cheetah

Not at all! We won't and don't use contracts as excuses to stay together. I guess we could, but the point was that people DO use their marriage certificate as a crutch, another societal expectation, whereas, societal expectation of a relationship like mine is that it could end at any time. Therefore the reason it doesn't is because we have internal strength to keep it together, no piece of paper that says we are supposed to (to me it's like the difference between doing something because it's morally right and doing something because your parents say you have to or the law makes you do it. The former just seems more genuine).

We are contracting into most of those benefits in order to protect the other in case of catastrophe, not to make a legal commitment to our love. Love and legal don't much go together in my opinion, and I would similarly contract into those benefits with my mother if we needed to be able to take care of each other and such.

seebs

Hmm.

Seems to me that, humans being what they are, a bit of a "crutch" may not be a bad idea. Many relationships go through phases, if brief ones, where one or both partners might lack the emotional wherewithal to continue working on the relationship, but come out the other side anyway.

I'm not sure the piece of paper isn't a good thing in that case.

godfry n. glad

With the exception of the above, I agree with your assessment, seebs.

The State of Oregon does not recognize "common law marriages." As I understand it, there are several other U.S. states that do not as well. Thus, when my friends who had been happily unmarried and borne four children and lived together for 22 years had their story go public in a "color" piece in the local newspaper, the insurance company under which she had been covering her SO for health insurance found out about their unmarried status from the article, the company cancelled their insurance.

When I asked them why they hadn't gotten legally married, their answer was, "It's too much of a commitment." Although I said nothing to them at the time, I was thinking, "Four kids is not too much of a commitment!?" C'mon... If commitment is the issue, children are a lifetime commitment for both parties, there are very few ways out and they are very restricted, while marriages come and go (but needn't).

I personally am of the view that it should be as difficult to get _into_ a marriage as it currently is to get _out_ of one.

godfry n. glad

ImGod

Hey, I had to endure 3 hours of marriage counseling to get married in the church. Don't tell me that was easy.

Okay, we skipped one hour and did the other 2 back to back because of the drive to get there, but it was tough filling out those compatibility questionnaires.

A funny side note from our wedding was the minister getting a divorce shortly thereafter and the congregation using the sheriff to evict her from the parsonage. We should have used a local Justice to make it more official.

godfry n. glad

Three hours of chit-chat known as "pastoral counselling"? I hardly think that qualifies as equivalent to most divorces.

All I had to do was fill out one sheet of paper with basic statistics, pay $25 CDN to the provincial Vital Stats department, wait three days and pay $25 CDN, plus $.25/mi, to the marriage commissioner and, viola!, I was done marred. For life, it seems.

I hear that in Nevada, it's even cheaper, faster, easier.

godfry

HaysooChreesto!

I hesitantly agree. Were it not for the fact that I was married I would've left my wife several times. More to the point, I'd have been gone long ago if we didn't have a child together. So I'm off topic and passively venting marital frustation...
Anyway, I think marriage is saddled with too many outdated traditions and that too many girls are brought up to believe that to be a success they have to be married.
I've been over this in the threads already mentioned. I'm burnt out. :banghead:

Loren Pechtel

Faster I'll agree with--there's no waiting period. Cheaper--I have the impression the license is $35 US here but I won't swear to that.

never been there

That isn't necessarily a great idea. When dividing assets, why pay a significant chunk to lawyers, courts, vital statistics, etc. for the privilege?

I broke up with my ex after seven years together, and without any legal controls we were basically left with no practical alternative but to be civil to each other and negotiate a fair and quick agreement to cover the practical things. Courts don't handle things like deciding who among the mutual friends were to be her confidantes, and which mine. We even traded LPs (that long ago) and she stored my stuff for a few months.

ohwilleke

I've got to pipe up for the benefits of divorce here.

Divorce exists so that the person in the couple who made sacrifices doesn't get screwed by a selfish partner, something which happens all the time.

During the relationship, they trust that they will be looked after. When it falls apart, somebody gets hurt in a very practical way.