Moral Stand Against Marriage

posted 1 year ago in Legal
  • poll: Would you stay in a relationship without marriage if you had the same legal rights as marriedcouple?

    No, marriage is marriage and is important to me.

    Yes, if my partner was morally opposed, but willing to sign paperwork to give me the same protection

    Other - in comments

  • Post # 16
    Member
    3439 posts
    Sugar bee
    • Wedding: July 2011

    Question: what would happen if a person was both married and entered into a AIP by default? 
    I could see this situation happening in the UK. Here divorce needs grounds. The only way to divorce without someone being at fault is to separate for 2 years (if both parties agree) or 5 years (if one party doesn’t agree) 

    if a cohabitation law came into force after 4 years cohabitation it is possible you could have someone who is both married and suddenly enters into a new legal partnership. is that bigamy?

    Post # 17
    Member
    4040 posts
    Honey bee

    @LilliV, very true.  My fiancé and I will have to file separate in order to avoid paying a ton of extra taxes since he makes so much more than I do.  

    Post # 18
    Member
    9362 posts
    Buzzing Beekeeper

    @sharpshooter. Definitely run it both ways before you file! My tax guy always does that to make sure we save the most. My friend thought they would file separately because she made so much more than her spouse, but then he would have lost his student loan interest deduction which was significant. There are a bunch of other deductions/credits you lose by filing separately. Typically if one person significantly outearns the other it’s better to file together because the lower earning spouse helps drag the higher earner down into a lower tax bracket. For example in 2020 if he makes $100k he’d be in the 24% bracket filing separately, but if you only make $40k together you’d be down in the 22% bracket together. 

    Post # 19
    Member
    1112 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    If a partner is willing to enter into a legally binding agreement but is not willing to get married, that is a red flag that there are greater rooted issues. What are their fears related to marriage that would not also apply to a legal agreement? Either their fears of marriage are purely psychological with no basis in fact (ie marriage destroys relationships) or they naively believe that this legal contract has less commitment responsibilities. 

     

    Post # 20
    Member
    1112 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: June 2014

    @sharpshooter married filing separately is rarely beneficial. It wasn’t designed to “beat” the system, but rather for people who have idea what financial condition their spouses were in. So this option allows a spouse to file without any penalty that their spouse may involve. There are many tax deductions that can not be taken of married filing separately is selected. 

    Post # 23
    Member
    9944 posts
    Buzzing Beekeeper
    • Wedding: August 2012

    I would not want my finances or anything else joined with someone I was just dating and living with. I’ve had several relationships that lasted more than 3 years—didn’t marry them though. Thank god.

    Post # 24
    Member
    300 posts
    Helper bee

    Would this be only for romantically involved couples? Could a parent and adult child enter into a contract for financial benefits only?

    Post # 26
    Member
    2056 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: October 2019

    To play devils advocate here I realized that, I would be FURIOUS if I was living with a boyfriend and did not want to ever marry him for whatever reason, but the government or state law had some common law rules that went into effect at 3 years or whatever year. And then if I wanted to break up and move out some law decided that my ex boyfriend could now get spousal support or anything from me. Are you freaking kidding me with that?! 

    No one should have the right to declare two people “married” or in any other way legally bound together if they didn’t take those steps themselves. If I’m living with a guy and I don’t marry him or draw up and sign some legal documents than that should be my right. I obviously do NOT want to be tied to him, because I could take steps to be tied to him if I wanted to. To put into effect laws to force people to be bound together in anyway shape or form simply by living together/ having a child together, is complete and utter bullshit. 

    Because let’s cut the shit here. People who want to be legally married or bound to each other have MANY ways to do so. Forcing that feels so oppressive and inappropriate. And sure, we could say, well a woman/ man deserves support after living with someone for x years. But they CHOOSE to be in that situation with zero protections in place. 

    Post # 27
    Member
    1036 posts
    Bumble bee

    Would “I” stay? No, because the religious institution of marriage is important to me.

     

    But I think this is great. I don’t like the “automatic” part but I like having options to protect both partners and any children in place. I’m in the US and wish church marriage and legal marriage/partnership  really were two different things.  I have a friend who is a minister who strongly believes the same FWIW. 

    Post # 28
    Member
    454 posts
    Helper bee

    View original reply
    mrsssb :  That’s a really great point that I didn’t consider. So for all the people in abusive relationships, struggling to get out, now they can be forced into a position where their abusive partner has all sorts of legal and financial rights that they didn’t consent to giving them just by virtue of not being able to get out of the relationship before an arbitrary amount of time had passed? Scary thought.

    Post # 29
    Member
    2056 posts
    Buzzing bee
    • Wedding: October 2019

    View original reply
    amiryana :  I mean the possibilities are endless. Marriage exists for a reason. People who want that are free and welcome to do it. So there is really no reason an automatic law should exist to force it. I would be devastated if I was in a relationship and wanted to move on and suddenly that other person had rights to me money or assets that I hadn’t consented to. And strangely enough I never thought about how horrible common law is until I saw this post and realized it’s basically forced marriage. That is insanely dangerous and not ok in my book. 

    Post # 30
    Member
    9237 posts
    Buzzing Beekeeper

    Actually the opposite is true. In places where “common law” is recognised, like in Australia, it is easier for those in abusve relationships to leave because they are afforded these legal protections. 

    We have this system in Australia. When my husband and I moved into together we got what is called a binding financial agreement (we don’t have pre or post nups here) which clearly and legally pointed out what would be considered joint and individual if we broke up after living together. 

    Marriage isn’t for everyone but legal protection in relationships should be. Because partners can contribute to things in our lives (like supporting us through education or supporting building a buisness) without being married and it is immature to say “well they should have gotten married”.

    Dismissing others views to the point where there are actual legal ramifications just because you “believe in marriage  and think it’s the only way to allow people to have protections” is uneducated and narrow minded.

    View original reply
    amiryana :  

    View original reply
    mrsssb :  

    Leave a comment


    Find Amazing Vendors