> If two people are going to stay together, a piece if paper telling them they're officially together.doesn't make any difference and if two people are going to separate, some paper's likely not going to stop it

"Marriage is a contract" isn't just a catchphrase, it's literally a contract and serves exactly the same purpose as a business contract.

See how this statement sounds: "If 2 businesses are going to keep doing business together, a piece of paper telling them officially doing business together doesn't make any difference and if 2 business are going to break their engagements, some paper's likely not going to stop it"

In a sense everything above is true, but yet, a businesses wouldn't enter an important business deal without a contract.

Marriage can be seen similarly, when you sign the contract you are doing so with expectations : "this person makes me happy, I'm ok combining forces to go further"/"this business partnership makes me increase my profits, I'm ok doing this deal with them"

Both marriages and business deal can go sour. People change, business constraints change. Getting the right provisions in a contract makes sense in both cases.

Both people getting married and businesses striking a deal don't enter the contract with the hope that they will have to break the contract.

Both know they can break the contract if needed, with effect somewhat known.

While I agree with the overall sentiment here, it's worth noting that businesses use contracts because trust between two parties can never be assumed—both businesses are purely acting in their own self-interest. On the other hand, with marriage, it's generally (hopefully) safe to assume that both parties trust each other fully before entering into the agreement. Whether and how that plays out in practice is another story, but IME, very few people enter into marriage prepared for the case in which it ends. This is why prenuptial agreements can sometimes be a touchy subject, since it breaks that assumption of complete trust.

One of the functions of a marriage contract is to protect your partner from other people.

This is why gays have fought for the right. They got tired of co-mingling their finances, buying a house together and then having one partner thrown out into the street with little more than the clothes on their back when one of them died and the parents (or nearest blood relative) inherited the house.

> On the other hand, with marriage, it's generally (hopefully) safe to assume that both parties trust each other fully before entering into the agreement.

This is a lot less obvious in practice than it seems. Fair-weather 'partnership' isn't really rare. Unless it has been tested at times of adversity it is hard to predict how people would react. A piece of paper does not ensure that the relationship will be anything but of the fair-weather variety, with one ready to jump ship at first signs of bad times, it does give one an opportunity to reflect on the gravity of the promise and vows and the public nature of the promise gives it some air of barrier to dissolution.

> On the other hand, with marriage, it's generally (hopefully) safe to assume that both parties trust each other fully before entering into the agreement. Whether and how that plays out in practice is another story, but IME, very few people enter into marriage prepared for the case in which it ends.

Sounds to me you're describing the whole point of marriage as a contract, as it specifies the default set of conditions and requirements that are applied to both parties, and also the rights and obligations of both parties in case of a contract resolution and even breach of contract.

> This is why prenuptial agreements can sometimes be a touchy subject, since it breaks that assumption of complete trust.

Again, it sounds like you're describing the whole point of marriage as a contract, as its the original (and baseline) prenuptial agreement.

Prenups aren't valid in every country.

I'm not sure how that's relevant?

The fundamental difference between a business contract and a marriage is (at least in most western countries) a breach of a business contract results in the breaching party paying compensation to the non-breaching party. Contemporary marriage and its "no fault divorce" system means no sanctions for breach, change of mind, cannot be bothered anymore etc.

Seriously? Breach of a marriage contract (aka divorce) is probably one of the most costly transactions a person will ever encounter in their lifetime. Half the assets, alimony, and child support is a pretty high price.

Just ask Jeff Besos!

Ask Dr Dré

Several states have or have had laws against allowing unmarried partners or friends from making medical decisions. This was a huge deal for the legalization of gay marriage - before that you were in rough shape if your unmarried partner even wanted to visit you if you were incapacitated in the hospital.

In my case, we found that getting married changed the way that we view our relationship.

We had already been together for over 10 years, but getting married was a commitment to each other that we'll try our hardest to make things work. It adds another layer of stability which is important for planning kids, careers, finances, and so forth. We can make choices as though our relationship will still exist X years down the line -- this isn't necessarily true, of course, but in the medium-term it becomes a reasonable assumption.

It also brought us closer. Mutually agreeing to be each other's life partners is a big step. I don't have to worry that my partner is going to choose their career over me or vice-versa. We've both decided to put our relationship first, which causes a subtle-but-important shift in your relationship.

If we go back 50 years:

- DNA tests did not exist. a guy could get a woman pregnant, not recognize the child and have no legal obligation to pay for child support. A woman could also trick a man to support a kid that is not his, but that's another story.

- Many women were housewives, and a separation would leave them, and potentially their kids, with nothing.

- The wedding ring serves the purpose of telling everyone around you that you are not single. People did not have an online presence that could help you infer this.

Weddings serve many purposes, it is not only a celebration, it is also informational, and wedding gifts can be considered an early form of crowdfunding.

Marriage guarantees legitimacy of children under the law and financially protects people. They are also great for historic purposes.

Many cultures have converged towards the same thing for a reason.

"It's typically an expensive ceremony"

A 'marriage' is not a 'ceremony' or a 'piece of paper'.

It's not 'typical' for a ceremony be 'expensive' - that's a very modern construct. My grandparents went to the Church, got married, there was a banquet at the hall, people brought food. That's it.

But how hard is it to understand that people want to honour their commitment in some way?

"Why do we have big awards ceremonies for those people (artists, citizens, soldiers), it's so expensive!"

Some (most?) people would want to honour that commitment. Many people who don't, just don't find themselves in the right conditions, but would otherwise.

But beyond the ceremony, marriage is a social institution, not a 'piece of paper'.

(Personally, I have a hard time grasping why people struggle with this)

A marriage is something 'that is built', the ceremony is just part of that, it takes time, effort, input to build a relationship, it's not just 'something that happens'.

1. I think you're mistaking marriage for a wedding. The wedding is the expensive ceremony (and studies show the more expensive, the less stable the marriage!)

2. A marriage contractually binds you together in a lot of ways that are subtle but powerful. You share debts, you share risk, you share counsel. Your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you. While few people will ever encounter this scenario, the idea is powerful. Legally speaking, your spouse and you are a unit that cannot be turned against each other.

If marriage has no point, why has it lasted so long and is so widespread? The reasons are there if you look for them.

Stability for children; emotional, physical, and financial.

Do not underestimate the value to children in knowing/feeling that their situation has personal, familial and societal permanence, even if that permanence is somewhat illusory.

That is not to say there isn't value to childless people in marriage. But the value of it truly became meaningful to me once we had children. Conflicts with the spouse that could potentially lead to severance of the relationship tend to be diminished when the perspective of the children is taken into account.

Marriage is more of a social or cultural construct; regardless if people see a point in doing it, the US government provides a wealth of monetary support to couples and families who do it (e.g. married couples can have substantially lower tax filings compared to being single.)

Funny, I've heard from multiple married friends of the "marriage tax" and how it knocks their finances all out of whack tax-wise. Some have seen the tax burden go up, and then again when getting divorced a few years later. But as for "why get married?" It's a way that people show commitment to each other.

The marriage tax seems like a way for the government to get it's cut of joint filings if couples are maximizing their income relative to their inherently lower tax bracket. I'm just a kid so don't quote me but I'd be willing to wager that the IRS has figured out all sorts of ways to prevent couples from abusing their tax leverage versus when they were single. Why people get married is very different than

> Why does my relationship need to be officially registered

There could be many reasons why couples get married, and many reasons why couples get divorced.

Interestingly. In Australia there is 0 tax difference between being married or having been in a relationship for 6 months. It’s considered the same.

Otherwise people would never get married :)

The tax reforms during the Trump administration largely eliminated the marriage tax penalty, expect for couples earning more than $600k/year. Prior to those changes, married couples would generally pay more tax in their combined income then if they filed separately. The big exception to that was there was a big difference in earnings between the partners, in which case they’d pay less overall

I think it makes most sense if you see it from the perspective of your child. Having family and friends "witness" your marriage ceremony (especially your vows) has a strong cultural pull toward monogamy to the benefit of raising your children in a two parent household. Apparently the government saw this commitment so valuable they tied into it legislatively.

Our child witnessed us getting married. He liked it so much that he asked if we could get married again a week later.

It's a different thing once you are married. Speaking as a man, anyway, it changes the way you think about the relationship that may be hard to understand until you go through the experience. The ceremony of it, particularly if you are primarily married in the religious context, with the state being an afterthought formality, is important. Purely on a legal basis with the state though, there is more overhead to severing the relationship, so it would function to encourage reconciliation. Fundamentally, society has an interest in stable nuclear families because reasons, and marriage supports that interest.

This is a good time to consult Chesterton's fence [1]. If you go up to something that's existed for thousands of years, and find it tempting to declare it pointless cruft that should be swept away in the march of progress, maybe there's something you're missing. I don't have time to make an extended argument but one idea is that the most important part of marriage isn't for the happiness/benefit/pleasure/romance of the couples, but for the benefit of children. Studies demonstrate that children of single-mothers have worse outcomes, such as worse mental health outcomes. A marriage is supposed to be difficult to get out of, to disincentivize broken families. Not that this is anywhere close to a full answer; cultural evolution [2] means we may never get to a full understanding of whether/why the customs we have are beneficial, simply because societal dynamics are extremely complicated and still beyond our understanding.

[1] https://fs.blog/2020/03/chestertons-fence/

[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret...

How you hold yourself out to others matters.

People disrespecting your relationship with your partner because they don't believe its serious is a source of low level obnoxiousness.

Even with a signed power of attorney, it's the norm the medical people will ignore the input of a non-married partner. Yes, you can fight them at the level of bureaucracy and eventually win, but in critical moments you'll be ignored.

Your relationship doesn't need bot be registered but there can be many advantages of doing so, both formal (estate/inheritance/tax/liability) and informal (respect).

Well, for one thing, the marriage party can be a lot of fun (but I agree that many people spend way too much thing). I think the event (because it is a point in time) can bring some sort of "closure" to the parents, though this is mostly more significant in younger marriages, which are less common.

I really have know idea why we do the official registration bit. Presumably it makes life easier for the bureaucrates, which I don't particularly mind. If you had a mariage cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without actually doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

> If you had a maraige cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

If you are lucky enough to live in one of the few remaining places in the world where common-law marriage is still allowed, you can do precisely this. You essentially cohabitate for some amount of time (in my jurisdiction there is actually no set minimum time though I imagine the longer you live together the more legal water it holds) and then just tell people in public that you are married. No paperwork necessary.

I managed to make it four years under such an agreement with my partner doing things such as buying a house, relocating internationally, sharing taxes, finances and medical insurance, without actually needing paperwork. Relocating internationally was the trickiest, but after explanation to the new country of the law they were willing to accept the document that showed we bought a house together as evidence of our marriage.

Eventually this year we finally had to get some paperwork, forced to by, believe it or not, government bureaucrats who would absolutely not allow me to be placed under my partner’s medical insurance (government employee) without marriage documents. Fortunately our jurisdiction allows you to get a piece of paper that just says something like “We decided we were married on this date and the county affirms it”. The paper is stamped by the county and filed like typical marriage paperwork, takes about 5 minutes and does not require a judge.

Overall if someone wants the benefits of marriage without all of the pomp and circumstance and happens to be lucky enough to live in one of the jurisdictions where common law marriage is allowed, I can recommend it.

I had no idea that such places existed. I looked it up, and one of them for example is Ontario:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Ontario

> I really have know idea why we do the official registration bit. Presumably it makes life easier for the bureaucrates, which I don't particularly mind. If you had a mariage cerremony, and started calling yourselvs married without actually doing the paperwork, would anyone actually care?

The registration bit is the most important part, it’s not bureaucratic. For the same reason that you need to have documents drawn up to form a business partnership, it’s for when things go sideways. The registration is the proof that both parties entered into a contract, enforceable by the government.

It's so important a lot of people (like me) just skip the party and just go straight to the registration part.

With $x0,000 you can have a hell of a party regardless...

It is more about intent. Being married is an explicit commitment to one another for life (nominally). That provides a foundation where a bad day, month, or year is okay because you are committed, and that is a place of security for children who know their parents are similarly committed to them. Cohabitating couples are less likely to stay together even if they eventually marry. There's something about commitment to marriage that leads to better outcomes in relationships. The feeling of permanence for the future improves the experience of the now.

Marriage is an economic contract between two families throughout most of human history across all cultures. The idea that love is part of it is fairly recent.

It doesn't have to have any point for any individual. I think it binds people up into nice social units for societal control. By societal convention, you have to marry, just not by law (probably because you or your family historically chose a partner, and it would look quite obviously compulsory if the government mandated a date and a partner.) The government only nudges you that way with things like joint tax filing options.

The laws have gotten less strict, and the social stigma lessened, but the state tries to keep it together as well. You mentioned that a piece of paper won't keep them together, but in most US states, "fault" for a marriage breaking up still comes into play in things like deciding how a court will divide assets, etc., and historically, sometimes you couldn't even get a divorce without someone getting assigned fault.

> Why does my relationship need to be officially registered?

If you don't want to, don't. It's not like this is a mandatory process for doing anything in 21st century.

What the official registering does affect is finance: tax, shared properties, healthcare plans, etc.

There's more to it than that. "Oh, hey, your partner was in a bad car accident. No, you can't go to see them because you're not family."

Also, international couples.

Marriage doesn't always let you live in your spouse's country (some countries have income thresholds, which must suck when both spouses have countries that won't let the other in), but it significantly increases the chance of being allowed to live together for many people.

Indeed, healthcare proxy is a big factor.

Could one have some kind of "registry of approved visitors"? You can have lifelong friends you would trust as much as a spouse, or family members you don't trust. For a hospital clerk to verify that someone is a family member (or a spouse), if the last name on their physical ID doesn't match, would require some kind of database lookup in any case.

It'd probably get complex. Like is person X allowed to visit you, person Y is allowed to approve certain non-invasive procedures for you, and person Z is allowed to make life-altering decisions.

As a paramedic, if you're conscious you'll typically get asked upon admission, "If anyone calls are we allowed to tell them you're here, and do you have any specific desires about visitors?".

If you're unconscious or unable to elucidate these things (which often correlate to the more serious end of the spectrum), not so much.

When I was hospitalized a long time ago we found that my partner was unable to see me and practically unable to act as my proxy (because they wouldn't let her into the hospital beyond the front office), even with a power of attorney (and her being my attorney, too).

Her telling them that she was my husband instantly resolved the problem, no questions asked. It's not like they have any immediate way to check.

Did you mean to comment on the main thread? This has nothing to do with the parent comment.

It always goes back to property & inheritance. That’s why marriage was created in the first place (as a contractual institution; long term committed partners have existed for longer), and that’s why it remains today.

There are a lot of financial benefits to being married: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/why-marriag...

Maybe it's different down there. Up here your benefits are basically being moved to a tax bracket based on your combined income. Which in our case would just push our taxes up without any benefits.

In the US, the tax brackets double for married couples vs singles. Two single persons earning $150k per year would be taxed at the same rate as a married couple earning a combined $300k a year, all else being equal of course.

Is that not the same where you live?

The tax rates on a single combined income are higher than the tax rates for the two uncombined incomes.

Tax rates aren't the same for all tax brackets. So by not being married, despite having the same actual combined income, taxes are lower because it's taxed as two lower income brackets rather than the combined higher one with a higher tax rate.

That isn't exactly true... married filed jointly rates are exactly twice as much as filing separately in the United States, unless your combined income is more than $622,050.. so you are only correct if you make more than that.

https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

Also, it sounds like you might be confused about how income tax brackets work. Your income is not taxed at one rate... each amount is taxed at the rate for that bracket. This means that EVERYONE pays 10% on the first $9,875 they make, no matter how much they make in total. This is how marginal taxes work:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marginaltaxrate.asp

I don't live in the united states.

The comment you were replying to was stating how it works in the US, and your reply made it sound like you were talking about the US still.

I get now that it was part of the conversation about the differences between the US and Canada.

Where's "up here?"

Canada, I am guessing?

Yup that country north of america until you hit Russia.

I think for us it was more about defining our relationship to other people. If you say "I have a partner" people can't understand without further explanation what that means. Also marriage doesn't have to be expensive.

A marriage contract is binding on both sides for their respective rights and responsibilities to each other as well as to potential offspring.

interesting argument because I thought you were just going to point out that the ceremony is unnecessary and the paper is all you need

had me in the first half

anyway there are a lot of state-sponsored benefits when you have the paper, as well as some ease theoretically in medical emergencies

you can skip the expensive ceremony, a lot of people do, others skip it and have one later, and of course yeah many don't get married

>Why does my relationship need to be officially registered?

Because most humans are moronic enough, to value bit and pieces of paper that officially sanctify a relationship.