Is Marriage Obsolete? CBS report.

[mhsjax]

I totally agree. And, yes, I remember thinking there was a big difference at 26. Once those years start flying by--three years seems like nothing.




A spouse is not automatically entitled to life insurance but must be listed as the beneficiary. Alimony is pretty rare depending on what state you're in and child support goes both ways. If a couple has joint custody and their salaries are pretty similar, it's not much. If the husband got full custody, the wife would have to pay him child support. These things have changed because women are better able to support themselves--the same reason some women don't choose to marry.



No need to be sorry and I'm not going to try to change your mind on something you believe in so strongly. Whatever works for you and yours is great.



I think the young 'uns often don't realize that Grandma was young once and went through the whole thing again with her own kids. In my family, it's hard to shock Grandma.




Not everyone had that rarified experience, though. I moved out at 17 and worked my way through college with a full-time job and my own apartment with it's own set of bills. I wasn't that different at 22 then I was at 26. Heck, at 22, I was living in Germany--thousands of miles and a big old ocean away from any family support. I know you know what that's like.

Actually in FLorida I believe that spouses are automatic beneficiaries. It is hard to get someone else before spouse. Someone may know more and correct me in I am wrong.

 

[eliza61]

I think marriage is a beautiful institution. To love someone enough that you are willing to vow to be one with them for the remainder of your life is powerful. I don't care how long you've been with someone, if you're not willing to marry them; then you're not willing to COMMIT to them--the door is always open for you. I don't think this is the direction our society should be heading towards. I think family unity is helpful in instilling morals and values into our children. Today, kids are out of control and desensitized.


Why do some women equate getting married with needing a man? I get so tired of hearing " I don't need a man to bring home the bacon" or "I don't want to give up my independence". Marriage does not mean you are desperate for a man to take care of you or that you have to become totally submissive to a man. I also hear people saying that they don't want to have to compromise or explain what they do with their money. If you are in a "healthy" relationship and trying to build something; married or not, you are going to have to compromise and manage money together.

.

I guess the same reason why people feel the only way to commit to some one is to marry them.

My older brother just left his wife of 15 years. wife #3 by the way. He's piss poor excuse? My father recently died (in May) and it made him realize how short life is? What the heck? so much for committment. my sil is devestated, my nephew is confused and angry and the sob is holding a grudge because I won't let him park in my basement
Being married in no way guarantees anyone a commitment, it simply means at t he time of the ceremony you thought that was what you wanted to do.

P.S. right now I'm so freakin mad at my older brother its probably clouding my view on men and commitment right now.

 

[Colleen27]

Yep he does pay, with rights to Life insurance, rights to his retirement, my right to child support and my right to alimony should he decide to leave. Now all that being said, it won't happen, we have said all along that even id we hate each other that we would co exist for the kids.

That's another place the lines have been blurred. Child support isn't dependent upon marriage at all. Marriage is no guarantee in terms of life insurance or retirement (aside from social security); married people can designate someone other than their spouse as beneficiary, and unmarried couples can designate one another as beneficiaries. Alimony doesn't even exist any more except in very narrow, unusual circumstances. There's less legal benefit to marriage now than at any time in our past; aside from certain issues of adoption, tax law (which does not favor marriage), and government benefits, the advantages usually associated with marriage can all be established without it.

 

[Acklander]

I don't know why you assume to know about my relationship with him, I find in very insulting.

I don't assume anything about your relationship and didn't make any comments about your personal relationship, so not sure where you got that. My intentions weren't to insult you. I'm talking about standards in a marriage. I keep seeing people post about how people give up on marriage to easily these days and didn't really understand what they meant by that. But when you post about being willing to stay in a marriage with someone who you hate or who would hate you just for the sake of the kids - well, I'm just saying that I wouldn't stay in that type of relationship, so yes - I guess you can put me in the catagory of someone who gives up too easily on marriage. I would not stay in a loveless marriage and I wouldn't want to stay in a marriage where my husband didn't love me. Those are my standards and those are the standards that I hope my children choose to follow.

 

[lisaviolet]

I am not married - never have been and I come from parents together still (54 years).

But here are my opinions regardless:

There are a boatload of people who divorce too easily. A boatload. They think their unhappiness is about their spouse. And it's not. It's really about them (their issues) and will continue to go on and take the same crap into another relationship thinking "oh my wife or husband made me act like that". Probably why these specific people can have multiple marriages unless they realize. And if they only knew the loveliness on the other side of pushing through difficult feelings/issues - well they probably would have made it through - it's a shame for everyone involved. And a lot of studies show that men especially will admit that if they had to go back they would have worked on their first marriage.

So not wanting to do the work - absolutely.

However, there are times that divorce is not evil.

Some get divorced b/c their spouse is abusive. So out is best for them - for their children and really for their spouse to BE TOLD - No, no and let me see "NO". Not going to work for me. Great courage. To those on here that have done this - I can only imagine the strength it must have taken. You must get tired of those who talk about divorce.

And some get divorced because they are not with the right person. They made a mistake. And choose not to continue that mistake for decade after decade. Personally, I think - after really looking at it/seeing a therapist/really thinking hard if they have a family - it takes courage to make this choice. And people aren't told that enough. Lord knows there are some - even here on the Disboards on a daily basis - going on and on about their successful long marriages and really some are sitting in "dead" marriages. No sex (unless BOTH want this) - lack of communication etc. And some staying because you **should**. Yet being so proud of being married for X years. This can't be a great model for children. Or good for those couples involved. I am wowed by long marriages - don't get me wrong. It's wonderful. But sometimes I believe the number means nada if the marriage is sitting in denial.

And then there are couples who never married but have such beautiful evolving relationships.


And I feel that if you leave someone because it's not working with - no matter how much you try - that you not only free yourself. You free that person. They deserve to be loved fully. And if you're not the one to do that - well they deserve better. Obviously, with children everything needs to be looked at with such serious intensity. But then again many children - some adult ones on here - wish their parents hadn't stuck it out together.

Interesting study.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Actually in FLorida I believe that spouses are automatic beneficiaries. It is hard to get someone else before spouse. Someone may know more and correct me in I am wrong.

Our policies were written in Florida--I think how it works is that spouse is automatic beneficiary. In order to name someone else, spouse would have to put it in writing that it can be someone else. We bought our policies several years ago, so I might not have that quite right. Basically spouse is entitled to it unless they choose not to be.

 

[lisaviolet]

Oh and one of my favourite quotes about marriage comes from Kathy Griffin's father.

Before he passed she was really pushing him one day. She was saying "Dad - people who watch this show - they see you and mom - they want to know how? How it has worked. How you've been married so long. "

He kept saying, "Kathy, I have no idea. No idea at all. I'm no expert on that." And she kept pushing as only Kathy Griffin can do.

So finally he said that he only knew one thing. One. That he truly believed that each person needs to think that his/her wife/husband/partner is the BEST THING on the earth. Maybe they're not really : but to you they must feel like they are.

My father still looks at my mother like she's the cute little redhead that he skipped streetcars to talk to more than fifty years ago. Does that mean success right there? No. But I would bet you that feeling got him/them through the rough times that every single marriage faces. He's 75 and I KNOW he still feels that. Does she drive him crazy at times? Absolutely - I would bet daily. But he still feels it.

 

[PrincessDana]

I disagree with this. Just because you don't want a piece of paper saying you're married, doesn't mean you're not committed to your partner. Yes, the door is always open for you - yet you stay. To me, that's a sign of a bigger commitment. You're there because you want to be there, not because a piece of paper says you have to be there.

The whole....I am there because I CHOOSE to be...not because I HAVE to be or because it's too much trouble to get a divorce....is the part that I am completely in tune with.

 

[dhardawa]

I am 36 and have never been married. I don't plan to either. I have been in long term relationships so it isn't that I'm relationship phobic. It is just that for me marriage is a religious union and I'm not religious AT ALL. So, why bother? I also don't like the idea of legally taking on someone the financial responsibilities or someone else like student loans, credit card debt, etc. In my state, if we marry and then divorce, half of that is my debt now. It goes the other way too. I have money in the bank, own my own home, own my car, have nice furniture, etc. I don't want to be put in a position where someone could take half of that. So, we can live together long term, split the bills, and raise kids together, but I see no reason to legally be considered a single entity.

 

[jenrose66]

Marriage is not obsolete. I came from a home where my dad left my mom, brother, and I for another woman and it hurt, but it didn't sour my view on marriage, it made me more determined to nurture my marriage and make it work, by today's standards I got married young (22).

Anyway, I consider myself fairly liberal, but I think it's sad that family has gone by the wayside. There is something to say about doing things in order (ie, marriage then kids, etc...whether that be straight or gay couples...i mean I know with gay couples they can't be married in many places and that's unfortunate...but in places where they can have a recognized union they should go for it too!)

As a side note, I just had a baby on Monday. She's finally sleeping but I'm on night duty so not worth it to sleep just yet...Anyway, it's like the hospital is so worried about offending non married couples that they just offend the married people instead. I had so many nurses not asking about my husband but asking questions about the "baby's father" I would reply "that would be my husband and he's at home right now caring for our other children. Even when you fill out hospital paperwork and birth certificate things you are asked for the mother's information and then the "other parent or father's information" seriously "other parent" is the default term and not father...what is this world coming to?? Why not assume that couples are married instead of assuming they are not?

 

[Mrs. Darcy]

For me, if I wasn't married to my husband I don't think I'd feel that special commitment that I want to feel. Judging from the divorce rate and people who are choosing to stay unmarried I agree marriage is becoming obsolete and I think it's sad.

 

[Acklander]

Judging from the divorce rate and people who are choosing to stay unmarried I agree marriage is becoming obsolete and I think it's sad.

I don't know why you would consider that sad. They're not saying love is obsolete, or personal committment is obsolete or families are obsolete - just that the desire to have a piece of paper authorizing it isn't as important to people as it once was. I don't see anything sad about the fact that some couples can have a fufilling life together without being married.

 

[punkin]

I don't know why you would consider that sad. They're not saying love is obsolete, or personal committment is obsolete or families are obsolete - just that the desire to have a piece of paper authorizing it isn't as important to people as it once was. I don't see anything sad about the fact that some couples can have a fufilling life together without being married.

That piece of paper carries a lot of weight with the state you know and gives you rights that some people (who are denied that right) are still fighting for. I am a big proponent of marriage, particularly if you are planning to have a family.

 

[Acklander]

That piece of paper carries a lot of weight with the state you know and gives you rights that some people (who are denied that right) are still fighting for. I am a big proponent of marriage, particularly if you are planning to have a family.

I used to feel the same way. As I've gotten older, not so much. Personally I've never been big on weddings (though I love other people's weddings) - I eloped, so the ceremony wasn't important to me. I also believe the 'weight" that piece of paper carries has been diminished over the years. Maybe that's the difference?

 

[badcramps]

I am married (in about six states at least) and do think that the legal aspects that are currently attached to marriage (especially for parents who are not both the biological parents of a child) are very important. At the same time I think it is a good thing that marriage is becoming less important culturally because I don't think those legal rights should be attached only to marriage (and the more people who are not married, the more likely the decoupling of many of those rights from marriage will occur.)

Also I find it odd and depressing the way that culturally this *legal* piece of paper is thought to show that people with that paper are more committed. It is one thing if people find *for themselves* that a legal contract (or if they are religious, a religious sacrament/ceremony) changes the emotional or commitment aspects of their relationship. But I find it extremely odd when others think they can know what's going on in other people's relationships based on having or not having that piece of paper and the set of legal rights that come with it. (Also I find the strange bedroom rules for visitors absurd. But whatever--your house, your rules I guess. Had I ever run into such rules I would have been sure to return the favor--"mom and dad you have to sleep in separate rooms; old married sex is gross and we won't be having any of it in our house!"--but luckily we never did.)

The most important aspects of marriage that we were interested in at this point in our lives were (in order): 1) the ability of both of us to be have legal rights to any children we have, 2) connected to #1--the ability for either of us to insurance to our children through our employer, 3) the ability of each of us to get health insurance through the other, and 4) the protection that comes from being able to get a legal divorce.

Interestingly, 1-3 are all about kids (and in particular cementing the legal protections as parents as a gay couple). But couples (gay or straight) who don't want kids don't need to worry about most of this quite so much.

For instance, for straight couples who have a biological child, 1 & 2 needn't be a concern--they will both automatically have legal rights as a result of their biological ties to the child and the child therefore will be able to be insured by either of them. If they break up they can have a custody battle in which both parents are recognized as legal parents regardless of their marital status. For us if one of us gives birth in a state in which our marriage is recognized, that will likely mean we can both be listed as parents on the birth certificate. In many states that don't recognize our marriage, the non-biological parent has no way whatsoever of getting any legal rights with regard to the child. (Some states that don't allow marriage, do allow a second parent adoption process. This means that until the process is final, the second parent has no rights to the child and the child can't be insured by the second parent. So a good option if it's all you have, but nearly as good as being recognized as a legal parent from day one. Also to the poster above complaining that the "other" form on the birth certificate "offends" married people--that is likely there to specifically to encompass *all* married people including married same-sex couples in which there are two mothers and no fathers.)

Our concern about being able to provide health insurance for one another is mostly about having children as well. If we never had children, then barring disability, unemployment, or other major health concerns, we could realistically assume that we will each be working in our professional career paths without any major gaps. So neither of us would be particularly dependent on the other for health insurance. (This is where the women are now financially independent stuff comes in I think.) However, since we are planning to have kids, we don't know what will happen once we have them. It's possible one of us will want to/need to take extended time off of work or work part-time for a few years and in that case the working one would need to be able to provide health insurance for the other. I can completely understand, though, for a couple who isn't planning to have kids and who are in career paths with good benefits how health insurance wouldn't be a major reason for getting married.

Our final major reason for getting married is so that we can, if we ever need to, get divorced (meaning, have the legal protections associated with a divorcing couple vs. a couple who is merely breaking up). This, it seems to me, is a reason that would apply to all couples gay or straight. But how ironic that the most important reason I can offer for a straight couple not having children to get married is that so they can get divorced!

In any case, I've seen some sociological work recently that seems to indicate two there different sorts of marriage trends going on that are specific to different regions of the country and the different political/cultural values the different regions have embraced. The claim is that the rising age at first marriage is happening mostly in the blue states amongst well-educated, middle-class whites with the bluest areas having the highest age at first marriage. The thought is that women in particular in these areas are getting more education and have more higher powered careers than in the past. Marriage and childbearing then are being pushed off until later in order to allow women to finish the education, establish a career, and the couple begins establishing a middle-class income level and lifestyle before getting married. But the vast majority of these people are having sex before marriage, are using contraceptives and in some cases abortion to avoid having an unwanted child, and many are cohabitating for years before marriage. This means they are in a better economic situation when they do get married and have kids and this in turn is thought on average to lead to a lower chance of divorce and better outcomes for the kids.

On the other end is the situation in the reddest areas amongst whites. (In this sociological work there are significant racial differences seem to not fit the blue/red model.) Age at first marriage is significantly younger--21/22 at the lowest vs. 28/29 in the highest state. Sex before marriage is just as common, but use of contraception and abortion are not as common. Out of wedlock pregnancies are more likely to result in a birth and cultural values encourage marriage even at young age when a pregnancy occurs (unlike the contrasting bluest areas in which marriage at a young age--for any reason--is discouraged). And the claim is that on average when people get married younger they enter marriage with less education (and they proceed to get less education than their unmarried bluest counterparts) and are less well-off in terms of income which correlates with a higher divorce rate and less good outcomes for children.

So what seems to be going on (according to this research) is that for the bluest folks marriage and sex have been separated and sex and childbearing have been separated, and marriage is now about combining and protecting the resources they accrued as young professionals. And for the reddest folks marriage, sex, and childbearing are still much more connected and marriage is much less about protecting resources. Of course these are grand generalizations and for individual people/couples marriage may do all or none of these things. But when you look at the demographics--who gets married and when in what areas of the country, who has children, what is their socio-economic and education status, who gets divorced, etc. you can really see these trends.

So I would think marriage isn't becoming obsolete--it's just that it's now doing very different things for different people. (Which you can see on this thread where some people think marriage legitimizes sex and others refer to it as a piece of paper and I got married so that I can get divorced!)