In the US, that’s not entirely so. Fortunately. Only 11 states even recognize common law marriage and even then in only very specific circumstances. I urge you to check out the Common Law Marriage FAQ at Nolo Press.

To date, only Utah has ever used these laws to go after someone.

“Hey. we should get married!”

Me: “Huh.. why?”

Her: “Cause we’d get cool stuff.”

Me, smiling and nodding, “Yeah.. cool. Ok”

:-)

For us marriage was gaming the system, really. We had already decided to be together For The Duration so it was a formality to please family. Mind you, the fact that we haven’t had kids has caused a bit of concern, but we’ve finally stopped getting abused on that score. Mainly because a crop of nubile girls in the family has started getting married and will almost certainly have children immediately.

I can’t imagine what conditions would have to exist to have the idea of marriage being a two person pairing change. This is essentially a world wide ideal, and is much more strongly rooted in some places (just try being poly anywhere in the middle east, Indonesia, or related places). Essentially, it would mean that the Abrahamic faiths had lost their hold on the psyche of the world, and that we had started going down the road to true secularism.

Its better in The West, of course. But it is still illegal to have more than one cohabitating partner, if that other partner is sexually active with you or your other partner. Blue laws and “common law marriage” laws abound in various states, provinces and countries so that you simply cant cohabitate with people who are not relatives and not be in legal jeopardy, if someone really wanted to push it, or the state did, in a child custody case.

In other words, even if you never got married to your primary partner, living with them for an amount of time makes you a “common law” married couple. Having children in this situation is even worse, as even though you are “common law” married, all that tends to mean is you suffer the bains and not the benefits of that status. No amount of legal wrangling will stop a dedicated social services case worker from “protecting the children” because they found out about your poly lifestyle and consider it dangerous.

None of this will probably happen in a progressive US state or Urban area.. and if the household is clean and happy, and the kids are ok, it is unlikely since social workers are pretty overburdened with horrendous things. But.. that damn sword is still hanging.

So that is also a reason to get married. But, keep in mind if you are married in the US, and another partner comes into it, that state can still charge you with Bigamy (those “common law” marriage things again) even if all are consenting. Unlikely. But legally possible. I do wonder WHO gets charged with bigamy in a same sex couple situation though…but then, most common law marriage laws refer to opposite sex partners, so I’d bet there is no legal standing there. Making same sex couples less in jeopardy if they are poly than opposite sex couples.

(Hey wait.. thats an excellent idea! If you are straight, poly, and have a small pod, and are permanent partners with some people.. just marry the guy/girl who is your partners other SO. Ooo. Its so sneaky it hurts :)

And on and on. These are the problems I worry about, and the ones that I think would change first, if the tides are going in the right direction. If the “common law” marriage laws start getting struck down, then I think that is the canary that tells us more good things are to come.

PS: if any lawyers who know more about this than I care to chime in, please do!

My primary (live-in) SO and I just celebrated our 9th anniversary. That means we’ve lasted more than 3 times as long as either of my disastrous early marriages (divorced the first, was widowed in the second). This relationship is about 3,000 times healthier & happier than either of my marriages, too.

We got the domestic partnership a few years ago, just in case it comes in handy some day (for instance, my employer allows spousal rights on health insurance for registered domestic partners, whether same-sex couples or not, although the paperwork’s a bitch). Of course, my daughters (ages 19 & 15) want us to get married so he can be their “real dad,” but he’s been their real dad in every way that matters for 9 years so that’s a moot point. Not to mention a lousy reason to get married. (For the kids’ sake? Kind of an after-the-fact shotgun wedding?)

My secondary (live-out) SO is more allergic to marriage than anyone I know…other than me. So that works out well. :-)

Marriage simply doesn’t meet any need that I already have met _without_ marriage! I’ll rethink my position if it becomes extremely financially advantageous to ever get married…but it doesn’t look likely. Marriage benefits? All my married friends complain how the government screws them on taxes, and I get WAY better tax breaks filing head-of-household than I possibly could as married, whether filing jointly or not.

@Xan: The problem with boycotting the institution of marriage is that it actually benefits the government financially; they reap savings by not dishing out marriage benefits.

I think that should be “Some of society has changed and some institutions haven’t changed in the same way.” I am against the wholesale trashing of marriage and if, as you say, society is out of sync with human nature, perhaps it should be brought back into alignment with said nature.

From what I’ve seen, the big push for same-sex marriage has been *for* those 1400 benefits so all those saying the government should “get out of the marriage biz” are, in essence, saying that the current push for same-sex marriage is misguided.

Of course, I am very much against throwing out rules or traditions without an understanding of why those rules and/or traditions are there; history shows us the consequences of *that*.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry seems quite reasonable to me (and, it seems to the courts in Massachusetts and California) but it *is* a slippery slope so let’s not get out the toboggan.

Neither have a lot of members of society, unfortunately. I’d go along with what you say but the only way (I suspect) that it will happen is in a couple of generations’ time, when today’s children are tomorrow’s leaders and they have grown up in a world not quite as obsessed with marriage as the be-all-and-end-all.

That being said, adults (as many as you please) should be able to enter into a legal contract that gives the rights that marriage currently gives in our country, in my opinion.

But. It doesn’t have to be a patronizing fiction. It could be the LEGAL STANDARD. Domestic partnerships for everybody! Het couples, gay couples, college roommates, best friends, parent-and-adult-child domestic arrangements, people with other, co-existing partnerships. Quite literally, any domestic partnership – any arrangement of people with common domestic and personal-financial needs and obligations. Marriage rituals for them that want them.

This seems to be something that could, over time, actually happen – a path for the social concept of marriage to evolve from where we’ve been to where we could be, without open warfare between ideological groups or radical all-at-once restructuring of the legal system. It seems attainable.

I don’t think Courtney was necessarily shoving anything down anyone’s throat. I think they were trying to imply that marriage either needs to be solely a religious ceremony or simply a legal contract, and not both.

Either way, someone’s going to get excluded- if marriage becomes nothing but a legal contract with the religious/ceremonial bits stripped away, the right-wingers are going to whine and complain about being excluded because their religious views aren’t being recognized.

I would not support limiting anyone’s right to freedom of religious expression. If someone wants a religious marriage ceremony, no law should stop them. I believe that if you have a religious marriage, you are welcome to adhere to the rules of your religion regarding your conduct of your marriage.

I also believe that civil marriage should be defined by rights and responsibilities with a secular purpose (“The kids need to be taken care of, and the damn bills need to be paid!”). There is no place in a civil contract for the enforcement of religious rules.