has any real point to it.
|
mta
|
|
response 7 of 71:
|
Apr 15 17:23 UTC 1998 |
<laugh> Jan, I really like your style!
******************
And on a much more general note:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Marriage does not make a committment.
Committment does not require a formal ceremony.
I once married a man because I was knocked up and it was the biggest mistake of
my life. You see, at the time, I thought (assumed really -- I wouldn't say I'd
ever really thought about it.) that marriage = committment. He didn't feel
that way and was never committed to making the relationship work.
One person can't make a relationship work no matter how hard he or she tries.
It just won't work.
When I decided to marry again late in life (well, okay, relatively late) it was
done as a public celebration of the committment we had already made to one
another. In a sense that's how I see Jan's and Valerie's sharing with us
their very conscious decision to have and raise a child together. It's a
public celebration of their committment to each other and to that child. Jan
is, perhaps, more right than he can know in saying that the ceremony would be
redundant.
Redundancy needn't be eschewed, where it's fun. (Continuing to have sex after
you're already pregnant is, in some sense, redundant. Few people eschew it,
though. <g>)
After my divorce, I never thought I'd marry again. As far as I could see, it
was asking for heartache. Then I found a man who was as committed to me and my
happiness as I'd always assumed a husband would be to a wife. We didn't need
to get married. We don't plan to have children. But somehow I wanted very
much to tell our family and our chosen community that we had decided to commit
the rest of our lives to each other. The traditional way to do that is with a
wedding ceremony -- and it sounded like a fun thing to have a real wedding, so
we did.
There are some legal enticements to marriage -- but where they don't apply,
they just don't.
There are some emotional enticements to marry, but those get a whole lot of
people into trouble because marriage has different meanings to different
people.
Everyone has different reasons for marriage, and it can be a wonderful thing.
But it can also be the most heartbreaking of experiences.
I'd say, if you both want it, and you feel the same way about what it means,
and you really are committed to working harder on the relationship than you'll
ever work on anything else -- go ahead.
If one or both of you find it meaningless, or you don't agree on what marriage
means, or one or both of you is reluctant to really work at making a go of the
relationship -- shack up for as long as it lasts. In the end, you will be glad
you did. Breakups are hard enough without bringing the law into it.
(Then again, at some point you may both change your minds and decide that
marriage *is* what you want...could happen.)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 8 of 71:
|
Apr 16 15:39 UTC 1998 |
keesan - to clarify my original point.
No, a piece of paper, or a ceremony, or anything else that comes from a
marriage, doesn't make for commitment. No, a piece of paper, or a ceremony,
will not make two separate people into a family on it's own.
There are couples - Jan and Valerie seem to be one of them - in which both
members think marriage is unnecessary, or redundant, or less meaningful than
other forms of commitment, but they still do make a commitment to each other
in some way. There are also couples who don't marry _because_ of a lack of
commitment.
So, I guess what I'm saying is this - I would never want to have kids with
someone who I didn't feel comfortable making some sort of commitment with.
Marriage is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of that sort of
commitment, and marriage is the form of commitment that feels the most 'real'
to me, but if my SO found another form of commitment more worthwile, I could
go with that too.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "marriage" - I didn't mean that specific
ceremony, only _some_ sort of sign of commitment.
|
abchan
|
|
response 9 of 71:
|
Apr 17 01:57 UTC 1998 |
(Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm wondering if anyone knows
how common law marriage is defined...seems awfully fuzzy; can you be
considered married to someone if you've been living together for X years)
|
keesan
|
|
response 10 of 71:
|
Apr 17 03:13 UTC 1998 |
Re #8, would a public declaration of commitment, with all your friends and
relatives present, be at least as much of a commitment as signing a piece of
paper with two witnesses present?
I think the common law marriage laws may vary by state. Try the Web?
|
scg
|
|
response 11 of 71:
|
Apr 17 04:07 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 12 of 71:
|
Apr 17 04:45 UTC 1998 |
Oops, I should have done some research before I posted that last response,
which was based on something I heard somewhere, but I don't remember where.
Judging by the stuff I'm finding on the web (mostly at www.icle.org), it looks
like Michigan doesn't have common law marriages, so the only common law
marriages recognized by Michigan are ones that were first recognized by other
states.
In other states, it looks like the main criteria for common law marriage is
if a couple lives together and claims to be married.
|
abchan
|
|
response 13 of 71:
|
Apr 18 00:40 UTC 1998 |
I'm wondering if the people who choose not to get married were raised under
different belief systems than those who do choose to get married. Although
I can't see any fault with the arguments above and respect the choices made
by others, I too, couldn't imagine myself having a child without marriage.
I think it may be ingrained in my upbringing; something that logic and reason
can't explain. Any thoughts?
|
birdlady
|
|
response 14 of 71:
|
Apr 18 01:13 UTC 1998 |
In Michigan, the common law marriage comes into effect if the couple has lived
together for seven years. In Colorado, it's 24 hours... <eep!>
|
scg
|
|
response 15 of 71:
|
Apr 18 04:02 UTC 1998 |
I don't think that's right, Sarah. That's what I'd heard in a few places
before, but looking at what seem to be relevant court opinions, I see over
and over again where judges are talking about Michigan not recognizing common
law marriage, or in one case saying that Michigan doesn't still recognize
common law marriage. The one exception seems to be that common law marriages
first recognized by other states are recognized by Michigan.
For those who aren't familiar with the term common law, it referrs to rules
that are set by court precidents, rather than by the legislature. The
recurring theme in the court opinions I was looking at was that Michiagan
courts think social policy should be set by the legislature, rather than the
courts, and that recognizing things other than statutory marriages as being
equivilant to marriage would amount to setting social policy.
I was wondering if there might be some law saying a statutory marriage happens
automatically after seven years of living together, but I couldn't find any
mention of that.
|
garima
|
|
response 16 of 71:
|
Apr 18 08:01 UTC 1998 |
A piece of paper will not create a committed relationship, true.
Pieces of papers are just records of contracts between 2 people, or
2 corporations. Plenty of people default on their contracts, and so
do corporations. Companies go bankrupt and fail to deliver what they
were contracted to accomplish...etc.
The piece of paper's purpose never was to make the contract work.
It's purpose was just the record of who entered what contract when.
Period. That's it. No more, no less.
Its application is obvious - proof of what was agreed upon when you
seek legal redress, upon default on the contract.
Which brings you to the concept of entering into a contract to always
"love and cherish" one person. I think that no one can really keep that
end of the contract on their own, out of context with WHO it is they
promise to love and cherish, and how such a person grows, changes or
desintegrates over the years.
To love and cherish someone implies that to keep their end of the contract
the other person maintains such personal values that made you love them
in the first place - that THOSE values are what love is traded for.
What if you married a man who you admired for being ethical,having
character, conscience, integrity, being just etc. Or maybe you are attracted
to their personnal qualities as a person - the way they think, perceive,
operate, keep their word, give you a sense of the positive in life, make
you laugh, are "there for you", care for you, value you, help you, support
you, make you happy...
So on the knowledge of their character and personality at this point
you enter into a contract (read marriage) with them to exchange love,
support, warmth etc. on the condition that you receive the same.
And, at some point along the way, these things change. One of the partners
can't handle the ennui of life and starts drinking, doing drugs, having
affairs, not being there to raise the kids etc.
It is at this point that the contract is null and void. Because you may
give but you are not receiving back. No more a fair trade.
So, if marriage is a contract to "love and cherish" between human beings
(who , by definition, are dynamic entities that CHANGE over time) - it is
a contract that is not easy to define. And , except for the purpose of
obtaining financial support for kid bills, is not easy to enforce.
I mean you can't go to a judge and say "He promissed to love me, and now
he doesn't - make him!" "Toss him in jail until he does!"
"He promissed to be a good father and nurture the kids' self-esteem, but he
insults and humiliates them. Make him love them and appreciate them!"
You can't.
So why enter a marriage contract....? I have more thoughts on this.
But I'll enter them later.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 17 of 71:
|
Apr 18 19:01 UTC 1998 |
Oh...I think you're right Steve - but I was stating the old law. =)
|
anderyn
|
|
response 18 of 71:
|
Apr 18 23:43 UTC 1998 |
I seem to be in a very small minority here -- I would never ever have
considered moving in with Bruce before we were married, and I don't think
that I would have sex outside of the marriage bond, either. I realize
that this seems hopelessly out-of-date in the "modern" world we live in,
but it made and makes good sense to me. If you want to make a committment
to live together and to make a baby together, then you do it in the way
that tradition, society, and God have approved. It's just ... safer and
better that way. That way, you know that you can trust the other person
to be as committed to you as you are to them (or at least the presumption
is there, since they HAVE to be committed to do this...) -- and I don't
know that people are any happier or safer living together first -- sure,
you find out that he squeezes the toothpaste tube from the side,but do
you really find out that he can commit? I don't think so. And that's
why what other people do could never be right for me. And I'm bringing
up my children to believe in this, as well. I may have been lucky
in finding a man whose values and mine coincided so well, but so far
I haven't seen any reason to doubt my course. I have seen people in
misery because their so-called long-term relationship that didn't
need that piece of paper exploded on someone's whim...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 19 of 71:
|
Apr 19 03:23 UTC 1998 |
Re#10: If anything, that sounds like more of a commitment in my eyes, if
those involved see it that way.
Re#16: Because in most people's eyes marriage is still the strongest way to
show a certain level of commitment. Even with the higher numbers of marriages
falling apart, even with the higher numbers of people finding some other way
to make their relationship permanent, marriage still means something to a lot
of people; and for those people, it makes perfect sense, because it's the way
of committing to each other that works best for them.
|
scg
|
|
response 20 of 71:
|
Apr 19 03:36 UTC 1998 |
I don't have a problem with living with somebody without being married, but
with the current Michigan laws I certainly wouldn't have a kid with somebody
I wasn't married to. That has very little to do with marriage traditions,
and far more to do with the legal significance attatched to marriage. I
suppose I could think of marriage not as making a commitment, but as legally
registering it. Things like being next of kin, being able to inherrit without
paying inherritance taxes, being legally presumed to be the father of the
kids, being able to add the spouse to a health insurance policy, and things
like that, all seem pretty important.
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 71:
|
Apr 19 11:43 UTC 1998 |
Do fathers in marriage have different parental rights than
fathers outside of marriage but listed on the birth certificate?
|
i
|
|
response 22 of 71:
|
Apr 19 13:06 UTC 1998 |
Re #21 - Whether in law, in the minds of some judges, or in day-to-day
practice, i'd bet that the answer is yes.
Re #18/21 - marriage seems to mean a lot of different things, even to just
one person. Legally, i agree with scg. If you don't have any negative
emotional baggage attached to it and are a responsible parent, marriage
is the way to go just like fire insurance on your house is. (The very
rich, the very creative, and a few others can do without, but for 'most
everybody else...)
But that's a mighty big "if" in this society, *especially* if a traditional
family or religion is part of your background. Some people have had bad
experiences that they've emotionally attached to the word "marriage".
Others have partly excaped from unwanted control by their family/religious
background, and marriage is one of the remaining chains by which they
could be dragged back into things they don't want. There are those with
performance anxieties and those turned off by the crass, materialistic
consumptionfest of many modern marriages. (Plenty of people are also
turned off by the responsibility, planning, commitment, etc. aspects,
but i hope that none of them ever have children......note that
discouraging procreation by such people is a desirable social function
that the traditional institution of marriage still performs to some
(slight) degree.)
My own approach to marriage would be sort of a pick & chose. i'd
certainly want the legal stuff. Though i'm an atheist, like anderyn i
have little interest in sex that puts me one birth control failure away
from unwed parenthood. I don't like rings, and would probably offer to
take her name instead. The big ceremony's no problem, but the fancy
clothes, gifts, entertainment at family expense, etc. sure are. We'd
dress casual, pick a few good charities & ask for donation checks, and
try for some sort of pot-luck meal. Maybe auction off (again for
charity) the expensive duplicate household stuff and give away the rest.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 23 of 71:
|
Apr 19 23:16 UTC 1998 |
(That's actually a really good idea, Walter - the bit about getting rid of
duplicate stuff. It seems like a nice way to show "We're one family now
instead of two" that doesn't have much 'baggage' associated with it...)
|
i
|
|
response 24 of 71:
|
Apr 20 01:34 UTC 1998 |
(Plus it's much easier to do at the wedding dinner than to hold a garage
sale. And knowing that you'll be doing it will *hopefully* keep some of
the more traditional guests from ignoring instructions and bringing you
a 3rd can opener, 4th set of towels, 5th answering machine, etc.)
|