What does marriage mean to you?

[Hermiod]

I find the idea that signing a legal document is the commitment here a bit odd. A real commitment doesn't have to be enforced by a piece of paper.

A real commitment is saying "I will do this thing" and then actually doing it, not because you'll lose your house and have to pay alimony for the rest of your life if you don't, but because you want to.

And I'll bet that most people who think otherwise, that you need the legal framework around your marriage, also think that pre-nups are cynical and a bad idea.

 

[JoeZhang]

I assume Mick and Sue are happy together ? They have no piece of paper to say they're married, they have little legal recognition of their relationship so it looks to me like you've highlighted a good example of two people who have made a real commitment to each other rather than one enforced by law.

Actually in Tasmania they have quite a lot of legal recognition. In fact, they have the same rights as people who have been legally married.

I'm fairly sure long-term relationships in the UK have legal recognition too, whether or not a formal marriage has taken place.

Urban myth of the commonlaw wife.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I find the idea that signing a legal document is the commitment here. A real commitment doesn't have to be enforced by a piece of paper.

I agree. Marriages started out as a mutually beneficial business/financial arrangement between two men. One man would "sell off" a daughter and portion of his belongings to another man. The man who "bought" the property would then be legally obligated to protect and serve both families. When the father died the son-in-law would receive all or a larger portion of the father's property thus extended his own wealth and influence. Marriages were also used to end wars, barter for land or pay off debts. This is where a legal document comes in. Any business arrangement would be null and void without some sort of contract to bind the two parties together. Marriages based on love is a relatively new concept. Commitments in love are really a separate matter entirely if you are looking at it from a traditional standpoint. Of course the separation between the two has become blurred in the last one hundred years or so. Most people are not aware of the separation these days.

(And I would recommend looking at traditional marriage vows while remembering that marriages were once technically a slave trade. The pretty words take on a completely different meaning in that light. In some cases they are down-right chilling.)

As for myself, I believe in the commitment of two people in love and not the legalities involved. I want to grow old with someone and share my life with them. I don't need a piece of paper for that. On the other hand I would like to share in the financial and legal commitments offered to married couples. I love a good tax break.

 

[Kestra]

I find the idea that signing a legal document is the commitment here a bit odd. A real commitment doesn't have to be enforced by a piece of paper.

A real commitment is saying "I will do this thing" and then actually doing it, not because you'll lose your house and have to pay alimony for the rest of your life if you don't, but because you want to.

And I'll bet that most people who think otherwise, that you need the legal framework around your marriage, also think that pre-nups are cynical and a bad idea.

I agree that the commitment between the couple shouldn't be entirely based on a legal document. Then again, I don't think pre-nups are a bad idea at all, either.

Also on another note, those bringing up the historical origins of marriage seem a bit off. The topic is about what marriage means to you, not where it originated. If it still means those things to you, that's one thing, but I haven't seen many people saying so.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^ I was expounding on Hermoid's comment about signing a contract. To some, marriage is just a legal construct, one that was established long before the concept of a commitment of love. That is what it means to them. In that context, my statement of information is completely valid and within the boundaries set by the original poster.

And there have been several posters who have expressed that sentiment, even if they didn't come right out and blatantly say it.

 

[Deckerd]

Actually in Tasmania they have quite a lot of legal recognition. In fact, they have the same rights as people who have been legally married.

I'm fairly sure long-term relationships in the UK have legal recognition too, whether or not a formal marriage has taken place.

Urban myth of the commonlaw wife.

Not in Scotland. In Scotland there is no such thing as common law but by the same token, by law, if a couple stand up together and say "we are married" then they are married. No registrar, no confetti. Scots law is different from the rest of the UK, though. However, there have been some high profile 'palimony' cases in England, so not such an urban myth.

 

[scotpens]

Urban myth of the commonlaw wife.

In the U.S., eleven states and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriage, though the specific requirements vary from state to state. All states are required to recognize common-law marriages recognized by another state under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Common-Law Marriage in the United States

 

[bigdaddy]

In all seriousness, I know of someone who "settled" for and married a high school boyfriend who they didn't love, because at the time they didn't think anyone better would come along. The thought of that makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.

That's pretty much what I told a friend of mine I see him doing, and now we aren't friends because of it. I'm afraid he was more worried about getting married than who he was going to marry.

A real commitment is saying "I will do this thing" and then actually doing it, not because you'll lose your house and have to pay alimony for the rest of your life if you don't, but because you want to.

Also what I told said friend. What difference does it matter if you get married within a year or if you never marry in 50 years? You love each other and are there for each other then it shouldn't matter.

 

[Marie1]

I think it's a wonderful union of two souls that are totally and completely committed to one another.

That's my feeling too. For me it has a voluntary legal and a religious significance too.

I'm pretty cheap tho, so I wouldn't spring for an expensive wedding. The being married part itself is pretty important to me though.

 

[bigdaddy]

I think it's a wonderful union of two souls that are totally and completely committed to one another.

That's my feeling too. For me it has a voluntary legal and a religious significance too.

I'm pretty cheap tho, so I wouldn't spring for an expensive wedding. The being married part itself is pretty important to me though.

My thought on an expensive wedding is I rather put thousands of dollars into a down payment of a house and not on ONE day of a relationship that will go on for many many more years.

 

[ancientone51]

I waited until today to chime in as this would have been our 29th anniversary.

To me marriage was the joining of two people who decided we wanted to be together and we wanted the world to know it and we wanted to make the statement that we meant it enough to "jump through the legal hoops."

It wasn't always easy or fun, yet he made me laugh and feel good every day. I hope I returned the favor half as well.

And I wish he were here to add his two cents worth as it would have been much more eloquent than mine.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^

Don't you worry. You were very eloquent... so much so you made me cry.

 

[Hermiod]

I agree that the commitment between the couple shouldn't be entirely based on a legal document. Then again, I don't think pre-nups are a bad idea at all, either.

So, I'm going to ask this knowing what the answer is and knowing that you'll take offence - do you have one ?

Most married people I've come across take someone asking them if they've got a pre-nup as that person saying their marriage is going to fail.

Not that they're worth the paper they're written on in most jurisdictions.

 

[RoJoHen]

I have no idea what marriage means to me, but I am thinking of becoming an ordained minister so I can perform weddings!

 

[Hermiod]

I have no idea what marriage means to me, but I am thinking of becoming an ordained minister so I can perform weddings!

"We are gathered here today on this joyous occasion to celebrate the special love that Monica and Chandler share. It is a love based on giving and receiving, as well as having and sharing. And the love that they give and have is shared and received. And through this having and giving and sharing and receiving, we too can share and love and have and receive."

 

[RoJoHen]

Seriously, though, it's insanely easy to become ordained online. One of my co-workers actually did it this afternoon because he was bored. It cost him $30, and he can now legally marry people, baptize people, AND absolve people of their sins!

 

[Deckerd]

Kind of makes a mockery of 4 years in a seminary, doesn't it?

 

[RoJoHen]

Meh, I'm okay with it.

BTW, yes, I am officially now an ordained minister.

 

[Kestra]

I agree that the commitment between the couple shouldn't be entirely based on a legal document. Then again, I don't think pre-nups are a bad idea at all, either.

So, I'm going to ask this knowing what the answer is and knowing that you'll take offence - do you have one ?

Most married people I've come across take someone asking them if they've got a pre-nup as that person saying their marriage is going to fail.

Not that they're worth the paper they're written on in most jurisdictions.

I'm not offended by the question. If anything, I'm taken aback by the fact that you thought you would offend me and wanted to ask anyway. And don't give me the "most married people would" line. I'm not "most married people" and you know very little about me. My marriage is far from perfect and I've alluded to some of that here on the board. I don't know if it's going to fail, but I'm putting forth my best effort in our relationship.

We don't have a pre-nup, though we strongly considered it at one point. My husband has more than a decent salary and owns some land that's worth quite a bit. I come from a fairly wealthy background so I have quite a lot of money under my name. Ultimately we decided not to go with a pre-nup, though neither of us were offended by the thought of one.

 

[Hermiod]

I'm not offended by the question. If anything, I'm taken aback by the fact that you thought you would offend me and wanted to ask anyway. And don't give me the "most married people would" line. I'm not "most married people" and you know very little about me.

You have found things I've had to say about marriage offensive before.

I have no problem with you, but I'm not going to keep things I think need to be said to myself just to maintain that.