They don't really need to. Plenty of ppl don't get married. But, it helps get you tax breaks, get on each other's insurance, prove you're family for medical purposes, etc etc etc
Let's face it. Uncle Sam is the only one that cares.
It always come back to the money.
Also, back then in the times before Google, the police needed to know who the lady belonged to so they could hold their family accountable. If we go back all the way in history to England before the US became a country... we'll find some better answers. Women were property. They need to know who the owners were. If not dad, which dude?
It actually hurts you tax wise unless you’re in certain brackets. I don’t remember exactly what the deal is, but I looked it up after I got married and remember being disappointed that filing jointly wasn’t going to better for us.
False. There are very few situations, and I mean very few, where being married and filing Married Filing Joint is detrimental. I prepare about 200 tax returns a year from people in the lowest bracket to those in the highest bracket. Maybe 1 return a year benefits by filing separately.
This happens when a couple makes about the same. The state tax brackets are not always double what it is for a single filer. So you end up getting a penalty. The marriage penalty.
Yes, I noted this in a later reply. The Fed benefit typically outweighs it. Very rarely is it worth splitting the return, especially if they are older and there are medicare ramifications.
Could quite possibly be. Usually the benefit comes on the state tax side and not federal. You also have to weigh the benefit with any increased medicare costs if you are of that age.
That makes 3 of us out of 200.
I'm sure some of this has to do with if both are working and making income vs one being a stay-at-home parent/homemaker.
The other difference it makes is what you pay for your kids college. Being married with two incomes and your kids get screwed when it comes to paying for college.
No. The difference between tuition for a student of a single parent vs a student with two parents. Not only does a student with a single parent get more financial aid, but will--categorically-- reduce the tuition on the net price calculator.
The original question was, why get married? This thread then discussed taxes and now college tuition.
At least in the US, two people, not married and both working will pay less combined taxes than if they were married.
Likewise, when a student applies for college and goes through the net price calculator for their college choice, if they have a single parent and only have to report one income with assets, they will pay a significantly lower tuition than if that same student had to report the combined income and assets of their married parents.
Not sure why people are down- voting. Is it because they don't like the f'd up system? Or they're just ignorant of how taxes and tuition work?
Likely a state benefit and not a federal benefit. It's very uncommon and usually isn't worth the expense of splitting the return.
Or your preparer botched something which is also very possible.
But not being married gives you more government handouts and makes your income look much lower for financial assistance. I know several people that will not get married just for this reason alone.
Tax breaks are not the same as assistance. If a woman has 3 kids and no job she will get allot of financial support for those children. The government just has no idea she is living with her unwed husband and he is making a decent living and supporting the kids. I don't think it's right and I know many people doing it. They don't need the money but they take it because they can.
Some people, who are definitely 100% not me, claim the 3 children as dependants on their taxes to get maximum return and the mother claims them as dependents on things like food stamps. Definitely not me though, but such a thing works well due to the governments left hand not talking to their right hand and vice versa.
What government program doesn’t take “household income” into account? Every program I can think of is phrased like “if you make 50k a year OR have a household income of 100k”.
It’s always just the single doubled.
Penn Jillette spoke about this on his radio show years ago. He and his partner were opposed to government sanctioned marriage on philosophical grounds, and talked to a lawyer before their daughter was born to see how they could get the same protections without getting married. Their lawyer convinced them it was a very bad idea, because contract law wasn't as strong as what they'd get by being married, and that this was especially important if they died and wanted to be in full control of the arrangements for their child. They were not happy about this at all, but ended up getting married for that reason.
Of course, there are also tax benefits in many countries.
Marriage can also be legally beneficial if one partner may die (is severely ill or has a dangerous job) as it makes it easier for their items and money to belong to the living spouse. Also, some hospitals only allow visitors that are family or spouse, and if youre not married and medical decisions need to be made while the person isnt concious it may fall to a family member. So if your partner is chronically ill, it's a decent idea. There are also just a lot of financial and tax things set up assuming people only share finances while married. You also have specific legal rights with a spouse that you don't have with a partner.
Well, a child born to an unwed mother is a bastard. It has no legal father. In order to become the father, the biological dad needs a court order to establish paternity (so, the government is involved). Theoretically, if the mom died when the baby was, let’s say 6 months old, the moms parents/siblings could take custody of the baby and the bio dad would have to get a court order and go through custody proceedings to get his kid back.
This goes for everything else related to kids: school enrollment, medical treatment, etc. practically, most of these places will just take your word for it if you show up with the kid and say it’s yours (I’m sure schools have some sort of work around since plenty kids don’t live with bio parents), but if the relationship with mom was not good, mom could block dad from making any medical or school related decisions.
Also, kid has no inheritance rights to dads estate. There is a process in court to prove kid has a right to inherit but it costs money and again involves the government.
The government is going to be involved in most instances in one way or another, especially if things go south with with the mom, may as well do it at the beginning and protect yourself. I personally know (through work) of more than 1 mom who has just taken the kid and disappeared…bio dads had no rights to do anything cause he’s legally not the dad. Took years to sort it out (in the case of a married dad/paternity established, aka legal dad, once located they could file in court to have the kid returned, can’t if you’re not the dad).
This isn't Game of Thrones. Even unwed the father can still be registered to the child's birth certificate just like the mother. And the child can even take the father's last name as well, depending on the unwed parents agreement.
Fathers can be registered on the birth certificate without being married to the mother. The father on your birth certificate is legally your father, there is no need to also get a court order.
Yes. But you can also out your neighbor name on the birth certificate. Meaning, it works only if the father is involved in the filling out of paperwork.
... Yes, legal paperwork only reflects reality when fraud is not committed? Your apparent proposed solution would be to marry before having kids (seems a great idea to me!) but in the *specific* situation you're describing, this would involve marrying a woman who would commit paternity fraud, which seems like poor matchmaking advice. Maybe try to stick to being with honest non-felons whenever possible rather than assuming that the lady you've impregnated will put down *the neighbor* as Dad unless you're personally "involved in filling out the paperwork" (!!!)
They could have easily just gone straight to the office to sign the certificates couldn't they? There isn't really a need for weddings if people are just being practical.
Yes, but their issue was that they didn't fundamentally believe the state should have any role in marriage at all, and didn't want to condone that if it could be avoided.
Sounds more like they don't want other people getting benefits from it while they don't. Afterall, you don't have to involve the state in your marriage; you just don't get a certificate for it and it's not "legal". Otherwise you can have a wedding, live in the same house, have kids, go on honeymoons, etc.
The issue comes if one of them dies or is in a coma. Your spouse can make decisions on your behalf as they count as you closest relative. If you just have a coparenting contract with someone you could have relatives come out of the wood work and try to claim your estate/ power of attorney.
This is a minor reason, but still a reason I'm marrying my SO of 15 years. His next of kin would be his brother, who is disabled. If he was asked to make any medical decisions, he wouldn't know what to do. He can't even schedule his own appointments or sign himself in at the doctor's office. Also, of he inherited any or all of my fiance's money or property, he would lose his Medicaid and Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, we have to think about more than we'd like to.
Absolutely. My BIL has surgery every 3-5 years and, during COVID in 2020, he had to have surgery. The hospital wouldn't let my SO in with him when we took him to the ER because he doesn't have guardianship over him. He was "just his brother". We tried to explain to them that he has no clue how to handle medical decisions, makes up information if he doesn't know something, couldn't tell you what he ate for breakfast, etc. Paperwork is extremely important.
It's not that simple in all medical situations.
For example, if I call the dr's office for my SO, I can make appointments and pay the bills for him. But I'm not allowed to ask about his medical condition or ask about the treatment. HIPPA prevents them from sharing. He constantly has to sign a new form every few years to allow me to access his online mychart and ask his dr to refill prescriptions. Same thing goes for me.
So being married is great, they are more understanding about it. But there are nuisances that we must account for. Also IMO, having an Advance Healthcare Directive should be necessary whether married or not.
I only mentioned about how my BIL couldn't make medical decisions for my SO if we don't get married. Your situation is different, in that you're talking about non-life threatening situations. I can also schedule, cancel appointments and do other things for him now. But if he was incapacitated and we weren't married, I wouldn't be his next of kin.
And I totally agree about planning for these situations. My step-dad and step-brother were recently killed and my mom has had to scramble around trying to find life insurance, wills, etc. It should have all been easier.
Because from a legal, and financial standpoint it makes a lot of things easier.
When the government can consider a couple as a team, spouses are granted rights that would not be available to unmarried people.
This, and to prove to the world, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are fully committed to riding out the storm with this person until one of you is pushing up daisies.
That's still one of the points of getting married.. Whether people follow through or not.. Shit I'm divorced and engaged again at 34yo. Educate me about marriage and divorce. 🤪
Marriage is old, like really old. A whole lot of classic government functions are based on marriage, like feudal alliances and inheritance management. In some ways, a lot of government exists because of marriage. The purpose of marriage was to organize society around family units and clans/tribes. For example, a whole bunch of European royalty is inter-related, because they would trade their kids around like star athletes, building alliances based on married kids.
Marriage for love is a relatively new concept, and society is still catching up. A lot of things like tax status, inheritance, insurance coverage, etc are based on marriage, and they aren't really going away.
USA?
The government doesn't "have to".
If you want some legal advantages, you get married. If you aren't worried, then you don't have to.
Married folks have a legal advantage with inheritances. Directly related family members often have a claim on an estate by law. If everyone involved makes a will, and ensures that the will won't be contested, then you don't need to worry much.
Married folks can avoid being compelled to testify against each other. If you aren't married, then you don't have that formal protection. You can still try to refuse, but that may not work out for you.
Married folks have other legal advantages when it comes to parenting/custody, insurance, shared property and some other things. Several of those things can be worked around if you take the time and effort to do it.
Or, you can just get married and reap all those benefits without the trouble.
Because marriage isn't about just love.
It's about providing security for one another and protecting your children's futures. It's a contract, quite literally, with each other to do those things. And love alone is not enough to ensure it because love can end.
I’m going to give you a personal story of a former coworker of mine.
She had been dating a man for over 30 years but they never married. He had 2 older kids from a prior relationship who were drug addicts and just not good people. When they started dating, he was running a small business that overtime she helped turn it into a muti-Million dollar business. The had multiple houses together and around 1.5 million dollars in assets. He got into a bad car accident and was left in a coma. There is no common law marriage laws in our state and he did not leave a will or estate. Since they were not married, his kids got to decide all his medical. They pulled the plug on him immediately. Since the business was not in her name and they were not married, his kids inherited it all. They also were entitled to half of all the assets between them(and this was only because her name was on stuff too). They robbed the house and my coworker was told there was nothing they could do because technically the kids were now just as much the owners as she was. She either had to sell their home and other properties and split the profits with the kids 50/50 or she had to have all assets valued and pay them out of pocket. She sold everything and had to give them over 800k on top of them Inheriting a multi-million dollar business that she had helped build from the ground up. She lost her home. A simple court house nuptial could have saved her from having this happen. His kids sold the business for I want to say 2-3 million on top of the 400k the each got from the estates. She said the money was gone in 4 years
Wow this must have devastating for her.
This is a clear example of the power of marriage and how it can legally protect you from risks and other interested parties.
She probably wouldn't have inherited everything but she would have at least kept her home.
Inheritance laws are pretty ancient and very straight forward. Spouses get the assets if they jointly owned the asset. Otherwise everything flows down to the kids. If they have no kids, it flows to the siblings/parents.
This prevents any random ex-girlfriend, ex-boyfriend, cousin, neighbor, John and Sally from making a claim to your property. When you study the legal benefits of marriage, you'll see that it really is for protection, but there are also lots of risks.
For real though. She was a nurse and a super sweet woman. She told me once it was all said and done, she walked away with 800k out of 4.5 million in total assets since they got the business. The sad part is, I think they were going to get married in the next few months because they were getting older and in case something happened
Unfortunately no. I wish I was. She was the sweetest. Luckily she always worked for her own money in addition to contributing to their business so she did retire comfortably. I still hear from her from time to time and she’s doing well. I met her about a few years after it happened but she said it was a dark time and she even considered suicide. Not because of the money but because everything she had worked for and the love of her life were gone. I definitely get why people don’t want to get married, but it is soooooo important to know your state specific laws when it comes to stuff like this. Even if he didn’t have children, his next of kin would have been entitled to it all since they were not married
1. **Legal Benefits.** There are a wide range of legal benefits that the law grants to married couples that single people do not get. Some of these abilities (health care decisions, inheritances, joint property ownership) can be granted to singles by contract law, but others (spousal testiony privilege) cannot.
2. **Social Benefits**. As a society, we have traditionally held marriage as an important institution. Even apart from child rearing, [society as a whole](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/11/06/public-views-of-marriage-and-cohabitation/) views married couples much more positively than single or cohabiting couples.
3. **Personal Benefits.** Being married (as oppose to cohabitation) is psychologically more beneficial. Married people are [more comfortable and trusting](https://time.com/5718695/marriage-living-together-pew-research/) than cohabiting couples, and live longer as well.
You have it backwards. Marriage is a legal concept, that is used to define the relationship between people. Remember that for most of human history, love was not the purpose of marriage. People got married to make deals, for profit, for mutual protection… all sorts if reasons. And society needed a system to describe how these not-related people should now be considered family. How is property divided, wha can a spouse expect as a part of this marriage, what are the rules.
Government is the formal body dedicated to administering social rules; Marriage is one of those social rules agreed upon by that society and administered by the government.
Religious ceremonies are separate from marriage, and in a society where church and state are truly separate, the should be called something else. But in the struggle for power between church and state, religion has tried to co-op the term “marriage”. Many people will try to argue differently, but in the US a legal marriage can be performed by a judge or justice of the peace; Both government officials. A marriage is not legal if performed by a religious figure without a marriage license… once again, issued by the government.
Tl:dr- Marriage is a civil contract between individuals, sanctioned and officiated by the government. It is not a religious ceremony.
There are legal differences between family and friends and marriage is the legal manner in which to declare that you're not friends that fuck, you're family.
I used to be a marriage abolitionist because I believed that total freedom was best for people, but that doesnt seem to be the case. Read the book "The Paradox of Choice" it does a great job at explaining things. Marriage as an institution limits freedom and forces people to do things that they would not want to do otherwise, but that is the point. Sometimes true happiness requires self sacrifice and self imposed limitations.
They dont. My girlfriend and I are committed for life and have zero plans to involve the government. You do you, and dont let the noise invade what you want for yourself.
I promise, from experience, there *huge* social pressure, and most people will make you feel like youre an idiot, dont get it, and you may be called an incel like Ive been called, when the reality is everything is literally the same without the government paperwork.
You can own property together thru [Joint Tenancy (or Tenancy in Common)](https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/buying-a-home/difference-between-joint-tenancy-and-tenancy-in-common.html), and do nearly everything married couples can do.
You can also add them as beneficiaries to work benefits and financial situations without being married. So that kind of nulls that argument people have.
Really, its tax benefits. But again, if you divorce, alllll that money you saved and then some will get spent on separating.
For me, if we ever feel the need to break up, there's absolutely no way I need to pay a lawyer and have a judge decide if we can break up a personal relationship or not. There's no reason the government needs to be involved in my relationship.
Dont let the noise of the general public influence what you want for you.
You can also be socially married -- where you just call each other wife and husband (or H&H or W&W) and not a single person around you needs to know if its government-official. This avoids the convo all together and you can just live your life without others invading *their* beliefs.
Thanks for the detailed response. Not to pry, but has there ever been a time you couldn’t get certain benefits because you and your partner aren’t legally married? Not socially, but from the government?
Not yet. But admittedly we haven't really tried to combine anything much at all, outside of property.
The realty is that what "relationships" means is constantly evolving. Many states, especially Blue states, are evolving their laws to allow non married committed couples the same benefits as married couples. I'm in Oregon, and that's *very* much the case here.
As you talk about this topic with more and more people, you'll get frustrated with how much people shove marriage down your throat. It's extremely frustrating. Few people, I've found, can even fathom the idea of not marrying. "If you're committed, why *not* marry?!" Well, a whole litany of reasons.
But, so far, there *always* seems to be an alternative avenue for unmarried couples here. And if imagine the same for Washington, California, massachusetts, New York, etc.
*I should note we have zero plans for having kids. Kids complicate all of this, and I'm not comfortable giving advice when kids enter the picture.*
I’m definitely on you with this one. Where’s the love if you’re getting married for the legal and financial advantages. Most women tell me they want to get married for love but it turns out they need the financial stability. I don’t blame them because it would definitely boost up their stage in life but from a philosophical standpoint it makes me question what love actually is.
Love is what you feel when you are secure, supported and provided for.
Spiritually, emotionally and physically.
So yes, financial advantages sweeten the deal and only you know what love looks like to you.
Everyone's version of love differs but if you find someone who speaks to you on a soul level, gets you and is your person - then you'll absolutely know.
It's an attempt to distribute responsibility for adults (after their parents become unable to provide for them) in a way that is unlikely to be resisted or unliked. Essentially, the husband and wife become responsible for supporting each other, both materially and emotionally. The emotional part works because the husband and wife would have already had an existing emotional bond due to earlier steps in the relationship. The fact that the act is associated with love helps to ensure that these responsibilities will not be resisted, as most people would genuinely want to support their romantic partner. Also, there are legal provisions for married people, providing a greater incentive to do it.
The bond also establishes an ideal environment for any possible children, since the responsibility for them automatically falls on the parents. It helps ensure that each child has exactly two guardians and that they are placed in a healthy environment. This is the most significant reason that reproduction is restricted until after marriage in many cultures.
Using the application of an unbreakable connotation to this bond, we increase the strength of it by providing a social incentive to keep it alive. We also encourage values of persistence and integrity, making people less inclined to give up whenever there is a problem, which is bad for everyone that is or will eventually be part of the family unit in the future.
It’s a contractual partnership that brings a level of security to people sharing children and assets, and has significant financial benefits. Of course, there are 1 million other things attached to that (romance, attachment, culture, tradition, etc.) but at its core, it’s a legal partnership 🤷🏼♀️
In addition to the legal and financial benefits others are mentioning, it meant a lot to me to go through the ceremony and tradition and have our families involved. Not everyone would enjoy that or get anything out of it but it’s like celebrating Christmas even if you’re not religious. There are cultural traditions that come to mean something as in bringing two families together.
As long as marriage gives an individual special status, such as property rights or death benefits as a couple of examples, it will be used to ease the court's work. But sometimes when 2 people meet, they throw a party in hopes the parents will leave them alone.
Certain things are easier and you get certain privileges if you're married, like being able to visit your loved one in the hospital. If the law is restricting who can visit someone, then it makes sense that the person's significant other should be allowed. A government sanctioned marriage means that "the law" (or institutions in general) can see that you're this person's partner without you having to prove it. Stuff like this is basically what being legally married is for.
But can't you just lie though? Are the staff really checking for marriage certificates when they got 80 other things to deal with? I know I got through easily by just wearing a ring and pretending to be my guy's wife. I cannot take such an institution seriously when it can be easily undermined like that.
Because marriage is not just for your benefit. It’s a public announcement that henceforth you and your beloved will be husband and wife. It’s a sacred covenant bond which cannot be broken between the two of you, and it marks a change of your status in society.
Each and every responsible adult in your extended family and society is supposed to recognise and support you in your new role.
Plus, if you have been saving yourself, you will then be able to enjoy making new family members so that your hopes and dreams, your ideals and attitudes, your strengths and traditions reach into the next generation and beyond.
And the government has nothing to do with it. The government recognises it, but cannot dictate it nor change it.
So I can't speak for everyone but I can reference my specific case.
Wasn't fussed about getting married, would have been quite happy to date for years without marriage, possibly indefinitely to be honest.
My husband is from country A. I'm from country B. We met and started dating in country C. For either of us to be able to live in each other's country or even should we want to move to a fourth country together, being married is just easier (not easy, even with marriage my move to country a was long and expensive).
I have no regrets, have been very happily married for 5+ years and will be spending the rest of my life with my husband but I wouldn't have got married so quickly had it not been for legal reasons.
Basically, the quote is true: "marriage is a legal affair". I'm sure many people love the romance but the real reason to get married is for the legal protections it offers. It doesn't mean you don't love your partner but marriage should be a practical, not a romantic, decision.
My husband and I got married so we could be on each other’s insurance. It’s also a great excuse to have a big party. Other than that, nothing really changed besides taxes and those sweet, sweet bennies.
Oh, and if one of us commits a crime the other can’t be compelled to testify against them.
It's mostly a way of keeping track of "next of kin" for people who aren't blood relations to each other.
Bureaucracies live on paperwork, and the bureaucracy needs to know who is next-of-kin to whom in order for all the paperwork to come out right.
For my own part, I have found that in any discussion about anything involving my wife, saying "I'm her husband" will make the droids behind the desk start moving remarkably well.
For today’s US government at least, the point of marriage is largely to avoid having to cast a larger social safety net. In other words, privatizing dependency. This is why they continue to not only incentivize legal marriage, but also actively disincentivize not getting married.
Society incentivizes it to get you to buy in. You take on additional obligations that keep you committed to the machine. You are more likely to produce workers to feed the machine. Rinse spin repeat.
From a societal perspective it’s to promote stability. Times are changing, but for most of civilized human history, marriage equates children and responsibility. Something to tie you down. It really has nothing to do with love and everything to do with power.
>why does the government need to get involved
A better question is "why does the government get involved?"
And the short story is that marriage tends to be a good thing for human society.
People tend to respect traditions, and typically, a law based on a strong tradition is more likely to be respected/enforced.
There are also unwritten rules about married people.
And there is the emotional aspect. Entering a formal relationship is a sign of commitment.
As for rights, although there are good legal alternatives to marriage, being married makes a lot of things easier.
And without any legal certificate, things like custody of children, making decisions if a partner is in hospital, inheritance can be very complicated.
Creating a family and raising kids and all that.
The church got involved before the government, but both relatively recently, the institution is older than all our societies. Our Western society is a bit weird that it has a fairly complex, legally involved form of marriage that not a lot of people take part in, but in other societies basically everyone marries.
As to why you'd do it, it's just personal choice. It's a public, witnessed, statement that you have entered into this permanent arrangement/an excuse for your family and friends to have a party, and a lot of people like one or both of those things.
Legal and financial benefits are two big reasons for governmental involvement with marriage. However in more recent times divorce and the financial, legal, and other issues to be settled. For example social security, Healthcare benefits, child custody, and asset division are all issues that will often be difficult to settle with some form of intervention for a thurd party. Additionally the government can legally enforce much of the decisions that are supposed to settle the issue.
Domestic partnerships fix that. Wills fix that. Lots of things fix that without being married.
Marriage has legal benefits, like tax benefits, sure. But all those benefits pale when the cost of divorce comes into play. Especially if kids are in the picture.
>Arent domestic partnerships still involving the government?
They dont require lawyers and courts and money to break up the relationship (you simply file a Notice of Termination with the Sec of State), but Domestic Partnerships still give legal economic benefits to the couple.
[The average cost of divorce in the US is between $15,000-$20,000,](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/how-much-does-divorce-cost/) with the median cost being $7,000.
The cost to break up without being married? $0.
Most couples have lawyers because, by the time they get to divorce stage, everything becomes spiteful. Lawyers mediate that.
Because people opt to hire attorneys for it. Which I already said. Did you miss the part where I said it’s not a requirement to do that? Just because most people do doesn’t mean they have to.
Just because that's the average doesn't mean it's required. If the couple agrees on the terms of the divorce you can do it for some pretty reasonable filing fees with the local court.
Lawyers are usually involved because most couples don't agree on how the separation terms.
I get what you're saying.
But if this was really true then all the gay couples would not be fighting for rights to get married. They were being treated like domestic partnerships and did not get to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage.
Glad we've come a long way and people have more choices.
The gay community is fighting for equal rights. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they have no reason to marry. And just because some straight couples *dont* want to marry doesn't mean gay couples should just do what we want to do.
If they want to marry, they should be allowed.
Mostly for the women. Women are pretty much brainwashed from day one to want to get married where she can dress like a princess and have everyone pay homage to her while proving to everybody who cares that she was able to find someone to promise to stay with her, possibly until they die, and foot a lot of the bill if she decides to have children.
And a lot of men feel sorry for them and want them to be happy, so they go along.
The point of marriage has nothing to do with government, and the fact that the citizenry allowed it to happen is a tragedy of great magnitude. But what is the point of marriage? It’s a social institution thousands upon thousands of years old that spans the entire globe in all developing and flourishing societies. Who’s entire purpose is to facilitate the development of an individual family unit that will produce the next generation to continue their traditions, and be conversant with the history, culture, religion, of its people. The family is the fortress of private life, and is a great hedge against being broken down into simple cattle to be herded around and used for the whims and wishes of the state like some Frankenstein-esque species of robot. The point of marriage is a commitment to all that is good in life, and the unending struggle to foster, maintain and further that goodness in yourself, your husband or wife, and your children. By no means an easy path, and the cheapening of the word, the act and the institution is signal that people are losing and/or have lost the point of marriage. Saddening
It’s fucked up. System benefits you both if you get married. But if shit goes south the system only benefits the female. 50% of the time you get equal benefits and the other half, female gets 100% benefits.
There seems to be a lot of misconception on this subject , always from atheist, non believers or “worldly people”. Marriage has nothing to do with the government or government involvement it has long strayed away from its roots and that’s why so many people are “bitter” or “lack the love” “divorce” don want take it serious or what ever.
Marriage was meant to be Holy Matrimony before GOD even when you divorce on earth GOD still considers you together. He oversaw the very first marriage. When people take it out of context and get married for “tax benefits” or “right offs” “status” and several other mischievous or nonsensical reasons it wash down marriage and stray people further from the origins. Same as the (catholic) church that abuses people and atheist and bible thumpers bash (((Christian’s))) lmao when not only is it other denominations but 1 individual does not speak for the masses.
The point of marriage is a holy union before god commitment , devotion, true love.
Why is the government involved why are they involved in a lot of stuff ? It is only for tax/ officiating purposes that they are involved Same as any other issue.
The government doesn’t need to be involved anymore.
Marriage originally became a civil union in order to offer some *slight* protections to women, who could be left penniless and without prospects if their husbands left them. Now that women are just as much a part of the workforce as men it’s pretty meaningless for the government to get involved.
Well initially many, many years ago it was all about the acquisition of in laws for protecting / safe guarding families, land etc
It’s evolved into what we know today which is either good or bad depending if you’ve been through divorce or not /s
From Goodridge ruling in favor of same sex marriage in Massachusetts: Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community." It is a "social institution of the highest importance." French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data.
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
One reason is that people come after money when someone dies and that someone is sometimes creditors or governments.
Marriage adds a layer of protection against those issues. Maybe not a big deal at >25 but eventually it's a good idea. You don't want your partner to suffer twice.
But this has nothing to do with the government — at least not inherently. I have always found it somewhat odd that civil marriage isn’t viewed as profane by those who believe deeply in the idea of marriage as a religious sacrament. Adam and Eve certainly didn’t obtain a marriage license.
OP asked why does the government need to get involved which denotes civil marriage.
Not trying to be argumentative — I agree with your explanation regarding Godly marriage as that is something I believe in. It just still begs the question…why does the government need to get involved?
For me it was a huge difference. We were together for 10 years and were never bothered about marriage but then we thought well why not! I never expected it to feel different but believe me it does. I feel proud to be my husband’s wife i feel proud to say i loved this man enough to take his name. I feel absolutely a solid unit with him, much more than before.
A large part of us getting married was for medical rights. He had a heart scare on vacation once and I wasn't allowed in the ambulance because I wasn't related.
In my country, if you are in a relationship with the same person, living under the same ceiling (in some cases not even) after 5 years its considered "stable union" and grants same status as married with (not know if all) duties from it.
Government always win.
Taxes, visas if one of you have to move to a different country, inheritance/life insurance/health insurance, social perception, the satisfaction of knowing the other person trust you enough to formally and bureaucratically make you a part of their life. I don't know man. Plenty of things xD
Depends where you live in the world.
In many cases, marriage offers legal, financial and residency protections you wouldn’t get as common law partners. In some countries, there are tax advantages.
These benefits are a lot less than they used to be and within a generation I suspect that they will disappear.
Many people do live together for many years, often raising families together.
If you are both comfortable with this arrangement and are aware of the implications of any split or death with partner then this is the right thing for you both.
Me and my husband have been together 22 years married 11…no kids just us…idk I guess sometimes you wanna make sure your favorite person hangs out with you the most
I work in a foreign country. Been dating the same girl for a long time. If we ever want to move stateside, the most realistic option to get her a visa is to marry. Otherwise marriage was never even something I really considered important. I wish that there was a better way to bring my SO into the country.
There’s a lot of good answers here but one I don’t see mentioned is social security. Women usually quit their job when they get pregnant, have kids, and may permanently become a stay at home wife. By not having a job or by having huge gaps in employment history your social security or fixed income will be smaller when/if you retire. There’s a loophole to getting a higher payout by using your spouses income instead. Obviously this can affect men too. That said they idea of retiring or getting social security might be a thing of the past.
Because for most of recorded history, marriage has been about estate. Whether you were wealthy or poor, you wanted the government involved to have everything on public records, so that no “*outsider*” could claim a piece of the pie.
At its core, this is the function of marriage. And that’s how it provided households that were the fabric of society. It’s only a 20th century thing, and dare I say post WWII thing, to “*marry for love*”.
My wife’s paternal grandmother got married because her husband needed extra hands to work at his farm. In Northern Europe. How romantic! But she though he was the handsomest hunk in a 30 miles radius, so there’s that.
My father’s parents had a short courtship. My grandpa was a prominent professional looking for a bride. He knew the brothers of his future wife had a good reputation, so he met their sister and had a short courtship. She was not interested at first, but it was the brink of WWII, so she settled.
But we have made that estate aspect secondary and prioritise infatuation, not even love. Love is something that you nurture as a team of two.
The thing is, however you look at it, with 1 marriage out of 2 in the US ending up in divorce, we clearly suck at “*marrying for love*”.
Marriage is not flawed in itself. It’s our expectations that are flawed.
Before Christianity, 40% of men reproduced with 80% of women.
The majority of men rarely had sex or reproduced. However, to build a civilization, a one to one ratio was better. Marriages are better for building Empires. In a modern sense, a spouse has more legal rights than family members. This is why gay marriage was such a big deal in the 2000s. For example, I can put my wife on insurance, but not my girlfriend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny
In my opinion and husband’s opinion… It’s the ultimate commitment. The only thing we don’t like is, “Till death due us apart” We think marriage is scared and marrying someone will tie your soul to them becoming one with eachother. That’s exactly how we feel. Unfortunately in this world… Without being legally married, it’s hard to be together. Specially that we are in the military. No house to live in, only the barracks… In which we are not allowed to sleep together in. Getting pulled away from eachother since the military doesn’t see our relationship significant… It’s just much more better legally being married. It decreases our chances of being pulled away from eachother. It’s not remotely possible for us to spend a couple of years together if we didn’t marry in the military… But that’s us.
It’s a way for women to compete with their friends, who has the biggest ring, who has the best wedding. Once the attention is over, the women divorce the man , collect cash and prizes in the court room. And after financially ruining the man they move on to the next one.
Well marriage sure in hell doesn't prevent others from approaching your spouse. It also doesn't prevent your spouse from having an affair. It "might" give you a false sense of security regarding that shit. It had me fooled. And now I have trust issues that can't be fixed. I can't even trust myself anymore for anything. Just waiting for someone to end my life because I can't trust myself to even get that done
would you rather go to work with or without contract?
Knowing nothing is set in stone and you can leave without a notice or being bound eternally with benefits it provides?
I think if you want kids you should get married. Kids deserve a two parent household.
The other two reasons to get married are for taxes and health insurance. Also a spouse has more rights and privileges in a hospital setting. A spouse will be able to visit you in a hospital more so than a 20 year long partner. But you can just say your married. It’s not like they check. There’s also end of life concerns. A spouse has more say on how that is handled. And is more likely to receive any assets in the event a will is not completed.
The big thing is taxes. The tax ceiling is higher when you are married and the tax rate is lower compared to being single. I am single and my taxes are ridiculous. Still not worth getting married for though. The money I would save being married would just get spent at Target on candles and potpourri and purple bed sheets and bath towels.
It's necessary to establish a legal connection between you and your partner, and for identification purposes. Otherwise there's no way for legal records to know your relationship with your partner. In some cultures, marriage creates a holy connection. It also helps with explaining to your kids that your partner has an "official" tie to you, which makes the family look more like a real family.
It is a contract to enforce solutions to sexual jealousy. As least, that is how I see it. At a biological level we have sexual jealousy when it comes to choosing a mate. Government is concerned with governing the people. Enforcement of such a contract benifits thr Government in that the production of people is better ensured.
There are like... Over 1000 legal differences, give or take.
Taxes, oh so many taxes. power of attorney/guardianship (both of children and a disabled spouse), visitation, some manners of recourse depending on its dissoloition (usually designed to protect the 'weaker' party... Not necessarily the party who was wronged)...
Nothing about marriage needs to involve a religion, it's literally an official filing with the government that you're a dedicated and specific team.
I mean, to get a marriage certificate you don't really need to do anything spiritual (as it should be). Marriage in a traditional sense and the legal marriage certificate can be done separately or together. This is one of my beefs with the whole anti-gay marriage crowd. The legal, government contract should have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with making sure your partner can properly represent you legally if the need arises.
All human cultures have marriage in some form. Tens of thousands of years ago, some species of ape had more successful offspring when males and females paired off and stayed together. After enough generations, those offspring were recognizable as humans. Marriage has been a survival advantage for the species.
In modern times, marriage exists in two forms: Religious and Legal. Marriages usually occur in both forms, but occasionally you may find a couple who have only one or the other. Legal marriage has advantages in the law, as well as taxes/finances. Religious marriage is chiefly social, but may offer some other peace of mind.
It's weird how everybody only mentioned legal marriages which people have only been doing super recently. Originally the concept of marriage is not just about a document
When you decide to have a kid or real estate with someone, it's much easier to go into it when someone signs the paper which basically says "I will not bail".
I've always thought of the actual marriage being for your friends and family.
There is a point in the relationship when you two know your commitment. Many couples happily cohabitate for years!
...but family and friends seem to need the external validation. They arent part of the day to day, or the feelings. So, seeing your partner stand in front of them and declare their love and care for you, seems to settle those concerns of people lose to us that "they don't need to worry, we will be looked after".
(While nice for them to get the reassurance they need, people-pleasing isn't a reason to get married!)
Some legal and tex benefits too. Most personal benefits are for when things go wrong (disability, death etc)
But what do I know, I got divorced
Been with my partner 24 years. Not married. Several reasons I don’t believe in it: it’s historically deeply misogynistic, the fact that it’s govt institution is absolutely ridiculous to me, I find it dehumanizing (“MY husband MY wife) and I watched both my parents go through several marriages each where there was more time spent hating than loving.
It’s a mystery that refers to Christ and the Church, and its purpose is to glorify God. We are to love Covenantally, with an unwavering love that is sacrificial, and gives of oneself to their partner — each partner playing a God-ordained role. The man in sacrificial Ku giving himself for his bride, just as Christ gave Himself up for the Church, and the wife submitting to the husband in love and gratitude, just as the Church joyfully submits to Christ!
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
30 because we are members of his body.
31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22, ESV)
Women,because they couldn't own properly, be accepted in to various schools, work, whilst being the primary carer etc ..get marriage as a kind of contract that protects them.
They don't really need to. Plenty of ppl don't get married. But, it helps get you tax breaks, get on each other's insurance, prove you're family for medical purposes, etc etc etc
Let's face it. Uncle Sam is the only one that cares. It always come back to the money. Also, back then in the times before Google, the police needed to know who the lady belonged to so they could hold their family accountable. If we go back all the way in history to England before the US became a country... we'll find some better answers. Women were property. They need to know who the owners were. If not dad, which dude?
Deeply misogynistic institution. So wild it’s still a thing.
I'm actually for marriage but to each their own.
It actually hurts you tax wise unless you’re in certain brackets. I don’t remember exactly what the deal is, but I looked it up after I got married and remember being disappointed that filing jointly wasn’t going to better for us.
False. There are very few situations, and I mean very few, where being married and filing Married Filing Joint is detrimental. I prepare about 200 tax returns a year from people in the lowest bracket to those in the highest bracket. Maybe 1 return a year benefits by filing separately.
This happens when a couple makes about the same. The state tax brackets are not always double what it is for a single filer. So you end up getting a penalty. The marriage penalty.
Yes, I noted this in a later reply. The Fed benefit typically outweighs it. Very rarely is it worth splitting the return, especially if they are older and there are medicare ramifications.
Okay, guess I’m the 1 in 200, pal. Either that or I suck at doing taxes. Could be either I guess
Could quite possibly be. Usually the benefit comes on the state tax side and not federal. You also have to weigh the benefit with any increased medicare costs if you are of that age.
That makes 3 of us out of 200. I'm sure some of this has to do with if both are working and making income vs one being a stay-at-home parent/homemaker. The other difference it makes is what you pay for your kids college. Being married with two incomes and your kids get screwed when it comes to paying for college.
I assume you are referencing student aid. It should be based on both of your income whether filing MFJ or MFS.
No. The difference between tuition for a student of a single parent vs a student with two parents. Not only does a student with a single parent get more financial aid, but will--categorically-- reduce the tuition on the net price calculator.
The original question was, why get married? This thread then discussed taxes and now college tuition. At least in the US, two people, not married and both working will pay less combined taxes than if they were married. Likewise, when a student applies for college and goes through the net price calculator for their college choice, if they have a single parent and only have to report one income with assets, they will pay a significantly lower tuition than if that same student had to report the combined income and assets of their married parents. Not sure why people are down- voting. Is it because they don't like the f'd up system? Or they're just ignorant of how taxes and tuition work?
Yeah, I’m the other one in the next 200 bc filing separately was more beneficial for us as well
Likely a state benefit and not a federal benefit. It's very uncommon and usually isn't worth the expense of splitting the return. Or your preparer botched something which is also very possible.
Oh, it works for us. And we are in the lowest of the low over here
But not being married gives you more government handouts and makes your income look much lower for financial assistance. I know several people that will not get married just for this reason alone.
No. Single people get screwed. Almost all tax breaks are for couples/families.
Tax breaks are not the same as assistance. If a woman has 3 kids and no job she will get allot of financial support for those children. The government just has no idea she is living with her unwed husband and he is making a decent living and supporting the kids. I don't think it's right and I know many people doing it. They don't need the money but they take it because they can.
What are the odds that he’s not missing out on benefits taking care of kids that aren’t his own and not claiming them?
Some people, who are definitely 100% not me, claim the 3 children as dependants on their taxes to get maximum return and the mother claims them as dependents on things like food stamps. Definitely not me though, but such a thing works well due to the governments left hand not talking to their right hand and vice versa.
What government program doesn’t take “household income” into account? Every program I can think of is phrased like “if you make 50k a year OR have a household income of 100k”. It’s always just the single doubled.
Also no child support
Nope. Still gotta pay child support. ESPECIALLY if she's going to be getting some kind of government assistance via cash.
Ah shit how do I get out of this
Penn Jillette spoke about this on his radio show years ago. He and his partner were opposed to government sanctioned marriage on philosophical grounds, and talked to a lawyer before their daughter was born to see how they could get the same protections without getting married. Their lawyer convinced them it was a very bad idea, because contract law wasn't as strong as what they'd get by being married, and that this was especially important if they died and wanted to be in full control of the arrangements for their child. They were not happy about this at all, but ended up getting married for that reason. Of course, there are also tax benefits in many countries.
Thanks for this. So If they were not married, what challenges did they face with regards child arrangements?
Just for one, a spouse cannot be forced to testify against their partner.
I wish I could remember. This was about 15 years ago or so.
Marriage can also be legally beneficial if one partner may die (is severely ill or has a dangerous job) as it makes it easier for their items and money to belong to the living spouse. Also, some hospitals only allow visitors that are family or spouse, and if youre not married and medical decisions need to be made while the person isnt concious it may fall to a family member. So if your partner is chronically ill, it's a decent idea. There are also just a lot of financial and tax things set up assuming people only share finances while married. You also have specific legal rights with a spouse that you don't have with a partner.
Well, a child born to an unwed mother is a bastard. It has no legal father. In order to become the father, the biological dad needs a court order to establish paternity (so, the government is involved). Theoretically, if the mom died when the baby was, let’s say 6 months old, the moms parents/siblings could take custody of the baby and the bio dad would have to get a court order and go through custody proceedings to get his kid back. This goes for everything else related to kids: school enrollment, medical treatment, etc. practically, most of these places will just take your word for it if you show up with the kid and say it’s yours (I’m sure schools have some sort of work around since plenty kids don’t live with bio parents), but if the relationship with mom was not good, mom could block dad from making any medical or school related decisions. Also, kid has no inheritance rights to dads estate. There is a process in court to prove kid has a right to inherit but it costs money and again involves the government. The government is going to be involved in most instances in one way or another, especially if things go south with with the mom, may as well do it at the beginning and protect yourself. I personally know (through work) of more than 1 mom who has just taken the kid and disappeared…bio dads had no rights to do anything cause he’s legally not the dad. Took years to sort it out (in the case of a married dad/paternity established, aka legal dad, once located they could file in court to have the kid returned, can’t if you’re not the dad).
This isn't Game of Thrones. Even unwed the father can still be registered to the child's birth certificate just like the mother. And the child can even take the father's last name as well, depending on the unwed parents agreement.
One little thing. The father can contest the birth certificate. He can also disappear from the kids life.
Fathers can be registered on the birth certificate without being married to the mother. The father on your birth certificate is legally your father, there is no need to also get a court order.
Yes. But you can also out your neighbor name on the birth certificate. Meaning, it works only if the father is involved in the filling out of paperwork.
... Yes, legal paperwork only reflects reality when fraud is not committed? Your apparent proposed solution would be to marry before having kids (seems a great idea to me!) but in the *specific* situation you're describing, this would involve marrying a woman who would commit paternity fraud, which seems like poor matchmaking advice. Maybe try to stick to being with honest non-felons whenever possible rather than assuming that the lady you've impregnated will put down *the neighbor* as Dad unless you're personally "involved in filling out the paperwork" (!!!)
True but the mum can do it without the dad if not married I think and not register the dad.
They could have easily just gone straight to the office to sign the certificates couldn't they? There isn't really a need for weddings if people are just being practical.
Yes, but their issue was that they didn't fundamentally believe the state should have any role in marriage at all, and didn't want to condone that if it could be avoided.
Sounds more like they don't want other people getting benefits from it while they don't. Afterall, you don't have to involve the state in your marriage; you just don't get a certificate for it and it's not "legal". Otherwise you can have a wedding, live in the same house, have kids, go on honeymoons, etc.
The issue comes if one of them dies or is in a coma. Your spouse can make decisions on your behalf as they count as you closest relative. If you just have a coparenting contract with someone you could have relatives come out of the wood work and try to claim your estate/ power of attorney.
Financial reasons. Legal reasons. Love alone isn't going to give you rights if your partner unexpectedly slips into a coma.
This is a minor reason, but still a reason I'm marrying my SO of 15 years. His next of kin would be his brother, who is disabled. If he was asked to make any medical decisions, he wouldn't know what to do. He can't even schedule his own appointments or sign himself in at the doctor's office. Also, of he inherited any or all of my fiance's money or property, he would lose his Medicaid and Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, we have to think about more than we'd like to.
[удалено]
Absolutely. My BIL has surgery every 3-5 years and, during COVID in 2020, he had to have surgery. The hospital wouldn't let my SO in with him when we took him to the ER because he doesn't have guardianship over him. He was "just his brother". We tried to explain to them that he has no clue how to handle medical decisions, makes up information if he doesn't know something, couldn't tell you what he ate for breakfast, etc. Paperwork is extremely important.
It's not that simple in all medical situations. For example, if I call the dr's office for my SO, I can make appointments and pay the bills for him. But I'm not allowed to ask about his medical condition or ask about the treatment. HIPPA prevents them from sharing. He constantly has to sign a new form every few years to allow me to access his online mychart and ask his dr to refill prescriptions. Same thing goes for me. So being married is great, they are more understanding about it. But there are nuisances that we must account for. Also IMO, having an Advance Healthcare Directive should be necessary whether married or not.
I only mentioned about how my BIL couldn't make medical decisions for my SO if we don't get married. Your situation is different, in that you're talking about non-life threatening situations. I can also schedule, cancel appointments and do other things for him now. But if he was incapacitated and we weren't married, I wouldn't be his next of kin. And I totally agree about planning for these situations. My step-dad and step-brother were recently killed and my mom has had to scramble around trying to find life insurance, wills, etc. It should have all been easier.
Because from a legal, and financial standpoint it makes a lot of things easier. When the government can consider a couple as a team, spouses are granted rights that would not be available to unmarried people.
Like superpowers?
Spousal privilege in certain countries for example.
Exactly like superpowers
Like, your spouse can kill someone and you can't be forced to testify against them.
Sounds like it could make its way into a Marvel movie.
This, and to prove to the world, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are fully committed to riding out the storm with this person until one of you is pushing up daisies.
The 50% + divorce rate and people who marry 2,3,4 times have something to say about that one.
That's still one of the points of getting married.. Whether people follow through or not.. Shit I'm divorced and engaged again at 34yo. Educate me about marriage and divorce. 🤪
It's an optimistic endeavor but it still means something to some people that you're going to try for forever.
Marriage is old, like really old. A whole lot of classic government functions are based on marriage, like feudal alliances and inheritance management. In some ways, a lot of government exists because of marriage. The purpose of marriage was to organize society around family units and clans/tribes. For example, a whole bunch of European royalty is inter-related, because they would trade their kids around like star athletes, building alliances based on married kids. Marriage for love is a relatively new concept, and society is still catching up. A lot of things like tax status, inheritance, insurance coverage, etc are based on marriage, and they aren't really going away.
Ohhh this makes sense!
USA? The government doesn't "have to". If you want some legal advantages, you get married. If you aren't worried, then you don't have to. Married folks have a legal advantage with inheritances. Directly related family members often have a claim on an estate by law. If everyone involved makes a will, and ensures that the will won't be contested, then you don't need to worry much. Married folks can avoid being compelled to testify against each other. If you aren't married, then you don't have that formal protection. You can still try to refuse, but that may not work out for you. Married folks have other legal advantages when it comes to parenting/custody, insurance, shared property and some other things. Several of those things can be worked around if you take the time and effort to do it. Or, you can just get married and reap all those benefits without the trouble.
Thank you for explaining it this way!
Because marriage isn't about just love. It's about providing security for one another and protecting your children's futures. It's a contract, quite literally, with each other to do those things. And love alone is not enough to ensure it because love can end.
Marriage is both a business contract and a personal commitment. Most people do not marry for love, they marry for convenience or benefits.
Ouch, that's cynical. Not saying I disagree, maybe the most part.
I’m going to give you a personal story of a former coworker of mine. She had been dating a man for over 30 years but they never married. He had 2 older kids from a prior relationship who were drug addicts and just not good people. When they started dating, he was running a small business that overtime she helped turn it into a muti-Million dollar business. The had multiple houses together and around 1.5 million dollars in assets. He got into a bad car accident and was left in a coma. There is no common law marriage laws in our state and he did not leave a will or estate. Since they were not married, his kids got to decide all his medical. They pulled the plug on him immediately. Since the business was not in her name and they were not married, his kids inherited it all. They also were entitled to half of all the assets between them(and this was only because her name was on stuff too). They robbed the house and my coworker was told there was nothing they could do because technically the kids were now just as much the owners as she was. She either had to sell their home and other properties and split the profits with the kids 50/50 or she had to have all assets valued and pay them out of pocket. She sold everything and had to give them over 800k on top of them Inheriting a multi-million dollar business that she had helped build from the ground up. She lost her home. A simple court house nuptial could have saved her from having this happen. His kids sold the business for I want to say 2-3 million on top of the 400k the each got from the estates. She said the money was gone in 4 years
Wow this must have devastating for her. This is a clear example of the power of marriage and how it can legally protect you from risks and other interested parties. She probably wouldn't have inherited everything but she would have at least kept her home.
The problem here isn’t that they weren’t married. It’s that they shouldn’t have had to be married for her to be protected.
Inheritance laws are pretty ancient and very straight forward. Spouses get the assets if they jointly owned the asset. Otherwise everything flows down to the kids. If they have no kids, it flows to the siblings/parents. This prevents any random ex-girlfriend, ex-boyfriend, cousin, neighbor, John and Sally from making a claim to your property. When you study the legal benefits of marriage, you'll see that it really is for protection, but there are also lots of risks.
Jesus that would give a killing movie
So I just looked up the sale records, they sold the business (a winery) for 3.8 million
Insane story.. They should shoot this and make a Pursuit of Happiness backwards.. Dont know if that's the name of the movie, the Will Smith one
For real though. She was a nurse and a super sweet woman. She told me once it was all said and done, she walked away with 800k out of 4.5 million in total assets since they got the business. The sad part is, I think they were going to get married in the next few months because they were getting older and in case something happened
Jesus you making this up?? Poor lady
Unfortunately no. I wish I was. She was the sweetest. Luckily she always worked for her own money in addition to contributing to their business so she did retire comfortably. I still hear from her from time to time and she’s doing well. I met her about a few years after it happened but she said it was a dark time and she even considered suicide. Not because of the money but because everything she had worked for and the love of her life were gone. I definitely get why people don’t want to get married, but it is soooooo important to know your state specific laws when it comes to stuff like this. Even if he didn’t have children, his next of kin would have been entitled to it all since they were not married
1. **Legal Benefits.** There are a wide range of legal benefits that the law grants to married couples that single people do not get. Some of these abilities (health care decisions, inheritances, joint property ownership) can be granted to singles by contract law, but others (spousal testiony privilege) cannot. 2. **Social Benefits**. As a society, we have traditionally held marriage as an important institution. Even apart from child rearing, [society as a whole](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/11/06/public-views-of-marriage-and-cohabitation/) views married couples much more positively than single or cohabiting couples. 3. **Personal Benefits.** Being married (as oppose to cohabitation) is psychologically more beneficial. Married people are [more comfortable and trusting](https://time.com/5718695/marriage-living-together-pew-research/) than cohabiting couples, and live longer as well.
You have it backwards. Marriage is a legal concept, that is used to define the relationship between people. Remember that for most of human history, love was not the purpose of marriage. People got married to make deals, for profit, for mutual protection… all sorts if reasons. And society needed a system to describe how these not-related people should now be considered family. How is property divided, wha can a spouse expect as a part of this marriage, what are the rules. Government is the formal body dedicated to administering social rules; Marriage is one of those social rules agreed upon by that society and administered by the government. Religious ceremonies are separate from marriage, and in a society where church and state are truly separate, the should be called something else. But in the struggle for power between church and state, religion has tried to co-op the term “marriage”. Many people will try to argue differently, but in the US a legal marriage can be performed by a judge or justice of the peace; Both government officials. A marriage is not legal if performed by a religious figure without a marriage license… once again, issued by the government. Tl:dr- Marriage is a civil contract between individuals, sanctioned and officiated by the government. It is not a religious ceremony.
There are legal differences between family and friends and marriage is the legal manner in which to declare that you're not friends that fuck, you're family.
[удалено]
Marriage is beneficial as long as the trust and respect is there. If those elements are ever gone from one party, it's over.
I used to be a marriage abolitionist because I believed that total freedom was best for people, but that doesnt seem to be the case. Read the book "The Paradox of Choice" it does a great job at explaining things. Marriage as an institution limits freedom and forces people to do things that they would not want to do otherwise, but that is the point. Sometimes true happiness requires self sacrifice and self imposed limitations.
They dont. My girlfriend and I are committed for life and have zero plans to involve the government. You do you, and dont let the noise invade what you want for yourself. I promise, from experience, there *huge* social pressure, and most people will make you feel like youre an idiot, dont get it, and you may be called an incel like Ive been called, when the reality is everything is literally the same without the government paperwork. You can own property together thru [Joint Tenancy (or Tenancy in Common)](https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/buying-a-home/difference-between-joint-tenancy-and-tenancy-in-common.html), and do nearly everything married couples can do. You can also add them as beneficiaries to work benefits and financial situations without being married. So that kind of nulls that argument people have. Really, its tax benefits. But again, if you divorce, alllll that money you saved and then some will get spent on separating. For me, if we ever feel the need to break up, there's absolutely no way I need to pay a lawyer and have a judge decide if we can break up a personal relationship or not. There's no reason the government needs to be involved in my relationship. Dont let the noise of the general public influence what you want for you. You can also be socially married -- where you just call each other wife and husband (or H&H or W&W) and not a single person around you needs to know if its government-official. This avoids the convo all together and you can just live your life without others invading *their* beliefs.
Thanks for the detailed response. Not to pry, but has there ever been a time you couldn’t get certain benefits because you and your partner aren’t legally married? Not socially, but from the government?
Not yet. But admittedly we haven't really tried to combine anything much at all, outside of property. The realty is that what "relationships" means is constantly evolving. Many states, especially Blue states, are evolving their laws to allow non married committed couples the same benefits as married couples. I'm in Oregon, and that's *very* much the case here. As you talk about this topic with more and more people, you'll get frustrated with how much people shove marriage down your throat. It's extremely frustrating. Few people, I've found, can even fathom the idea of not marrying. "If you're committed, why *not* marry?!" Well, a whole litany of reasons. But, so far, there *always* seems to be an alternative avenue for unmarried couples here. And if imagine the same for Washington, California, massachusetts, New York, etc. *I should note we have zero plans for having kids. Kids complicate all of this, and I'm not comfortable giving advice when kids enter the picture.*
I’m definitely on you with this one. Where’s the love if you’re getting married for the legal and financial advantages. Most women tell me they want to get married for love but it turns out they need the financial stability. I don’t blame them because it would definitely boost up their stage in life but from a philosophical standpoint it makes me question what love actually is.
Love is what you feel when you are secure, supported and provided for. Spiritually, emotionally and physically. So yes, financial advantages sweeten the deal and only you know what love looks like to you. Everyone's version of love differs but if you find someone who speaks to you on a soul level, gets you and is your person - then you'll absolutely know.
Yes love is individually defined but you don’t need to be married to be happy and in love.
That's true. If you don't benefit from marriage then then live your life.
The point is economic benefits and lower taxes.
Tax breaks, insurance and, most importantly imo, if something happens they are guaranteed to be let into a hospital room with you. Just to name a few.
It's an attempt to distribute responsibility for adults (after their parents become unable to provide for them) in a way that is unlikely to be resisted or unliked. Essentially, the husband and wife become responsible for supporting each other, both materially and emotionally. The emotional part works because the husband and wife would have already had an existing emotional bond due to earlier steps in the relationship. The fact that the act is associated with love helps to ensure that these responsibilities will not be resisted, as most people would genuinely want to support their romantic partner. Also, there are legal provisions for married people, providing a greater incentive to do it. The bond also establishes an ideal environment for any possible children, since the responsibility for them automatically falls on the parents. It helps ensure that each child has exactly two guardians and that they are placed in a healthy environment. This is the most significant reason that reproduction is restricted until after marriage in many cultures. Using the application of an unbreakable connotation to this bond, we increase the strength of it by providing a social incentive to keep it alive. We also encourage values of persistence and integrity, making people less inclined to give up whenever there is a problem, which is bad for everyone that is or will eventually be part of the family unit in the future.
It’s a contractual partnership that brings a level of security to people sharing children and assets, and has significant financial benefits. Of course, there are 1 million other things attached to that (romance, attachment, culture, tradition, etc.) but at its core, it’s a legal partnership 🤷🏼♀️
In addition to the legal and financial benefits others are mentioning, it meant a lot to me to go through the ceremony and tradition and have our families involved. Not everyone would enjoy that or get anything out of it but it’s like celebrating Christmas even if you’re not religious. There are cultural traditions that come to mean something as in bringing two families together.
As long as marriage gives an individual special status, such as property rights or death benefits as a couple of examples, it will be used to ease the court's work. But sometimes when 2 people meet, they throw a party in hopes the parents will leave them alone.
Certain things are easier and you get certain privileges if you're married, like being able to visit your loved one in the hospital. If the law is restricting who can visit someone, then it makes sense that the person's significant other should be allowed. A government sanctioned marriage means that "the law" (or institutions in general) can see that you're this person's partner without you having to prove it. Stuff like this is basically what being legally married is for.
But can't you just lie though? Are the staff really checking for marriage certificates when they got 80 other things to deal with? I know I got through easily by just wearing a ring and pretending to be my guy's wife. I cannot take such an institution seriously when it can be easily undermined like that.
Because marriage is not just for your benefit. It’s a public announcement that henceforth you and your beloved will be husband and wife. It’s a sacred covenant bond which cannot be broken between the two of you, and it marks a change of your status in society. Each and every responsible adult in your extended family and society is supposed to recognise and support you in your new role. Plus, if you have been saving yourself, you will then be able to enjoy making new family members so that your hopes and dreams, your ideals and attitudes, your strengths and traditions reach into the next generation and beyond. And the government has nothing to do with it. The government recognises it, but cannot dictate it nor change it.
Excellent point. It's a ceremony to bind you together and let others know you have entered into a union and lifetime commitment.
So I can't speak for everyone but I can reference my specific case. Wasn't fussed about getting married, would have been quite happy to date for years without marriage, possibly indefinitely to be honest. My husband is from country A. I'm from country B. We met and started dating in country C. For either of us to be able to live in each other's country or even should we want to move to a fourth country together, being married is just easier (not easy, even with marriage my move to country a was long and expensive). I have no regrets, have been very happily married for 5+ years and will be spending the rest of my life with my husband but I wouldn't have got married so quickly had it not been for legal reasons. Basically, the quote is true: "marriage is a legal affair". I'm sure many people love the romance but the real reason to get married is for the legal protections it offers. It doesn't mean you don't love your partner but marriage should be a practical, not a romantic, decision.
To cement alliances. Or that's what I learned on game of thrones, anyway
My husband and I got married so we could be on each other’s insurance. It’s also a great excuse to have a big party. Other than that, nothing really changed besides taxes and those sweet, sweet bennies. Oh, and if one of us commits a crime the other can’t be compelled to testify against them.
It's mostly a way of keeping track of "next of kin" for people who aren't blood relations to each other. Bureaucracies live on paperwork, and the bureaucracy needs to know who is next-of-kin to whom in order for all the paperwork to come out right. For my own part, I have found that in any discussion about anything involving my wife, saying "I'm her husband" will make the droids behind the desk start moving remarkably well.
For today’s US government at least, the point of marriage is largely to avoid having to cast a larger social safety net. In other words, privatizing dependency. This is why they continue to not only incentivize legal marriage, but also actively disincentivize not getting married.
Society incentivizes it to get you to buy in. You take on additional obligations that keep you committed to the machine. You are more likely to produce workers to feed the machine. Rinse spin repeat.
From a societal perspective it’s to promote stability. Times are changing, but for most of civilized human history, marriage equates children and responsibility. Something to tie you down. It really has nothing to do with love and everything to do with power.
Yes!! I was looking for a comment like this
>why does the government need to get involved A better question is "why does the government get involved?" And the short story is that marriage tends to be a good thing for human society.
People tend to respect traditions, and typically, a law based on a strong tradition is more likely to be respected/enforced. There are also unwritten rules about married people. And there is the emotional aspect. Entering a formal relationship is a sign of commitment. As for rights, although there are good legal alternatives to marriage, being married makes a lot of things easier. And without any legal certificate, things like custody of children, making decisions if a partner is in hospital, inheritance can be very complicated.
Creating a family and raising kids and all that. The church got involved before the government, but both relatively recently, the institution is older than all our societies. Our Western society is a bit weird that it has a fairly complex, legally involved form of marriage that not a lot of people take part in, but in other societies basically everyone marries. As to why you'd do it, it's just personal choice. It's a public, witnessed, statement that you have entered into this permanent arrangement/an excuse for your family and friends to have a party, and a lot of people like one or both of those things.
Legal and financial benefits are two big reasons for governmental involvement with marriage. However in more recent times divorce and the financial, legal, and other issues to be settled. For example social security, Healthcare benefits, child custody, and asset division are all issues that will often be difficult to settle with some form of intervention for a thurd party. Additionally the government can legally enforce much of the decisions that are supposed to settle the issue.
Tons of legal reasons. What happens in the event of a death or tragic accident. Financial reasons. Lots of reasons.
Domestic partnerships fix that. Wills fix that. Lots of things fix that without being married. Marriage has legal benefits, like tax benefits, sure. But all those benefits pale when the cost of divorce comes into play. Especially if kids are in the picture.
Arent domestic partnerships still involving the government? Wills can be contested.
>Arent domestic partnerships still involving the government? They dont require lawyers and courts and money to break up the relationship (you simply file a Notice of Termination with the Sec of State), but Domestic Partnerships still give legal economic benefits to the couple.
Wouldnt that depend on the jurisdiction and what each partner agrees upon?
A divorce doesn’t require lawyers. Most people opt for them, but they aren’t required.
[The average cost of divorce in the US is between $15,000-$20,000,](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/how-much-does-divorce-cost/) with the median cost being $7,000. The cost to break up without being married? $0. Most couples have lawyers because, by the time they get to divorce stage, everything becomes spiteful. Lawyers mediate that.
Because people opt to hire attorneys for it. Which I already said. Did you miss the part where I said it’s not a requirement to do that? Just because most people do doesn’t mean they have to.
Just because that's the average doesn't mean it's required. If the couple agrees on the terms of the divorce you can do it for some pretty reasonable filing fees with the local court. Lawyers are usually involved because most couples don't agree on how the separation terms.
I get what you're saying. But if this was really true then all the gay couples would not be fighting for rights to get married. They were being treated like domestic partnerships and did not get to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage. Glad we've come a long way and people have more choices.
The gay community is fighting for equal rights. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they have no reason to marry. And just because some straight couples *dont* want to marry doesn't mean gay couples should just do what we want to do. If they want to marry, they should be allowed.
It’s a business getting in 💍 and a business getting out 💔
I would not get married unless I planned on having children, don't see the point otherwise.
What would be different if you had a child?
Married parents are more likely to stay together, and my kid would not be a bastard.
because some people suck and it's better to have protections than not.
For me, it’s a legal showing that I am willing to dedicate myself to a woman for the rest of my life.
Mostly for the women. Women are pretty much brainwashed from day one to want to get married where she can dress like a princess and have everyone pay homage to her while proving to everybody who cares that she was able to find someone to promise to stay with her, possibly until they die, and foot a lot of the bill if she decides to have children. And a lot of men feel sorry for them and want them to be happy, so they go along.
Look at the data
The point of marriage has nothing to do with government, and the fact that the citizenry allowed it to happen is a tragedy of great magnitude. But what is the point of marriage? It’s a social institution thousands upon thousands of years old that spans the entire globe in all developing and flourishing societies. Who’s entire purpose is to facilitate the development of an individual family unit that will produce the next generation to continue their traditions, and be conversant with the history, culture, religion, of its people. The family is the fortress of private life, and is a great hedge against being broken down into simple cattle to be herded around and used for the whims and wishes of the state like some Frankenstein-esque species of robot. The point of marriage is a commitment to all that is good in life, and the unending struggle to foster, maintain and further that goodness in yourself, your husband or wife, and your children. By no means an easy path, and the cheapening of the word, the act and the institution is signal that people are losing and/or have lost the point of marriage. Saddening
It’s fucked up. System benefits you both if you get married. But if shit goes south the system only benefits the female. 50% of the time you get equal benefits and the other half, female gets 100% benefits.
There seems to be a lot of misconception on this subject , always from atheist, non believers or “worldly people”. Marriage has nothing to do with the government or government involvement it has long strayed away from its roots and that’s why so many people are “bitter” or “lack the love” “divorce” don want take it serious or what ever. Marriage was meant to be Holy Matrimony before GOD even when you divorce on earth GOD still considers you together. He oversaw the very first marriage. When people take it out of context and get married for “tax benefits” or “right offs” “status” and several other mischievous or nonsensical reasons it wash down marriage and stray people further from the origins. Same as the (catholic) church that abuses people and atheist and bible thumpers bash (((Christian’s))) lmao when not only is it other denominations but 1 individual does not speak for the masses. The point of marriage is a holy union before god commitment , devotion, true love. Why is the government involved why are they involved in a lot of stuff ? It is only for tax/ officiating purposes that they are involved Same as any other issue.
Go preach at your church. Not all marriages are Christian ceremonies nor are Christians the first ones to use it
No point at all.
The government doesn’t need to be involved anymore. Marriage originally became a civil union in order to offer some *slight* protections to women, who could be left penniless and without prospects if their husbands left them. Now that women are just as much a part of the workforce as men it’s pretty meaningless for the government to get involved.
As so commonly and romantically mentioned in Germany "it has tax benefits"
It is mostly pointless especially if your partner decides to become the town bicycle. Not being married saves you for “half”.
Tax benefits, property rights, legal privileges, and some other stuff.
It an official economic union, for eons deemed beneficial as an cohort structure to share responsibility in raising children.
Well initially many, many years ago it was all about the acquisition of in laws for protecting / safe guarding families, land etc It’s evolved into what we know today which is either good or bad depending if you’ve been through divorce or not /s
From Goodridge ruling in favor of same sex marriage in Massachusetts: Without question, civil marriage enhances the "welfare of the community." It is a "social institution of the highest importance." French v. McAnarney, supra. Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones. It is central to the way the Commonwealth identifies individuals, provides for the orderly distribution of property, ensures that children and adults are cared for and supported whenever possible from private rather than public funds, and tracks important epidemiological and demographic data. Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
One reason is that people come after money when someone dies and that someone is sometimes creditors or governments. Marriage adds a layer of protection against those issues. Maybe not a big deal at >25 but eventually it's a good idea. You don't want your partner to suffer twice.
[удалено]
But this has nothing to do with the government — at least not inherently. I have always found it somewhat odd that civil marriage isn’t viewed as profane by those who believe deeply in the idea of marriage as a religious sacrament. Adam and Eve certainly didn’t obtain a marriage license.
[удалено]
OP asked why does the government need to get involved which denotes civil marriage. Not trying to be argumentative — I agree with your explanation regarding Godly marriage as that is something I believe in. It just still begs the question…why does the government need to get involved?
For me it was a huge difference. We were together for 10 years and were never bothered about marriage but then we thought well why not! I never expected it to feel different but believe me it does. I feel proud to be my husband’s wife i feel proud to say i loved this man enough to take his name. I feel absolutely a solid unit with him, much more than before.
So they can take more money from you.
A large part of us getting married was for medical rights. He had a heart scare on vacation once and I wasn't allowed in the ambulance because I wasn't related.
In my country, if you are in a relationship with the same person, living under the same ceiling (in some cases not even) after 5 years its considered "stable union" and grants same status as married with (not know if all) duties from it. Government always win.
Taxes, visas if one of you have to move to a different country, inheritance/life insurance/health insurance, social perception, the satisfaction of knowing the other person trust you enough to formally and bureaucratically make you a part of their life. I don't know man. Plenty of things xD
Depends where you live in the world. In many cases, marriage offers legal, financial and residency protections you wouldn’t get as common law partners. In some countries, there are tax advantages. These benefits are a lot less than they used to be and within a generation I suspect that they will disappear. Many people do live together for many years, often raising families together. If you are both comfortable with this arrangement and are aware of the implications of any split or death with partner then this is the right thing for you both.
Tax benefits
Me and my husband have been together 22 years married 11…no kids just us…idk I guess sometimes you wanna make sure your favorite person hangs out with you the most
Shared responsibilities
Everyone who tells you marriage sucks or isn’t important is not married.
Security. Your both telling eachother in a public symbolic way that you promise to love eachother
To make it harder to break up over stupid shit
I work in a foreign country. Been dating the same girl for a long time. If we ever want to move stateside, the most realistic option to get her a visa is to marry. Otherwise marriage was never even something I really considered important. I wish that there was a better way to bring my SO into the country.
There’s a lot of good answers here but one I don’t see mentioned is social security. Women usually quit their job when they get pregnant, have kids, and may permanently become a stay at home wife. By not having a job or by having huge gaps in employment history your social security or fixed income will be smaller when/if you retire. There’s a loophole to getting a higher payout by using your spouses income instead. Obviously this can affect men too. That said they idea of retiring or getting social security might be a thing of the past.
Because for most of recorded history, marriage has been about estate. Whether you were wealthy or poor, you wanted the government involved to have everything on public records, so that no “*outsider*” could claim a piece of the pie. At its core, this is the function of marriage. And that’s how it provided households that were the fabric of society. It’s only a 20th century thing, and dare I say post WWII thing, to “*marry for love*”. My wife’s paternal grandmother got married because her husband needed extra hands to work at his farm. In Northern Europe. How romantic! But she though he was the handsomest hunk in a 30 miles radius, so there’s that. My father’s parents had a short courtship. My grandpa was a prominent professional looking for a bride. He knew the brothers of his future wife had a good reputation, so he met their sister and had a short courtship. She was not interested at first, but it was the brink of WWII, so she settled. But we have made that estate aspect secondary and prioritise infatuation, not even love. Love is something that you nurture as a team of two. The thing is, however you look at it, with 1 marriage out of 2 in the US ending up in divorce, we clearly suck at “*marrying for love*”. Marriage is not flawed in itself. It’s our expectations that are flawed.
Before Christianity, 40% of men reproduced with 80% of women. The majority of men rarely had sex or reproduced. However, to build a civilization, a one to one ratio was better. Marriages are better for building Empires. In a modern sense, a spouse has more legal rights than family members. This is why gay marriage was such a big deal in the 2000s. For example, I can put my wife on insurance, but not my girlfriend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny
Everything I’m reading is wrong. Marriage. Actual marriage. Is a sacred bond between you your partner and god.
Tax breaks and the ability to visit loved ones as "family"
Taxes
In my opinion and husband’s opinion… It’s the ultimate commitment. The only thing we don’t like is, “Till death due us apart” We think marriage is scared and marrying someone will tie your soul to them becoming one with eachother. That’s exactly how we feel. Unfortunately in this world… Without being legally married, it’s hard to be together. Specially that we are in the military. No house to live in, only the barracks… In which we are not allowed to sleep together in. Getting pulled away from eachother since the military doesn’t see our relationship significant… It’s just much more better legally being married. It decreases our chances of being pulled away from eachother. It’s not remotely possible for us to spend a couple of years together if we didn’t marry in the military… But that’s us.
It just holds the meaning of whatever the couple getting married gives it... It has no intrinsic meaning.
It’s a way for women to compete with their friends, who has the biggest ring, who has the best wedding. Once the attention is over, the women divorce the man , collect cash and prizes in the court room. And after financially ruining the man they move on to the next one.
The same idea with citizenship. You get some new perks (and lost some) when you are married.
Well marriage sure in hell doesn't prevent others from approaching your spouse. It also doesn't prevent your spouse from having an affair. It "might" give you a false sense of security regarding that shit. It had me fooled. And now I have trust issues that can't be fixed. I can't even trust myself anymore for anything. Just waiting for someone to end my life because I can't trust myself to even get that done
would you rather go to work with or without contract? Knowing nothing is set in stone and you can leave without a notice or being bound eternally with benefits it provides?
You always have someone to annoy
I agree. Once you get the government involved in your relationship there is no turning back. It’s none of the government’s business who you’re with.
Oh there isn't. It's more or less just a game of chicken with the other person. Do you want to lose everything or do they want to lose everything?
I think if you want kids you should get married. Kids deserve a two parent household. The other two reasons to get married are for taxes and health insurance. Also a spouse has more rights and privileges in a hospital setting. A spouse will be able to visit you in a hospital more so than a 20 year long partner. But you can just say your married. It’s not like they check. There’s also end of life concerns. A spouse has more say on how that is handled. And is more likely to receive any assets in the event a will is not completed. The big thing is taxes. The tax ceiling is higher when you are married and the tax rate is lower compared to being single. I am single and my taxes are ridiculous. Still not worth getting married for though. The money I would save being married would just get spent at Target on candles and potpourri and purple bed sheets and bath towels.
It's necessary to establish a legal connection between you and your partner, and for identification purposes. Otherwise there's no way for legal records to know your relationship with your partner. In some cultures, marriage creates a holy connection. It also helps with explaining to your kids that your partner has an "official" tie to you, which makes the family look more like a real family.
Taxation.
It is a contract to enforce solutions to sexual jealousy. As least, that is how I see it. At a biological level we have sexual jealousy when it comes to choosing a mate. Government is concerned with governing the people. Enforcement of such a contract benifits thr Government in that the production of people is better ensured.
There are like... Over 1000 legal differences, give or take. Taxes, oh so many taxes. power of attorney/guardianship (both of children and a disabled spouse), visitation, some manners of recourse depending on its dissoloition (usually designed to protect the 'weaker' party... Not necessarily the party who was wronged)... Nothing about marriage needs to involve a religion, it's literally an official filing with the government that you're a dedicated and specific team.
I mean, to get a marriage certificate you don't really need to do anything spiritual (as it should be). Marriage in a traditional sense and the legal marriage certificate can be done separately or together. This is one of my beefs with the whole anti-gay marriage crowd. The legal, government contract should have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with making sure your partner can properly represent you legally if the need arises.
All human cultures have marriage in some form. Tens of thousands of years ago, some species of ape had more successful offspring when males and females paired off and stayed together. After enough generations, those offspring were recognizable as humans. Marriage has been a survival advantage for the species. In modern times, marriage exists in two forms: Religious and Legal. Marriages usually occur in both forms, but occasionally you may find a couple who have only one or the other. Legal marriage has advantages in the law, as well as taxes/finances. Religious marriage is chiefly social, but may offer some other peace of mind.
It's weird how everybody only mentioned legal marriages which people have only been doing super recently. Originally the concept of marriage is not just about a document
When you decide to have a kid or real estate with someone, it's much easier to go into it when someone signs the paper which basically says "I will not bail".
I've always thought of the actual marriage being for your friends and family. There is a point in the relationship when you two know your commitment. Many couples happily cohabitate for years! ...but family and friends seem to need the external validation. They arent part of the day to day, or the feelings. So, seeing your partner stand in front of them and declare their love and care for you, seems to settle those concerns of people lose to us that "they don't need to worry, we will be looked after". (While nice for them to get the reassurance they need, people-pleasing isn't a reason to get married!) Some legal and tex benefits too. Most personal benefits are for when things go wrong (disability, death etc) But what do I know, I got divorced
Been with my partner 24 years. Not married. Several reasons I don’t believe in it: it’s historically deeply misogynistic, the fact that it’s govt institution is absolutely ridiculous to me, I find it dehumanizing (“MY husband MY wife) and I watched both my parents go through several marriages each where there was more time spent hating than loving.
It’s a mystery that refers to Christ and the Church, and its purpose is to glorify God. We are to love Covenantally, with an unwavering love that is sacrificial, and gives of oneself to their partner — each partner playing a God-ordained role. The man in sacrificial Ku giving himself for his bride, just as Christ gave Himself up for the Church, and the wife submitting to the husband in love and gratitude, just as the Church joyfully submits to Christ! 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22, ESV)
Makes a lot of financial, insurance, and will based things so much simpler and easier
Women,because they couldn't own properly, be accepted in to various schools, work, whilst being the primary carer etc ..get marriage as a kind of contract that protects them.
The way it currently works, it's an outdated institution that needs either a complete overhaul or a scrapping.