Reply to 42, not married, have always wanted to be, and now thinking

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. 
[/quote]

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.   [b]Financial partnership - we're BOTH better off by pooling our money. [/b] [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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....[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics