Poll of the Day > Why do some couples stay unofficially "married" for so many years?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The other topic about saving oneself for marriage got me thinking on another related subject.

I have several friends who were more or less unofficially "married" for some number of years before making it official. The most bizarre cases were two separate couples who even bought their houses together before getting married. With my own sister and brother-in-law, he didn't propose until nine years into their relationship.

I don't want to pry too much into their reasons and can understand in some cases the couples really want to make sure he/she is the one but if one is gonna go as far as getting a house together, why wait on doing the civil ceremony? They can always do the wedding ceremony later when they have the time and money. One of my cousins did that where he got married officially but didn't do the wedding ceremony still a year later. Hell, two of my friends even have a business together and they're just waiting on having the time to get married.

If anything, wouldn't they benefit from better tax deductions being an official couple instead of filing as two singles? Though I have been told recently filing as singles is somehow better. Do some couples really want to make sure he/she is the one even after several years? Is there anything particular bad about doing a civil ceremony first and the wedding ceremony later?

Comments and opinions are appreciated,

Thank you
---

Youre welcome
---

What is the difference between the civil ceremony and the wedding ceremony in this case?

Do you mean the legal wedding and the church wedding?
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

What is the difference between the civil ceremony and the wedding ceremony in this case?

Do you mean the legal wedding and the church wedding?

Aye, I meant civil ceremony as legal wedding and wedding ceremony as church wedding. Apology for any confusion. I see both as a ceremony where one is done through a civil court to make it legal and the other just done for show. Of course, some weddings are both for the legal wedding and for show at the same time.
---

I'm in that boat.

A. Weddings are expensive af
B. No urge to involve the government in our relationship
C. Neither of us are leaving. With the divorce rate in this country, I think ironically couples are more likely to split when married due to the added pressure
---

My sister has been with her BF for over 10 years and has three kids with him and a house. They are not married and in her own words she doesn't see the point in ever getting married. I understand that as I feel the same way. Not only that but I'd imagine if the marriage hit the shitter it could cause a more expensive mess that could have been avoided.
---

probably because they believe marriage is unnecessary/symbolic

at least you can still get the same tax breaks by being common-law. although those legal protections should extend to the non-married as well.
---

I mean there are tons of reasons. Some people prefer to date forever but live separately. Some people want to be really really sure before they get married. Some people don't give a damn about the concept of marriage. Some people are afraid of legal commitment but not of personal commitment.

And yes, there are cases where not being married can be better. Like I could potentially get better health care at some point if I divorced my husband, because then I'd be legally poor enough to qualify for some things. My doctor has suggested it before.

Or someone doesn't want to share someone else's debt. Or lots of things.

And yeah the wedding license being signed by the appropriate person is the only thing that matters legally.
---

BADoglick posted...

A. Weddings are expensive af

Understandable. One cousin did only the civil ceremony/legal wedding but never the fancy for show one. She and her husband felt the money that would have gone toward the wedding is better spent as a down payment for their house.

BADoglick posted...

B. No urge to involve the government in our relationship

Fair enough. Are you two still able to file taxes as partners? If filing taxes as a married couple versus partners is no different, then I can see why some don't even bother with the civil wedding.

BADoglick posted...

I think ironically couples are more likely to split when married due to the added pressure

Interesting point. Never thought about it this way before. Can you please elaborate?
---

Thank you for the additional comments and insight. I guess the only reason this stump me was cause of the tax advantages of being legally married. Of course this is only because that's what our government decided to do and being legally married brings up other potential issues as well. I could see there being perks to staying unofficially "married" forever and/or the legal advantages not being worthwhile either.
---

I don't think people are more likely to break up from getting married. Having children is actually one of the biggest things that breaks people up. Haha.

I figure people who will stay together will stay together regardless of legal status.

On a separate note, my parents were never married and I'm a bastard. They had an on again off again relationship for a long time but they've been a solid couple for the last like fifteen years. They sort of can't get married for government assistance reasons and probably would never bother anyway... But they're about as married as anyone else is.
---

I'm never getting married because it seems like such a hazzle : /

Also where I live marriage is getting less and less common.
---

Speaking as someone who has been with the same partner for almost 20 years, I have no intention of getting married, ever.

It's a fully committed relationship in most ways, though, and neither of us really plan on breaking it off at this point, so we might as well be married functionally speaking. But the actual act of going through the whole legal bullshit rigamarole has never been all that appealing, especially with the US legal system's penchant for fucking everything up. Doubly so since we're never having kids.

It DOES require some adjustments (like, say, establishing that your partner has power of attorney since they won't have it automatically if you're not married), and you do lose out on potential tax breaks or other couple-based advantages, but if that's a sacrifice you're willing to make, I don't see it as being a huge negative.

As I've put it in the past, I may never want to leave, but if you take away my choice to leave, then I'm going to start wanting to leave. My personality being what it is, the moment I was pressured into marriage would be the start of the inevitable march towards divorce. Even if I'd otherwise spend 50+ years with the person and happily grow old and die with them.


Though to be honest, my noted disgust at how divorce is handled in the US means I probably wouldn't be inclined towards divorcing my theoretical wife as much as I would arranging for her to have an "accident", so it's probably better off for everyone that marriage is completely off the table. Which is actually something I told my girlfriend somewhere around our second date.


---

ReturnOfFa posted...

probably because they believe marriage is unnecessary/symbolic

at least you can still get the same tax breaks by being common-law. although those legal protections should extend to the non-married as well.

Common law doesn't exist in many states anymore.

InfestedAdam posted...

BADoglick posted...

A. Weddings are expensive af

Understandable. One cousin did only the civil ceremony/legal wedding but never the fancy for show one. She and her husband felt the money that would have gone toward the wedding is better spent as a down payment for their house.

BADoglick posted...

B. No urge to involve the government in our relationship

Fair enough. Are you two still able to file taxes as partners? If filing taxes as a married couple versus partners is no different, then I can see why some don't even bother with the civil wedding.

BADoglick posted...

I think ironically couples are more likely to split when married due to the added pressure

Interesting point. Never thought about it this way before. Can you please elaborate?

1. I haven't really looked into the specifics of the taxes but I imagine even with a cheaper wedding the difference wouldn't be made up

2. There's comfort in knowing that you're in a situation because you want to be, not because you are obligated. Those with commitment issues just feel trapped by marriage whereas they feel safe with a life partner
---

Moonjay posted...

I don't think people are more likely to break up from getting married.

To be fair, 100% of all divorced people were married at one point!


---

With the house thing, that may allow grounds to forcibly keep half of the property regardless of how a partner decides to "split" the assets.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

With the house thing, that may allow grounds to forcibly keep half of the property regardless of how a partner decides to "split" the assets.

Depends on a lot of factors. Whether or not a state/nation allows common law marriage, whether assets are being shared in general, whether the house was acquired during the relationship or one of the partners entered into the relationship with the house, etc.

It's easier to be an unmarried couple in some places than it is in others. Living somewhere where common law marriage is automatic after 10 years and where divorce results in an even 50-50 split of assets regardless of original contribution is a LOT less viable than a place that doesn't recognize common law marriage at all and limits claims on personal assets outside of explicitly shared resources.

Maintaining separate bank accounts and not signing property over to include both partners (even if you live together) is also a significant factor.


---

InfestedAdam posted...

Aye, I meant civil ceremony as legal wedding and wedding ceremony as church wedding. Apology for any confusion. I see both as a ceremony where one is done through a civil court to make it legal and the other just done for show. Of course, some weddings are both for the legal wedding and for show at the same time.

The Church wedding holds absolutely no meaning within the phrasing of your post. The legal wedding gives the benefits, like you said, the church wedding is just show. Which a lot of people forego, or just have a very fancy reception, the church wedding is a religious thing, not a social obligation.
---

Thank you for the additional responses and insight. I recall quite a bit of PotDer do not want to get married but rather surprise this many are unofficially "married".

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Which a lot of people forego, or just have a very fancy reception, the church wedding is a religious thing, not a social obligation.

Apology for the additional confusion. I meant church wedding very broadly as in the for-show ceremony regardless of where it is done (i.e. park, church/temple, museum, etc.). Out of the dozen or so weddings I've attended, maybe only two were at a temple with the rest held at a park, museum, hotel, etc. From what I've been told from some of those couples, some did it for their parents. A rather expensive thing to do for the parents but I think in most cases, the parents did help with the expenses.

Granted I can see some folks feeling they must get married in a house of worship instead of a place with nice scenery.
---