Marriage. What's it good for?

[musical_soul]

Everybody wants to get married, but all it does is trap people in an institution where everybody has their own roles. It's conforming to society's idea of "normal".

Why can't we just have our own relationships how we see fit? If we want our partner to have insurance from our work place, we could just put it in writing. The same with other benefits in marriage. Why should we have to make a lifetime commitment? It's not like marriage is lasting in 50% of cases in America. I don't see what it's good for or why we should have to conform to it.

Somebody please tell me I am not alone.

[Hoooweee]

1. you're not

I'm not planning to get married either. I guess it's the libertarian strain in me that doesn't need the state to tell me what my relationship is or is not.

[In_The_Wind]

16. Welcome to DU ~ Hoooweee.

to The Lounge :hi:

[SeattleGirl]

2. Some folk like to be married, some don't.

Not "everybody" wants to be married. But being married doesn't mean you HAVE TO take on a particular role. I have more of a mechanical/technical aptitude than my husband does; he is a better cook than I am. I fix things around the house, he cooks the meals. He also does the shopping. Hardly "traditional" roles for men and women.

And as far as just putting in writing that you want your partner to be on your insurance, you can write a novel about it, but it's not going to happen if your state does not have a law saying that a domestic partner (not a spouse) has the right to be covered by your benefits. Sorry, but that's how it is on that issue.

Again, no one has to conform to being married. You don't want to be married, don't get married. Simple as that.

[musical_soul]

7. That's cool.

Men and women switching roles some is happening more and more in marriage. We obviously don't have to get married.

I don't really see why we should accept that we can't ever have laws allowing our partner to be put on our insurance or other marital benefits. We've changed other rules. Why not this one?

[SeattleGirl]

8. I am totally with you on insurance and other marital benefits.

Washington FINALLY passed a law giving domestic partners the right to be covered by their partner's insurance, etc., which is fantastic, and something I am 100% behind. We can change the rules, but it takes some work. If two unmarried people set up house together, they should have the same rights as people who are married. AND, that right should cover heterosexual as well as homosexual relationships.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. From a legal standpoint, I think we should abolish it.

It makes no sense to get the government involved in a relationship. "Legally" married - what the fuck is that about? Bullshit, if two people say they're married, they're married. Fuck this "legally" bullshit.

And if they have a faith-based sense of marriage, let them be married in the way they want, according to their religion, whether they want to be married to one person or more than one person, who fucking cares?

I would say that companies should be allowed to say "We're only gonna provide insurance coverage for one other adult for you"; I think it's unfair they should get nailed if some guy wants to have thirty-five wives, but otherwise the government should be taken out of marriage.

There is no moral, ethical, or logical reason for the government ot be involved in it.

This country - this world - and also the Christian church, at least, really need to reconsider and rethink what marriage is, since it's old purpose of property transfer and ownership is long past, and people now get married for romantic/love-based reasons of wanting to spend life together because they like each other, not because they need to transfer property. (caveat: of course, I mean this in ideal situations; but, since most people are too fucking stupid even to read the new york times, most marriages are made, truthfully, on pretend-romantic notions and false visions and dreams, but whatever the true reality is, in the couple's reality the vast majority of marriages are taking place because they love each other, not because their families are trading property) .


marriage is very outdated, and needs a complete overhaul.

[Benfea]

4. Well...

I can think of lots of reasons for people to pretend to be married for questionable or nefarious reasons. Having a legal definition of marriage makes that at least a little bit harder.

If it weren't for that, I'd agree with you.

[LeftyMom]

5. Saves on taxes.

Can't really think of anything else. I've got married, I've got divorced, I've cohabitated. Relationships are relationships and I don't see what the advantage is in external validation except that it's a fairly good excuse to throw a party.

[Dukkha]

6. absolutely nothing!

Say It Again!

[mwooldri]

9. Some companies permit it just like that (in writing).

with employee health (etc) insurance that is. In non-heterosexual relationships, companies that offer these benefits (the company I work for (American Express) does provide domestic partner benefits) can't use a marriage certificate as proof, so they use alternative documentation, some kind of evidence of living as married.

Besides, since it is so darned simple to get married and in some states so darned simple to get a divorce (a no-fault one), in the civil legal case all that marriage is is just that: a piece of paper that declares that Mr. X and Ms. Y want to hook up together indefinitely. It's not as if marriage is like a fixed year contract. It can be ended any time. I know people in my extended family who have married (and divorced) more than six times. (Those same people would love to be on Jerry Springer's TV show but that's another talking point).

Marriage puts some kind of structure into it really. It's just formalization of what really happens. I guess the institutions that provide benefits such as insurance, etc., want some formality and some stability. A simple signing of a piece of paper saying you're now a couple isn't as stable as they like (I think with domestic partner situations (of mixed and same gender) that there has to be documentary evidence of being together for X months/years before the employer/insurance company will insure).

If it's about healthcare issues alone then universal healthcare would sort out that quagmire once and for all. Other legal paperwork such as a will and living will can assist in ensuring that two partners can help each other out in times of illness and of death. Paperwork needs to get more creative, but can sometimes be as complicated to undo. I can understand why non-heterosexual couples that want to marry want to get some kind of rights together that heterosexual couples have with the marriage "benefit". Personally I'd keep the word "marriage" for heterosexual couples and yes maybe accuse me of a form of gender apartheid (equal but separate) and have "civil union" for non-heterosexual marriages - with the same rights that heterosexual marriage confers.

Where marriage really comes into its own is in death. Say you found a partner and hooked up and were really passionate and "into" each other. Then after a few months or a year or two your partner passes away. Without marriage you don't have the rights over the funeral of that person, of how to say goodbye, whether you get to the funeral, where they get buried, about your home if your partner purchased it, possessions belonging to your partner, etc.

I'm so lucky to have found my soulmate and my love. I hope the 7 year itch doesn't hit this year, and we continue to get along as well as we have been. Sometimes I wish we had time for more passion but what can you do with kids these days?

Mark.

[musical_soul]

12. That's cool. I didn't know that.

I think another reason I don't think marriage should be required for this stuff is because I was taught it was a lifetime commitment. I wouldn't do that just for benefits.

I think heterosexuals and homosexuals should have the option of having civil unions instead of marriage. I'm of course for marriage rights too.

[NNadir]

10. My marriage is the most important thing in my life. I would never ask

such a question.

[mwooldri]

11. Hmmm... there's also "common law marriage".

Some states recognize it, most don't. In England and Wales, it was abolished in the 18th Century (there are a few exceptions, if you get "married" in a place with no legal juristiction, , in Scotland it still exists. In Israel because there's no such thing as a civil marriage a common law marriage is the only other option.

[Magrittes Pipe]

13. I get tax credits for my wife's children.

:woohoo:

[Robb]

14. Codification is key

Since we're a society of cheaters and liars, we bluntly use marriage (in some cases) to determine whether the couple is "serious" or not.

It's a load of crapola. But then again, we're a pretty shitty species.

Aren't I just a little ray of sunshine? :D

[musical_soul]

15. That's how I like my "ray of sunshine".

Right out in front of me. Thanks. :)

[RoyGBiv]

17. HALF!

[leftofthedial]

18. mine was great for 18 years, but I can't remember why

the other 10 were so fucking dreadful . . .

I'm burnt and cynical. I don't believe it makes any sense at all.

[Maraya1969]

19. I started dating my X husband because of his insurance but I fell in

love with him and we married. It was good for a while but I'll never forget my mother telling me about my 'duties' as a wife.:wtf:

Then his alter personalities came out and it was a horror show. I can say I liked being married though even though I don't know if I'll ever do it again. I kind of liked the idea of being a legalized partnership. That can all backfire in your face though and my X was a bastard during the divorce.