Is legal marriage necessary?

[suchende]

The percentage of children born out of wedlock in America has doubled several times over since the 1960s, and I know from personal experience this isn't always an accident: two of my law school professors have opted out of marriage but are forging ahead with kids. Some celebrities say they won't get married until same-sex marriage is allowed nationwide.

So what's so great about legal marriage anyway? What are the advantages and drawbacks? Are kids bond enough? Would you still want a legal marriage if there were no tax benefit or even a tax penalty? If you didn't need a spouse's health insurance? Why? Why not?

ETA chart.

 

[Autumnovember]

This is going to be a very very interesting thread.

I predict lots of ------>

 

[MonkeyPie]

It isn't necessary, but it makes a lot of things easier.

Personally, I would have married my husband for the emotional connection that taking his last name gave me. I don't care if it's "just a piece of paper". Again, personally, it seems like you just want an easy escape route. ETA: the generic you, not YOU.

 

[suchende]

It isn't necessary, but it makes a lot of things easier.

Personally, I would have married my husband for the emotional connection that taking his last name gave me. I don't care if it's "just a piece of paper". Again, personally, it seems like you just want an easy escape route. ETA: the generic you, not YOU.

haha, I assumed. after all, i'm on the fence!

but i do think, when you have kids with someone, there is no "easy escape route."

 

[lbbaber]

I love my SO very very much. I KNOW that we will be together for the long run and that he is "the one" for me...that being said...we are getting married next week----but ONLY bc I need medical insurance. If it wasnt for that, I would be fine keeping things as they are now. We have a child together. We have a home together. Everything has been perfect WITHOUT the marriage...it just doesnt seem as important TO ME anymore.

This will be my 2nd marriage. After my 1st disaster of a marriage I learned that the legal contract means nothing other than tax breaks and health insurance. It wont make your relationship any better. It wont make him a better man. It wont stop a loser from cheating (or even other girls from sleeping with him bc he's married). It wont gaurantee a lifetime together.The marriage is no longer the important thing in my mind.

I ALWAYS thought I wanted to be married...but after getting REALLY HURT and F'd over by my 1st husband my views have changed. Now that I have found "the one"---a real decent man and a fantastic father to BOTH my children...the contract doesnt mean as much. But bc I am a SAHM now, I no longer have medical so I am finally giving in and marrying him. I LOVE HIM TO DEATH but the marriage certificate doensnt mean as much to me anymore.

Edited to add: I am not taking into consideration people's religious beliefs about marriage. Religion is a topic I would rather not discuss on a public forum but I do understand that religion can play a big role in one's decision to marry and I respect that (and I also respect those who DO value marriage. Its just not for me)

 

[Jennifer W]

It's necessary for me, because it feels awesome. What anyone else does is none of my business.

I don't share a last name or a bank account with my spouse. All we have is that we're married. Intangible, but more important to us than any other trapping of 'joint' or commitment. We lived together for a long time before we got married. The two states seem quite different to me, on an emotional level.

 

[yssie]

There are benefits to having the papers besides tax breaks.


That said, I think the term "marriage" should just be done away with - it causes all sorts of problems, doesn't it? Just call all unions "civil unions" - hetero & homosexual - and give everyone the same legal niceties and be done with it. A religious doctrine may preach about Marriage but I've never heard of one that dictates the proper nature of Civil Unions - let people who care about the religious/cultural aspect have Marriage ceremonies of their own, and let people who feel that Marriages should not be permitted between certain groups for religious reasons win that battle.

 

[Jennifer W]

There are benefits to having the papers besides tax breaks.


That said, I think the term "marriage" should just be done away with - it causes all sorts of problems, doesn't it? Just call all unions "civil unions" - hetero & homosexual - and give everyone the same legal niceties and be done with it. A religious doctrine may preach about Marriage but I've never heard of one that dictates the proper nature of Civil Unions - let people who care about the religious/cultural aspect have Marriage ceremonies of their own, and let people who feel that Marriages should not be permitted between certain groups for religious reasons win that battle.

Yssie, that's an excellent point - when I talk about marriage, I know what it means to me, but I don't mean for that to exclude anyone who choses that type of union. Here, we have civil partnerships and marriage, but there is a lot of legal and social pressure to move to marriage only, regardless of gender. I personally don't care if it's called marriage or civil partnership, but I do care that it's not entirely equal yet.

 

[suchende]

There are benefits to having the papers besides tax breaks.

Can you please elaborate on this, Yssie? I am seeing a trend that it means something intangible to people who've taken "the plunge" but for the uninitiated these other benefits aren't necessarily obvious.

 

[Jennifer W]

As far as I know, there are no real tax incentives to marriage in Scotland. We did it anyway. What can I say? We were in love. It's awesome, being married (in my very limited experience).

 

[kenny]

No.
Air is necessary.
So is water and food - if you want to sustain life.
So, define "necessary".

I'm gay.
Instead of us gaining marriage equality I'd rather see marriage itself left to the dust bins of history.

Love someone?
Fine, live with them till death do you part, or not.
Marriage vows are meaningless if divorce is possible.

I think all the marriage-related tax stuff and job benefits stuff should be done away with because it is discriminatory.
It is using public policy to pressure people into being one way, married.
IOW it is intolerance of diversity.
Why should those not married get paid less for the same work via benefit package that costs the employer less?
I say pay everyone the same and let everyone buy they own benefits in the private market.
Got 6 kids? Well you should have to pay more to insure them.

Religions are free to do whatever they want and name whatever they want whatever they want and recognize or not recognize whatever they want . . . like they do already.
Don't like it? Don't join that religion.
Just don't impose your religion's teachings on the general public - I don't care if you DO have a majority.

This is my opinion.

 

[lbbaber]

Marriage vows are meaningless if divorce is possible.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Jennifer W]

No.


I'm gay.
Instead of us gaining marriage equality I'd rather see marriage itself left to the dust bins of history.



I think all the marriage-related tax stuff and job benefits stuff should be done away with because it is discriminatory.
It is using public policy to pressure people into being one way, married.
IOW it is intolerance of diversity.
Why should those not married get paid less for the same work via benefit package that costs the employer less?
I say pay everyone the same and let everyone buy they own benefits in the private market.
Got 6 kids? Well you should have to pay more to insure them.

Religions are free to do whatever they want and name whatever they want whatever they want and recognize or not recognize whatever they want . . . like they do already.
Don't like it? Don't join that religion.
Just don't impose your religion's teachings on the general public - I don't care if you DO have a majority.

This is my opinion.

Why do you want to consign something that makes people happy, that people want and actively seek out for themselves to history? What about gay people who would like to get married? If you're truly interested in diversity, why not let people choose how, when or if they formalise their relationship? There's room for more than one approach.

On the marriage related benefits, I could not agree more - I'm actually a little bit shocked that they exist. They would be considered discriminatory and unlawful here.

I don't think there's anything inappropriate or anything necessary about marriage in the abstract - I like it and it works for me, but as I said from the outset, I don't have a view on what anyone else does - it's none of my business.

eta I don't think the fact that some people choose or are forced to set vows aside makes them meaningless for everyone who takes them. That's a bit like saying it's meaningless to set up a contract requiring a loan to be repaid because some people choose or are forced to avoid the debt.

 

[iheartscience]

Hmm...interesting questions! I didn't feel particularly different after my husband and I got married, but I do think there's something special about celebrating your relationship with all of your loved ones at a wedding. That said, you don't need the legal part of marriage to have that big day. (As I'm sure my gay friends who have had non-legal weddings/commitment ceremonies can attest.) But being legally bound does make it feel a smidge more "official", I suppose.

As for the tax benefits, I think it's discriminatory that straight married couples receive benefits when gay couples (even ones who have been legally married in their state) can't get those same benefits. (Although I know that in some cases filing jointly means there's a tax penalty, that wasn't the case for me and my husband.) My husband works for an awesome company that offers insurance for domestic partners (straight or gay), so I actually had dental insurance through him before we were married. So neither of those would really sway me either way. And I don't have kids but I'd bet that kids are a pretty strong bond whether you're married or not.

I would imagine my answers would be different if I were religious, though. A justice of the peace married me and my husband.

 

[VapidLapid]

being legal next of kin
inheritance of property
right to division of property
right to not testify against your spouse when spouse behaves feloniously
sharing some benefits that are extended to family units like access to health insurance if one has and the other doesnt,
right to continuance of family contracts taken out by one spouse ( say couple lived in apartment previously just one partners and that partners name is still the lease holder but that partner dies...)
Right to made DNR and pulling the plug decisions for each other
Most if of this could be accomplished with a contract.

 

[suchende]

I personally find the idea of celebrating my relationship with family and friends odd. Not to disparage other people's weddings, but I don't enjoy being the center of attention, don't want all eyes on me, am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of even a little bit of speculation about what happens during the "wedding night," etc. So that part seems quite odd to me, from my particular perspective.

I think Kenny's going to come out on the right side of history: marriage does seem to be getting phased out. If we got rid of the tax/health benefit incentives, I'd guess it would fall off even more in the U.S.

 

[Jennifer W]

Not necessarily - these benefits aren't common (or even lawful) in plenty other countries, yet marriage remains a valid and popular choice.
I think that's my point - it is a choice. You don't have to do it, but you don't have any business telling anyone else not to (not YOU you, but you in general).

 

[suchende]

Not necessarily - these benefits aren't common (or even lawful) in plenty other countries, yet marriage remains a valid and popular choice.
I think that's my point - it is a choice. You don't have to do it, but you don't have any business telling anyone else not to (not YOU you, but you in general).

While it may remain popular, I think you'll find that the marriage rate in Europe has been steadily declining over the same period (since the 1960s).

ETA: one chart from the BBC for England since 1980

 

[Jennifer W]

It is declining, I don't think there's any question about that, partly because people do now have choices that they didn't have before. That's a result of increased acceptance of diversity, which I believe in and support wholeheartedly. Eliminating marriage, or consigning it to history does not strike me as a healthy, diverse approach, but as a limitation on freedom. I think it should remain on the statute books as an option for those who wish to choose it. I don't think it's a necessity (obviously it isn't, or unmarried couples wouldn't survive - as Kenny pointed out, air and water etc are necessary) but I do think it's a necessary freedom, along with every other forms of relationship.

Eta, I'd stress again that I do not believe or feel comfortable with the idea that there should be any material benefit to be derived only from a heterosexual marriage, as there seems to be in parts of the US. That would not be lawful in Europe.

 

[suchende]

Jennifer, I didn't mean to imply that it should be outlawed, just that it seems to be on the wane and may one day very well be phased out completely, particularly if government and employer incentives were taken out of the equation.

 

[Jennifer W]

I see the difference, but I don't entirely agree. I could be wrong, but I think there will be a place for it, even a minority place, for the long term. I like the way it makes me feel, and I'm going to guess that others do to. Moving from being the only acceptable choice to being a minority choice is probably inevitable, but that doesn't mean it will phase out, necessarily. I know that government and employer benefits are relevant in the US in this context, but they aren't elsewhere, and I don't see much of a difference in effect? (Unless I'm reading the graphs wrong, which is entirely possible, since I'm dyscalculic).

 

[Jennifer W]

This is going to be a very very interesting thread.

I predict lots of ------>

It is interesting. I wouldn't usually be drawn on something with the potential to upset people, so late at night (in my time zone) but this is interesting from my point of view. I work for a government organisation three days each week, and one of my legal duties there is to promote equality and diversity. Stuff like this gets talked about a lot in our office, and I'm always interested to hear other perspective on it.

I need to go to bed though - I'll look forward to seeing what others think on the subject in the morning.

Night all!

 

[yssie]

There are benefits to having the papers besides tax breaks.

Can you please elaborate on this, Yssie? I am seeing a trend that it means something intangible to people who've taken "the plunge" but for the uninitiated these other benefits aren't necessarily obvious.

Darn it, my browser ate my post -

Well, here's the short version:
-Tax break is the biggie for us - DH is in school, I'm working, so there is a large income discrepancy that works in our favour if we file jointly
-Should either of us require hospitalisation the other is automatically next of address/decision-maker, without having to deal with all the red tape that would no doubt be otherwise required
-Insurance, rights to employer facilities (I can make use of Stanford facilities as DH's wife)
-Loans for housing, which is something we'll hopefully be looking into soon, and common property laws post-purchase

And more importantly the little things, that you can't put a pricetag on but that really do make a difference - when DH and I make it out to India to visit my extended family he will be warmly welcomed now that we've "officially" tied the knot, whereas before most did not even know that we were living together to avoid the inevitable scorn that would result in - and yeah, I could've said 'well, that's how we do things here and if they're too closed-minded to accept it that's their problem' - but that just wasn't a battle I was interested in fighting, so we just didn't go. I know we'll want to visit other places where I, as a young woman, will most likely have a much easier time of it w/ the status of "spouse" - certainly the travel itself will be easier to arrange and issues that come up will be easier to handle... bottom line is that even in Big City, Metropolis USA where the trends go left and political agendas are progressive, I do get more respect as DH's wife than his girlfriend or fiancee, and he gets more respect as my husband than as my boyfriend, and our relationship is more respected - and the distinction makes a difference to enough people in day-to-day life that I can note and appreciate it. I think it's stupid to deny this to couples because of the word we use - Marriage, which has such strong religious and cultural implications that so many people are just too uncomfortable trying to strip from it...

I absolutely don't believe that a married couple is automatically more "in love" or has "more romance" than an unmarried but committed couple though - marriage, civil union, domestic partnership is not a measure of how much two people love each other.

 

[iheartscience]

I personally find the idea of celebrating my relationship with family and friends odd. Not to disparage other people's weddings, but I don't enjoy being the center of attention, don't want all eyes on me, am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of even a little bit of speculation about what happens during the "wedding night," etc. So that part seems quite odd to me, from my particular perspective.

I think Kenny's going to come out on the right side of history: marriage does seem to be getting phased out. If we got rid of the tax/health benefit incentives, I'd guess it would fall off even more in the U.S.

Ha I can't say I've heard ANY speculation on what happens during the wedding night at a single wedding I've been to, and I've been to a ton. I'm the opposite of you in that I couldn't even imagine eloping or having a wedding without all my friends and family present. I wouldn't feel married without them all there! My family loves weddings-we always have pretty large ones with all of our extended family making the effort to come.

I don't believe that marriage will really be phased out. I think most of the decline has to do with societal changes, and the downward trend is not necessarily a trend towards marriage being completely phased out. I think that line will most likely level out, possibly in the near future.

A lot of societal factors came together at once to create what looks like a sharp decline. Women hold jobs outside the home so they don't need a man to support them. People in their twenties and thirties (marrying age) attend church less and tend to place less importance on religion-based morality. Society is much more accepting of unmarried couples living together, having kids outside of marriage, etc.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I do not think a woman should be allowed to wear a diamond until she has true intentions of being married.

 

[suchende]

2of2 -- I don't think it will level off any time soon because of the huge gap between ethnicities. I think it's more likely that whites in the U.S. will "catch up" with African-Americans and Hispanics.

 

[suchende]

I do not think a woman should be allowed to wear a diamond until she has true intentions of being married.

! I'll keep rocking my RHR solitaire, marriage plans or not!

 

[MichelleCarmen]

2of2 -- I don't think it will level off any time soon because of the huge gap between ethnicities. I think it's more likely that whites in the U.S. will "catch up" with African-Americans and Hispanics.

Am I confused...is this an avenue to venture down?

 

[Haven]

I like what marriage communicates to the rest of the world more than anything else.

If we lived in a world where the concept of marriage didn't exist, yet people partnered for life, I don't imagine I would have a desire to legally bind myself to my husband. I love being married, but when I say that I really mean "I love spending my days with my husband, and creating a life with him, and living with him, and being a family together." We can be all those things without being legally married, though, so what I like most about our legal marriage is that it communicates something that society understands about our relationship.

Now that I typed that out I realize that I look at marriage in the same way that I look at an engagement ring or wedding band--as symbols. The ring, itself, has meaning only because it represents something understood by society, in general.

I don't feel that married couples are any more or less serious than unmarried couples. I don't feel marriage is necessary, but I do enjoy the benefits of being married. I loved celebrating our marriage with our family and friends, but I'm the sort who will seize any opportunity to squeeze some joy out of life, so that's to be expected.

 

[suchende]

2of2 -- I don't think it will level off any time soon because of the huge gap between ethnicities. I think it's more likely that whites in the U.S. will "catch up" with African-Americans and Hispanics.

Am I confused...is this an avenue to venture down?

I dunno. There's clearly a trend that's more exaggerated in some demographics. It makes me think the plateau for the country as a whole isn't on the horizon. I could be wrong.

Edited for graph that doesn't make conclusions.