I'm with you here. I do believe it's something the government should stay out of. Civil unions for everyone, if they must, and religious ceremonies and "marriage" as something with no legal recognition. It was my understanding that at least in the US, common-law doesn't apply in the vast majority of states. I could be wrong about that. The divorce system does favor women, particularly in custody matters. Then again you have people like my sister who got screwed over financially by her marriage and subsequent divorce, or couples like my husband and I where he was actually the one that wanted to get married.
I actually didn't realize that common-law marriage wasn't common in most states. I actually always assumed it was legal in Illinois, but apparently it's not.
I believe somebody said it was 11 states, but I don't live in the US. I can only speak about the majority of cases. In general, it's not the man who gets the house or the alimony when the marriage ends and the vast majority of 'no fault' divorces are initiated by women.
I have some relatives and a few friends who did not take their first marriages seriously (neither the emotional/romantic commitment, nor the government's piece of paper), and divorces were the result. Many of them did learn a lesson about more carefully choosing the right partner for such a relationship and/or learning a bit more about how they, themselves, needed to grow up a bit more and look into the mirror with a bit more of a critical eye. Their second marriages seem to have done better. I also know some other people who were better suited for how they perceived the commitment of marriage from the start and they respected the vows that they had taken, and they are doing OK. Not to say that there are not challenges, but their relationships are strong. I know a few others (both male and female friends) who have not done so well in relationships and have progressively gotten fairly bitter and now have little good to say about members of the opposite sex. They now choose only the kind of brief, breezy, crazy, dating relationships that we saw characters on "Seinfeld" involved in, yet are frustrated about how they can't find a "real" person. It gets tiring listening to them, but I do wish them luck. I think they could benefit from borrowing one of those mirrors that I mentioned earlier and learning how to use it properly. Marriage means different things to different people (as others have said earlier), and that is why there are some many different outcomes. Can you find the person who has the same exact expectations as you?
Didn't the OP ask what it meant to us individually anyway? I don't believe they were looking for one specific definition.
Sure, but a question like this is always going to spark some debate, not just a list of posters and their personal views.
Ummm....Yeah. Legally, it is the taking on of legal rights and obligations--which is why I think it should be separated from religious ceremonies completely. Personally, it's the sharing of lives--and hopefully loves--so that there's always someone you can rely on to be there for you. Hubby and I lived together for 9 years before marrying. He didn't want to marry; I figured I'd be happier with him umarried than without him. W've shared our lives and had each others' backs for the past 23 years, married or not. When we did get married, it wasn't particularly fancy. Mom made my dress out of satin she had been given; Hubby wore a suit. Our rings (completely plain bands of white gold) were around $100 each--gold was cheaper then. Flowers were given as a gift from a friend, so I had a bouquet, corsages, and boutonierres(sp?). Mom and Dad were witnesses at the County Registrar Recorder's office. Our wedding dinner for four at Disneyland's Club 33, including a wedding cake, was around $250.
With an attitude like that you deserve to find someone special! Personally I had the wedding of my dreams, on a budget that some women spend on their dress alone (mine cost $125... it was a white prom dress and nobody knew the difference!). I could talk about marriage bonds and everlasting love, but to me the best things about being married are having someone to share the good times (and bad) with, someone to cuddle up with and watch movies, go on vacation, eat with, create a family with, etc... that being said, you don't need to be married per say to enjoy these things.
Damn, Dude! You sound bitter. Not having been through a divorce personally, nor having taken a Family Law class, my experience is limited. But your statements seem to blanket all men as the innocent party, while the "bad" woman takes all the benefits of marriage and divorce, despite your repeated use of the word "typically." I'm not a fan of "no fault," but I realize that many people don't bother to think before getting married. That's a problem with both men and women. And there are far more stories of fathers abandoning their children than mothers--though I totally concede that there are a significant number of men treated unfairly by their ex-wives and the legal system, and women taking unfair advantage of the legal system and/or unfairly screwing over their ex-husband.
Hermiod: "I can only speak about the majority of cases. In general, it's not the man who gets the house or the alimony when the marriage ends and the vast majority of 'no fault' divorces are initiated by women." Marie1: "I was told that in Canada, it's a 50/50 split, even on the grounds of adultery, these days." Hermiod: "Even when the financial input wasn't 50/50?" ------------------------------------------------------------- When Marie1 said that she was told it is a 50/50 split in Canada, wasn't she referring to he proportion of which gender is initiating the 'no fault' divorces, not how the property is divided?