42, not married, have always wanted to be, and now thinking - why? Is marriage really that great?

[Anonymous]

If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

That's a great way to increase the number of people who don't marry. Especially low income people who don't get time off. So, if you're trying to put the death knell in marriage, esp for people without a lot of resources, then great plan.

Personally, I didn't find I needed to be nanny stated like this when my husband and I decided we were ready to get hitched. I'm surprised you think you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

That's a great way to increase the number of people who don't marry. Especially low income people who don't get time off. So, if you're trying to put the death knell in marriage, esp for people without a lot of resources, then great plan.

Personally, I didn't find I needed to be nanny stated like this when my husband and I decided we were ready to get hitched. I'm surprised you think you did.

This. Plus, now many people do you know who get married without planning at least 30 days in advance. I can't think of anyone I've ever known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m divorced with kids, about ten years your junior. I think marriage is valuable - can be valuable - when you think of it not in terms of romance or love, but partnership. Of course, chemistry and sex and attraction and fondness are wonderful (and important) in marriage, but the value of a good marriage is what the partnership enables each individual to achieve, and what they can achieve together. I think these kinds of marriages are in the minority, but are what people who do marry aspire to.

I agree that the partnership is valuable. I got married in my late 30s to a guy in his mid-40s, and we've been married for about 8 years now. First marriage for both, no kids. I'd been very happy as a single, so I was nervous going into marriage - such a big CHANGE - but I'm even happier married. In addition to love, romance, and all of that - I gained a wonderful life partner. Financial partnership - we're BOTH better off by pooling our money.

Not clear to me why you have to get married to "pool your money". And there is the issue that getting married, and thus entangling your finances, puts your money at risk in the event of a divorce.

For one thing, I wasn't comfortable with making large financial commitments - such as buying a house together - without the legal commitment. Some people do it, but I wouldn't have. Either way, it would be a entanglement to sort out in the event of a breakup or divorce. To me, the benefit is worth the risk. Also both DH and I have partial pensions (one is fed, other is private sector), and I'm not sure that we would be eligible for survivor benefits if we weren't married. Not an immediate issue, but it does play into our long-term financial planning.

Buying a house together IS a legal commitment, if you're both on the mortgage and both on the title. So that makes no sense. You can designate someone for survivor benefits if they are not a spouse, so that is not very compelling either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

That's a great way to increase the number of people who don't marry. Especially low income people who don't get time off. So, if you're trying to put the death knell in marriage, esp for people without a lot of resources, then great plan.

Personally, I didn't find I needed to be nanny stated like this when my husband and I decided we were ready to get hitched. I'm surprised you think you did.

That's not really the problem. For example, we did the Catholic "marriage preparation" course before we got married. It required about the level of effort the PP describes, and it covered a lot of different subjects. We did it on a weekend, and lots of other people did it, too.

The real problem with any premarital course is that it will occur when you're on track to get married and you're both feeling all lovey-dovey, and neither of you can imagine things getting so bad that you'd ever get divorced. Nothing can prepare you for the post-honeymoon period of marriage other than actually living it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m happily married but wouldn’t bother if I planned to stay childless.

I'm happily married (ups/downs of course, but generally pretty happy), and I'd still want to be married even if I never wanted children. Actually, I never thought about having kids until after I got married.

I'd say marriage to the right person is great. Marriage to the wrong person, obviously, is miserable. The trick is to find the "right" person. But, I will say that it does really take two to make the marriage work. Lots of give/take and compromise.

This. I think it's also worth considering marriage from the perspective that it's an institution.

Historically, marriage for common people (i.e. not royalty using marriage as a vehicle for building alliances etc) has been about economic efficiency. Pooling resources, ensuring generational asset transfer in an orderly way, etc. I think for many people, the economic aspects of marriage still matter. I earn a very good salary, but DH's is double mine...and most of that is a consequence of someone needing more flexibility to manage our household. It is good for me that the institution of marriage will give me rights to our joint assets. (I know there are all sorts of pitfalls and caveats in a nasty divorce proceeding...but I would have far fewer rights without marriage).

I think there are other social and emotional benefits to marriage that are what we put a cultural premium on these days. And, especially while nuclear family living remains the norm, they are extremely important. If marriage is approached as having institutional gravity that binds you to another human being with a shared commitment to adapting and living together...then it can be very valuable. But it takes a lot of trust to do that...and it can be hard if there aren't other societal forces (e.g. a religious organization) to help ensure both parties remain true to their commitments.

[Anonymous]

We've been married 33 years and it's been wonderful but I know many married couples who just don't seem happy. I don't know if they'd prefer to be on their own but the fear of being on one's own is pretty daunting. Over time the couples we socialize with are the ones we know are happy. Many couples we use to socialize with are no longer "happy couples" and our times together just felt strained. If I was "suddenly single" I don't think I'd have an interest in getting married again. The odds of me getting lucky a second time would be slim and I would want my memories of being married to be very positive. If you are single and happy I would not rock the boat but having a man in your life can have many benefits but you don't need to be married to enjoy them.

[Anonymous]

You are asking the question a very large group with lost of people on different stages of marriage, different lengths of marriage and with people of different compatibilities,, therefore you will get different answers. There is no one answer
but if there is one..

The marriage as anything else that humans do or experience has a known and pretty well organized stages and not many people talk or know about them but the more you know about it the more you know about marriage itself.
So is marriage great? Depend on who you ask and WHEN you ask, because when has as much to do with the marriage as who. Every marriage will have phases that are very trying so if you happen to ask the people at such time then you will
get different answer then if you ask the same couple in early stages of marriage. It depends if they have kids or they don't..

etc..

THE STAGES OF MARRIAGE

The Marriage Map
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/divorce-busting/200902/the-marriage-map

[Anonymous]

^ great link

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriage is great if you are married to the right person.

Although as the product of a second marriage I would not marry someone with kids.

Op here. Thanks. Could you elaborate on the second marriage thing?

I'm currently dating someone with kids. Also, while he is well educated and has a steady job and good credit, he doesn't have a lot of assets and neither does his ex. They would have been in decent shape if they had stayed married, but between divorce lawyers and running two houses, their assets are fairly modest. And they have two teens to put through college.

While I actually have a lot of assets (mostly in trust)....

I wouldn't waste my time on him. And they probably should have stayed married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

Same day in Nevada and Virginia.

[Anonymous]

DH and I were in love in a country where being married would have allowed us to be with each other. Premarital sex was a taboo. We have had a great life together and have been blessed with a great life, great marriage and amazing children. No regrets.

In this country where no one would have ostracized us if we moved in together, I would have chosen to do that. If you do not want kids, financial stability etc, there is no need to marry.

[Anonymous]

Do not get married... Simple

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m divorced with kids, about ten years your junior. I think marriage is valuable - can be valuable - when you think of it not in terms of romance or love, but partnership. Of course, chemistry and sex and attraction and fondness are wonderful (and important) in marriage, but the value of a good marriage is what the partnership enables each individual to achieve, and what they can achieve together. I think these kinds of marriages are in the minority, but are what people who do marry aspire to.

I agree that the partnership is valuable. I got married in my late 30s to a guy in his mid-40s, and we've been married for about 8 years now. First marriage for both, no kids. I'd been very happy as a single, so I was nervous going into marriage - such a big CHANGE - but I'm even happier married. In addition to love, romance, and all of that - I gained a wonderful life partner. Financial partnership - we're BOTH better off by pooling our money.

Not clear to me why you have to get married to "pool your money". And there is the issue that getting married, and thus entangling your finances, puts your money at risk in the event of a divorce.

For one thing, I wasn't comfortable with making large financial commitments - such as buying a house together - without the legal commitment. Some people do it, but I wouldn't have. Either way, it would be a entanglement to sort out in the event of a breakup or divorce. To me, the benefit is worth the risk. Also both DH and I have partial pensions (one is fed, other is private sector), and I'm not sure that we would be eligible for survivor benefits if we weren't married. Not an immediate issue, but it does play into our long-term financial planning.

Buying a house together IS a legal commitment, if you're both on the mortgage and both on the title. So that makes no sense. You can designate someone for survivor benefits if they are not a spouse, so that is not very compelling either.

Yes, buying a house is a legal commitment. I didn't see the point in making that large of a legal commitment together without having the legal commitment for the relationship itself. If I was committed enough to make a half million dollar real estate investment, then I was committed enough to get married, and I wanted the same commitment in return. Not everyone sees it that way, but that's the way both my husband and I see it.

And the pension question isn't that simple. I can designate anyone to be a beneficiary for a 401k, TSP, or IRA, but for the federal pension, it's not quite as simple. We'd have to use an insurable interest annuity, which costs more than the spousal benefits for the standard FERS annuity. Plus, I think that I'd have to be either engaged to my designee or living in a relationship that would constitute a common-law marriage in jurisdictions that recognize common-law marriage. I don't want to worry about whether we'd be covered by these provisions - this seems to be more complicated than just getting married in the first place. I'm not sure of the provisions for the private pension - there's probably some similar workaround that costs more and is also a complete pain....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we had to put the time and money into getting a marriage license that you need to get a divorce, people would think much more carefully about getting married. It’s doable on a whim now. At least a 30 day waiting period with a mandatory 8 hour course on sexuality, finances, and child rearing.

That's a great way to increase the number of people who don't marry. Especially low income people who don't get time off. So, if you're trying to put the death knell in marriage, esp for people without a lot of resources, then great plan.

Personally, I didn't find I needed to be nanny stated like this when my husband and I decided we were ready to get hitched. I'm surprised you think you did.

That's not really the problem. For example, we did the Catholic "marriage preparation" course before we got married. It required about the level of effort the PP describes, and it covered a lot of different subjects. We did it on a weekend, and lots of other people did it, too.

The real problem with any premarital course is that it will occur when you're on track to get married and you're both feeling all lovey-dovey, and neither of you can imagine things getting so bad that you'd ever get divorced. Nothing can prepare you for the post-honeymoon period of marriage other than actually living it.

I'm the PP and I am an atheist, so I was not required to go to any marriage classes whatsoever.

How about we don't let people marry until they've lived together for at least one full year, so they aren't at that stage where no one thinks the other person ever farts of fails to do the diehes instead. They can see if the other person holds down a job and pays their share of the bills. If you want to put hurdles in the way of marriage that might actually help determine the relationship's longevity, I'd argue for that.