Can't live with them, or without them

[ricketyclik]

Marriage is still a big thing in the States...

It's still quite big in Australia too, mainly promoted by the wedding industry. The average cost of a wedding in Australia these days is in excess of $20K.

The industry promotes the idea that the relationship is not real without the wedding, and a lot of people fall for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You'd be considered common law married up here and have most of the same legal rights.

A slight nitpick is that many states have abolished common law marriage.

According to wikipedia:

Common-law marriage can still be contracted in eleven states (Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah) and in the District of Columbia.

[ricketyclik]

A slight nitpick is that many states have abolished common law marriage.

Why, and what have they replaced it with? What are the rights of people who don't have a wedding?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They don't have any.

Thankfully, a wedding is as simple as going to the county clerk and filing out some documents.

[ricketyclik]

They don't have any.

Thankfully, a wedding is as simple as going to the county clerk and filing out some documents.

Ah, well, if I lived under such a, ummm, traditional* system, then yes, I would marry my wife.

* Trying to be polite.

[rah]

What are the benefits of not being married?
Leaving out the cost of a big wedding since I'm sure there's a cheap option like here.

[rah]

What are the benefits of not being married?
Leaving out the cost of a big wedding since I'm sure there's a cheap option like here.

[Fake Boris]

Resentment against the RCC.

[rah]

I was more thinking a civil service.

[ricketyclik]

What are the benefits of not being married?
Leaving out the cost of a big wedding since I'm sure there's a cheap option like here.

The fact that we don't have to put undue pressure on our relationship by making rash promises that, looking at it objectively, just aren't ours to make.

Specifically, for me and my wife to promise to stay together forever no matter what was and is just speculative.

[rah]

Somehow, I think after 17 years, that ship already sailed.

[ricketyclik]

Not necessarily. People divorce after longer.

Not that that's my intention mind you.

[rah]

Like I said, different culture.
I believe if my wife put up with me for 17 years, she'd deserve a little legal protection if I decided to cast her out.
But similar it's not my intention either so it probably doesn't really make a difference.

[ricketyclik]

There's the thing: in Australia the de-facto laws are far newer than the marriage laws, and as such afford the parties far greater protection as common-law couples than as legally wed ones.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, well, if I lived under such a, ummm, traditional* system, then yes, I would marry my wife.

* Trying to be polite.

If you want the government benefits that result because the government wishes to promote stability in relationships (for social as well as childrearing purposes), I don't see why you shouldn't have to be able to prove that you are married (through a license or whatnot) rather than just going up to the government, claiming marriage and getting tax benefits (or similar).