I sat at the barber shop and I saw this very tattooed girl in black clothes and piercings. We somehow got on the subject of marriage and she stated that she lives with her boyfriends as a married couple. They don’t believe marriage documents are important in their relationship. I’m wondering if this common thinking among the youth today. Now that I think about it. It seems to be the mainstream today. Living together is the trend right now.
She says the certificate doesn’t matter. On the other hand, gay and lesbian couples say it matters completely. I suppose it’s human nature to show contempt for what we have and desire what we don’t have.
So true SuscipeMeDomine
Fact is, in many areas, a civil marriage certificate means nothing; it’s a pure joke. None of the traditional elements are marriage area required, therefore what is the point of having it? Sure, there are tax benefits to having it, but if the couple doesn’t have any real assets, then that’s pointless also.
The question is not whether the m,arriage certificate is important, but whether the marriage is important. So they are living together. Have they committed themselves to each other for life in a faithful, permanent, exclusive, union until death? If they have, why are they not willing to proclaim that commitment publicly?
Some states allow for common-law marriage, but no state allows for common-law divorce.
I am legally and sacramentally married, but if there were some legal barrier to my marriage, and the church still allowed me a sacramental marriage, I would be fine with that. I don’t care what my government thinks of me, only what God thinks of me. My vow before God means more to me than any piece of paper.
how insecure the relationship you describe above is,…the first fight, one or both might leave,…and what is it based on, what ‘rules of the road’ do they use, ie. if he or she
sees someone they like more, they might just turn in guy #1 and exchange him.
They will not reap any of the deep love that commitment over time can bring, nor enjoy
a partner who is committed to God’s ways, and then committed to them, which puts the partner at rest in the relationship, that their togetherness is based on Someone outside themselves and that they have His help in all that they do.
“No rules” comes back to bite you in your behind,…because then your mate has no rules either and then what is the relationship based on, good sex, ?what about when the sex turns sour,…then feelings of love? what about when you detest things your mate has done, , what will keep a couple together during these more difficult times? This couple doesn’t have anything to keep them together, their resources are dry, their love is stopped up, probably the sex is effected and stopped up,…since that is all they had, they now have nothing left to hold onto, so they will leave each other…
this couple has nothing to stand on but their temporary feelings and their sexual connection. Feelings come and go,…their sexual connection is effected by the feelings in the relationship,…this woman has no teaching which she can turn to, to tell her to continue in the sexual relationship,…to get them through this rough patch,…she has no teaching to turn to for ‘how to forgive her mate’, and let go of his past wrongs against her, nor how to continue in love, and stay out of bitterness and resentment. She believes fully that because she no longer has the “feelings of love”, she no longer loves her mate and should leave him asap.
She will be doomed to repeat this pattern over her lifetime, and him too.
…therefore, prediction, they will likely break up shortly. How has this experience helped either one of them, it has scarred them, reduced their confidence, reduced their ability to trust and give themselves,…left them with some distaste for the selfishness of the opposite sex which they may make bitter root judgements about,…which will effect how they interact
with their next partner, making the next relationship weaker and even less secure.
This couple has no wisdom, esp. not God’s wisdom and are a walking timebomb.
Yes, it is increasingly common for people to dismiss marriage as “just a piece of paper.”
Yet, ironically, more and more people are spending more and more money putting themselves through college for “just a piece of paper.” I suppose it’s all in the worth you ascribe to it. :shrug:
We don’t need a marriage certificate just like we don’t need a high school diploma. Just like we don’t need a driver’s license. Just like we don’t need any other certificate attesting to our ability to perform which allows us to earn a better living and enjoy the respect of our society.
I can understand that some think a “true love” only needs a personal commitment. Formality seems to them to be some sort of shackle. Some sort of encumbrance that will require considerable expense to undo if the “true love” fades and one or both want to split.
America has devolved into a low standard - just live together - mainly because it is too hard and expensive to actually REQUIRE formal marriage. Well, until it comes to getting tax advantages only available to those married.
IMO, those who choose to live together and NOT make a formal public commitment seem to be acknowledging they themselves are not mature enough to “stand by your man” or stand by your woman and children.
Life teaches that too many men want to avoid being responsible for the natural consequences of their sex drive. In the end, too many women and children suffer way too much because the women allow it.
There is NO HONOR in that.
There are so many with that attitude and they live to regret it.
I think this is an unforeseen consequence of making the legal status of marriage all about “feelings.” I think the people who don’t get married but live together (and are serious about their commitment - I know couples, presumably monogamous, who have been together for decades who are not married but live as married, even raising kids together) - these couples understand that if a marriage certificate is just a declaration of love, then there is no point to it. Why does the state need to get involved in their relationship?
For most people in our society, marriage isn’t about kinship and children. If you suggest that it is, they think you’re talking about the exchange of brides as property and who in our enlightened society needs to deal with something as old-fashioned as that?
You might have reminded her that this is all well and good until one of them suffers an incapacitating illness or injury. In that case, how would she feel when her boyfriend’s parents come in and make all the decisions about his care? When they decide that it would be “just better if you don’t see him until we think he is up to it.” Does she realize that once she and her boyfriend are married for ten years, they have rights to each other’s Social Security benefits? That a spouse gets inheritance advantages that a will alone cannot accomplish? That if one of them dies without legally establishing the other as beneficiary and having power to dispose of remains, etc, their parents will have total control over the funeral, will inherit everything, and will be in a position to come into their home and start demanding stuff that they believe belonged to their child, and so now belongs to them? That in the case of a wrongful death, the parents will have the standing to sue the one responsible for your beloved’s untimely death, and not you? There are also health insurance benefits and all sorts of other legal benefits that come with marriage.
Civil marriage is not just about convincing each other that you have a real commitment. It is about legally enforcing your relationship’s status on everyone else and claiming both the tangible and intangible benefits extended to the married for yourselves. The legal institution also puts protections in for the spouse who works just as hard but makes a lot less money, and especially that one who makes sacrifices for the career aspirations of the other. Even in just the name “marriage,” there is social status and legal legitimacy that the couple gives to themselves. That is why there has been such a push for same-sex marriage.
This couple is rejecting the need for external validation and the word, “marriage,” but in doing so they are shunning all the other benefits extended to the married. Well, either that or someone has found a cunning device to avoid tying his or her fortune to the fortunes and character of the “beloved.” It is fair to ask her which applies to her situation.
IOW, if you really have a commitment that is truly the SAME as a marriage and aren’t just making a foolish pretense that you do, you are FOOLISH not t have your situation recognized via a civil marriage.
Worse yet, some people even think that marriage has the magic power to deaden their relationship and sour their feelings! Some people actually think that it is getting married that causes romantic relationships to go stale or break up.
As for property, if they are OK with all their property being inherited by their parents or siblings instead of their beloved, then maybe they shouldn’t sham around about pretending a relationship that is a marriage in all but the paperwork. If you have the marriage and lack only the paperwork, it is foolish beyond description to fail to make the minimal effort required to get the paperwork done, just because of all the legal advantages you are giving up.
I think the defining aspect is future children and what they believe is a requirement for children.
In all honesty if i had no real intention of children and it wasn’t something my wife was truly looking forward to then I’d have a similar view too. As I see it a marriage or long term relationship (these are not the same btw) is a commitment between the two people involved. To a great degree it does feel a bit intrusive to involve the government or other entity in a private matter.
Also, to some extent it has the possibility of making the choice to be with someone into seem like an obligation under threat of financial ruin and whatever powers of the courts. However, all of the benefits afforded to the married makes a choice to be well thought out by each couple. For instance, in the US the tax brackets for married is not exactly double that of a single person. If two medium to high income people marry (and remain childless) they may pay more taxes than if they simply cohabitated.
There are really a lot of things to consider before getting married. Sadly, getting a license isn’t always prudent.
Right, and if they are married filing individually, it isn’t just the same as filing as an unmarried person. Still, if you are wealthy you also have to factor in that you are able to inherit from each other without estate taxes and take precedence over relatives in anything unspecified in a will, as well. You can give whatever you want to each other without gift tax, and there are trust options only open to the married. You can form a “family partnership,” a legal arrangement not open to non-relatives. You get visitation rights in hospitals and jails that non-relatives are not allowed. There are many of these “little matters,” such as being medical decision-maker, having the right to dispose of each other’s bodies at death, and so on that are not “little” when you get to use them (or are not allowed to use them). Getting married enforces hundreds of things like that.
As Easter Joy has pointed out, there are a great number of legal matters that are resolved by marriage.
It also seems to me that couples who enter into cohabitation without marriage, by that very fact display a lack of seriousness of their commitment to each other and to their future children.
This is why although I oppose same-sex marriage, I do not oppose giving adults who cannot marry the legal means to give each other many of the benefits we have reserved to the married: that is, those benefits that are truly befitting people who have committed themselves to a lifetime of mutual care, even though they do not have a man-wife relationship. I can certainly see men or women who are not in a sexual relationship still having a legitimate interest in doing this. (The benefits having to do with children are an exception, since it obviously encourages consort outside of marriage.)
Well you dont. Its not a piece of paper that makes you a married couple. Its your committment and vows to one another. This is why the law should have no place in marriage. It is not a contract it is a spiritual union which is indissoluble. A piece of paper is nothing.
For this reason, my wife and I are actively encouraging our children, when the time comes to have a sacramental marriage without the state license. Especially our male children. State licensing opens men up to all kinds of risk because of extremely anti-male divorce, custody and “domestic violence” law.
The Church will not marry you without a civil license unless civil authorities have forbidden one to you, nor will the Church marry two people when one is civilly married, even if the marriage is not deemed valid by the Church.
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” If you marry in the Church, you marry under all laws that pertain to you, and take the consequences. When the laws become so unjust that this is no longer true, your bishop will let you know. That situation does not exist in the US.