Would you accept marriage without legal declaration?

[PratyekaYana]

Is the comfortable medium between those who view marriage as I do (ultimately unnecessary and entailing of intolerable risk) and those of a more traditional bent to be found in a mutual concession to ritual? Can it be said, under these circumstances, that both parties would be satisfied in accordance with their respective marital ideologies?

 

The most common argument that I hear in favor of marriage draws upon the emotionally (and, in some cases, spiritually) transformative effect that entering into such a union is supposed to induce. By publicly submitting to your significant other in front of a grouping of your peers, family, and perhaps even in the presence of your concept of deity, you demonstrate true commitment, loyalty, and devotion to that individual in a way that transcends less formal declarations.

 

Legally this makes absolutely no sense to me. A contract authorized and acknowledged by the state does not a sacred bond make. From a sociological standpoint, however, I get it; I understand the power of ritual. All the trappings of a wedding are in fact components of ritual that help to shift the newly christened couple into a certain frame of mind when they consider themselves in relation to one another.

 

Having accepted this, I began thinking: if I were to meet a woman--who valued and desired marriage--that I was head-over-heels in love with, while keeping my opinion of marriage consistent, could I please her and myself by agreeing to a marital ceremony for the sake of ceremony/ritual itself? If she requires that kind of public declaration to see our union as legitimate, so to speak, could I not provide that for her by designing such a ritual where we openly declare our bond minus all of that legal jazz?

 

What do the ladies of the LS community think? Would you gals settle for ceremony over legal binding? Keep in mind that I don't want children, either, so there are no issues of lineage (as understood through taking the father's surname) to consider.

[lovelylove]

Yes, as I have been legally married before and have three grown children, I see no reason for the legal bond. I don't even want a wedding. I DO want his last name, rings, and for us to call each other husband and wife to others.

I don't care about the legal part.

What's not so funny, is my current boyfriend of a year, is willing to live together, is "opposed to marriage" as his ended badly, but still won't do the above as I suggested. He has bought me jewelry for holidays etc, and this year asked me what I wanted and I said "a ring". He got upset. It's obviously not marriage he doesn't want, he just wants to keep his options open... and not commit to me.

Our days are numbered. I am gradually emotionally detaching from him (quick breakups are NOT something I am able to do... big problem of mine, I'll probably let it drag out another year or two, sigh).

So, yes. I would totally go for that. Heck even if my BF asked me to marry him I'd be happy.... and feel married.... without even actually marrying him. My first marriage lasted 20 years, and the day I felt married was when he proposed, not on my wedding day!

[Niyya12]

As a human being we not think for legally. but its necessary you legally. Because in some situation its very necessary. because without legal papers you not do anything. For precaution its very very necessary.

[tigressA]

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to something like that. I could go either way, really--legal or not. I'm flexible.

[denise_xo]

I have never been concerned with getting married per se (I'd be fine with cohabitation), so it wouldn't be a problem with me. I would, however, want legal issues sorted in terms of any shared property and so on.

[PegNosePete]

The declaration from the state that a couple/roommates are living in common law marriage varies from Country to Country. In Brazil its about 6 months, in Australia less than one year.

And in the UK thankfully we don't have any of that nonsense. Although the pen-pushers have tried to introduce it a few times it has always failed.

 

If you're married and split up then things are split according to the law.

 

If you're not married and split up then you keep what's yours and have 50% of what's shared.

 

The ONLY way a person has to protect their assets is to make the choice to not get married. That is not a choice that should be removed.

[EyesWideOpen]

I don't think I would. My take would be that if you are willing to make a social statement to profess a union...then why not make it legal? It would make me wonder if he's half-heartedly marrying me.

 

Plus the tax benefit. Why give up a free tax benefit?

[Arabella]

No, I would not be content with just a social statement about our relationship. Marriage is also a legal commitment that involves finances and whatever children may result from the union.

 

If he is afraid of entering such a legal commitment with me, then he's not the right person for me. I have a bright career ahead of me and I stand to lose just as much as my SO, financially speaking. If I am willing to risk that to be his wife, he should be willing to do the same.

 

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to get married, but it's definitely something that should be discussed early on to ensure both parties are on the same page. This way, both can make the decision to continue or end the relationship if it's something they cannot do without.

 

Arabella

[carhill]

One potential:

 

Had Mark Schiavo not been married to his wife Terri, would he have prevailed over her parents and the state in allowing her to die after a number of years in a coma? If he had been only a domestic partner, with no legal ties to her, what voice would he have had in the process?

 

That's one tiny aspect of the power of the marriage license. Marriage certainly isn't for everyone, but go into an intimate, potentially lifelong partnership with one's eyes wide open about the realities. There are risks and rewards to every choice. Good luck

 

Myself, I will never cohabit with anyone in an unmarried state.

[Tayla]

Carhill, I respect your example and as you stated there are pros and cons to that very concept. Which is why I am pro- pre nup if ever I stepped into a legally acceptable marriage by modern standards.

 

I worked in a medical facility where spouses made such ludicrious decisions based on their ill spouses long term care that I vowed then that no one other then a Power of Attorney would be given the rights to make an objective decision on my long term health care. Some families are either out to see ya depart early or keep ya on life support because your monies/assets can be withdrawn before the will is read and taxed.

 

I vote that if you are both adults and can make the commitment, its not the governments place to intervene how you manage your life style. A legal document doesnt make for a loving marriage its the people in it that do.

[carhill]

I worked in a medical facility where spouses made such ludicrious decisions based on their ill spouses long term care that I vowed then that no one other then a Power of Attorney would be given the rights to make an objective decision on my long term health care.

 

Thanks for that. I often heard the same stories from the angels at my mom's facility. Fortunately, she and my dad took care of all of the legalities to facilitate my role as care manager long before she ever needed those instruments. Therein lies the differences. When she cared for him while he was dying, her legal status as spouse opened doors without legalities, whereas properly constructed, updated and filed legal documents were required for me to fulfill a similar role when her time came. In many ways, legally, I was no different from a domestic partner, and perhaps superior, functionally, due to the blood relationship.

 

Tip: For both your health care and financial POA's, be sure to nominate a successor. Also, periodically have the documents reviewed by a lawyer for compliance with the latest statutes and to incorporate changes which reflect the latest methods of discharging the duties of attorney in fact. A few mistakes in that area cost me a ton of money and a few trips in front of a judge. As much as I like 'freedom', we are a nation of laws and it's inevitable to have the government in our business in some form or fashion.

 

The good news is, for women my age who wish to have a 'marriage' without a legal declaration, there are many, many men happy to oblige them. Win-win

[aerogurl87]

No I wouldn't. Primarily because I think it'd be pretty dumb to have a commitment ceremony unless I was in a gay or lesbian relationship, which I'm not. My boyfriend and I will technically be common law married in a year but we both want to be legally married for family, religious, and legal reasons. For our families so they won't completely disown us. Religious reasons because it's important for us to have a marriage that is recognised by our faith and that's only gonna happen with a legal marriage. Legally because it will help with us not being torn apart later on down the road since him and I are citizens of two different countries for now.

[Stung]

And in Canada they tried to a pass a law that if in effect, would make any man obliged to give half of his resources to the the woman he went out, for at least 3 dates(sex or no sex wouldn't even matter).

 

Free sex sure is getting expensive.

 

Can you provide links on this, please?

[eerie_reverie]

I don't think I would. My take would be that if you are willing to make a social statement to profess a union...then why not make it legal? It would make me wonder if he's half-heartedly marrying me.

 

Plus the tax benefit. Why give up a free tax benefit?

 

exactly. if you're not willing to go 100% i would question if you're 100% in.

 

and i have been looking forward to the tax benefits for as long as i can remember.

[Woggle]

Tax benefits don't make up for the possible cheating happening in a marriage(done by a woman or a man), they don't make up for the trauma of returning home only to have been kicked out, the misery of seeing your children a few times a month, having some other guy raise your kids, and it doesn't make up for all of the problems and endless complications that can and do come up in a marriage.

 

For tax benefits?

 

How to make sure that you can live a comfortable life, but without having to work like a horse for it?

 

Save your money by not spending it on trivial stuff, and have as little expenses as possible. That is just not possible in a marriage even when the woman is working.

 

If you want the truth speak to a non-feminized lawyer, or talk to a lawyer who has nothing to gain by lying to you.

 

The laws in every European and North American Country are very draconian.Those laws were created to benefit the state, only. If you lot are so interested in marriage, make it so that all negative laws are destroyed, and make it lasting.

 

Oh, and also take away no fault divorce. You lot have the funny habit of wanting to get married, but getting out of it as soon as it doesn't go your own way. I wonder why.

 

I also wonder at the statistics that prove that 70% of the no fault divorces are initiated by women.

 

So, who's going to tell me that the women were emotionally abused, or raped, or the man cheated on them? Kinda strange that after the time the couple spent together - when they were still single - the man now cheats or emotionally abuses the woman. Now that he has so far more to lose and how easily he can end up in jail for missing out on those alimony or child-support checks.

 

I really do wonder at that.

 

I can't even argue with this. If a woman truly wants more men to commit they should fight to make it so that a man's life isn't completely destroyed when she wakes up one day and wants him out. Not all women do this but the fact that the legal system gives them the power to do so scares the crap out of a lot of men.