AspenMama

To me, marriage is about being in love and formally acknowledging that to the world. And it is about having someone to come home to, to hold me at night and someone to wake up to every day. Someone who respects all of me and enjoys the things I do. Someone I'm completely in love with and respect. Someone who also will love my children. But if I can't have all that-- the whole package-- then I would rather be alone.

I admit I am a romantic, and a hopeful one.

Okay this thread is not really a Secular Lifestyle issue...

Gurdur

Just for that, you'll be getting another flower soon.

The Other Michael

No children (by choice) and coming up on 25 years of unwedded bliss (well, at least solid happiness with instances of bliss, and I'm quite willing to take that).

Marriage is just a bit of paper/legalism to us. Being together doesn't depend on it.

But if someone else wants it, more power to them.

cheers,
Michael

seebs

I think it's perfectly reasonable. I don't think the impracticality counts against it; the mere fact that these things are not ones we would otherwise expect to have, I suspect, figures rather strongly in why people will try so hard to obtain them.

Is it easy? No. But I think it's worth it.

seebs

Seems to me you've rather put the cart before that horse with that last statement. Marriage is what you actually do, not the piece of paper. You're together, you plan on staying together... What's the difference between this and a marriage, except for tax purposes?

The Other Michael

Hi seebs,

I see our being together as the relationship, and marriage as the legalism. Even in a common-law marriage (not legal in all states of the USA) you have to actually hold yourself out as married.

We don't do that (not that California recognizes common-law marriage). She's my sweetheart, I'm her "my Michael" (aw shucks, I'm wondeful, what can I say? ), we're joint-owners in the house and have medical power of attorney for each other. We've also been together longer than either of our parents' have been married.

But we aren't married.

cheers,
Michael

seebs

I still don't understand what the *difference* is. It sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. What do you not do that married people do, that doesn't directly involve the use of the word "marriage"?

The Other Michael

Hi seebs,

From Websters New Collegiate Dictionary:

Marriage is a legalistic/cultural acknowledgement of a relationship.

People could say my sweetheart and I are, for most practical purposes, married. Or they might say that we are married in all but the name. But both of those statements have inherent in them the fact that we are not married.

Marriage confers certain legal benefits on the married people. Since we aren't married we have to take extra steps to obtain for us the protections of medical decision making, inheritance, ownership of property, etc that come automagically upon getting the completed marriage license filed with the appropriate authorities.

So if you are saying that people can have effectively the same relationship, married or not, I'm in complete agreement with you. But if you are saying that there is no difference legally/culturally in being married or not being married, I'm having trouble seeing the justification for your argument.

cheers,
Michael

seebs

I disagree. Some relationships may be acknowledged without being "marriages". We could have ceremonies and legal paperwork for "going out", and it wouldn't be marriage.

The definitions you quote strike me as rather begging the question.

What they have in them is the fact that you are not legally married, and that this is unusual since most people mated-for-life have that paperwork.

Well, keep in mind, I'm starting from a Christian point of view, so I'm *already* distinguishing between legal marriage and "real" marriage. I figure, if you've made up your minds to stay together, that's what a marriage *is*; all of the cultural baggage is a distraction from the essential question.

Basically, there are people who have a legal marriage, but whom no one but the IRS would ever mistake for a married couple. I'm merely observing the corollary; there must people not legally seen as married, who are.

cheetah

Seebs, that's fine if your definition of marriage includes quality relationships like the one Michael has and the one I have. But, quite simply, in actuality, that's not real marriage. People can have everything marriage has except that piece of paper and TECHNICALLY, REALLY they are not married. That's a really key point for many people. Sometimes we are discriminated against because we don't have the piece of paper. Sometimes we are proud of ourselves for not having the piece of paper. It is just a legal distinction. Maybe there should be some legal distinction for what you're talking about. I would like that. I feel awkward soemtimes calling him my partner or trying to explain the importance of our relationship to someone that doesn't understand why we aren't married. So, if there is another word out there for it, let's have it! but, it cannot be marriage because that connotes many, many legal requirements and benefits that those of us without the paper do not have automatically (we have to contract into them or in some cases, cannot get them at all).

I also know that some unmarried couples refer to themselves as married. That's fine. I am not the marriage police. but, again, to be entirely technical, you're not married unless you have the piece of paper. Two identical relationships (in quality, longevity) may be equally wonderful, but if one is married and another is not, there is a valid legal difference. I agree with you that that difference isn't big, and I dont think it should matter to anyone. But, there it is.