Seems like something folks would care about? It's adjacent to the "When I die, who gets my stuff?" part of the marriage contract which I remain convinced is the real reason governments need to be involved with marriage contracts. I also know a lot of folks who would rather their S.O. make medical decisions for them if they're debilitated than, say a sibling (especially if they're estranged).
But yeah, this doesn't explicitly prevent you from assigning power of attorney to an unmarried partner, of course.
"But here, in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn't easy. You may ask 'Why do we stay up there if it's so dangerous?' Well, we stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: tradition!"
Presumably Married people at that stage are there because they work together not because there's just someone else there.
How many people are going to choose to have a mid/late-life crisis because a survey made them wonder if they were truly happy with their huge, life-changing and nearly irreversible decision to be married?
It could also be that people who are generally happier tend to be those to get/stay married.
I also wonder if there is some sunk cost psychology involved when surveying those later in life.
It would potentially be also interesting to control for sexual activity? Presumably most married couples were sexually active together at some point, which I'd assume generally increases happiness.
In the cases of "never married", their happiness level approached that of married people in the last 10-15 years. Whereas divorced people were absolutely miserable, especially in the first few years following the separation.
This suggests that it's the divorcees who bring down the average happiness level of the "single" group, not that "marriage" brings up the happiness levels.
But the wet roads didn't cause the rain.
As for benefits that don't matter so much I count things like societal approval, "doing what my parents always wanted", etc. Which matter for some, but certainly not for all.
For example, if you die, in marriage the house easily passes to your partner. Otherwise, it may go to next-of-kin.
Also divorce offers a structured way to manage ownership after a break-up.
I am not particularly fond of our marriage system, but LGBTQ fought for marriage rights for a reason.
We both have wills, which deals with with the probate issue of our ownership shares. You should have a will, even if you’re married! Probate can be expensive for your successors and family, and the process without a will is much more involved with the state. I also recommend establishing a revocable trust for these reasons.
I think the idea of a legal structured process for other belongings in event of a break-up sounds appealing in some regards, but reviews from friends who have been through the process rate it at “0 out of 10 this SUCKS” and “now I owe alimony for the rest of my life-ish because my ex decided to quit their job and become a grad student before we split”. In any event if we break up acrimoniously, we can still hire lawyers…
I also appreciate how I have a partner against this world, legally and emotionally.
Depending on your location you might already be married in a common law marriage.
Generally, where common law or informal marriage is recognized at all, it requires both shared intent to marry and publicly presenting as married. I know I’ve seen fiction where it requires little more than cohabitation, but that’s not a real thing.
Revenue Canada has their own definition of common law, for tax purposes only (not litigation), which is independant of that and is 12 months.
New Hampshire: Common Law Marriage: "persons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years, and until the decease of one of them, shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married." (N.H. Stat. §457:39)
So not really a fiction. There aren't many requirements there.
The old law in PA did not even require habitation or a contract. All that would be required aside from regular eligibility stuff would be presenting themselves in public as husband and wife plus exchanging words of intent at one time to be married (verbal contract). That law was active until as recently as 2005.
Your recent PA law is in accord with my point that the rules usually require mutual intent to marry plus public presentation.
Emphasis mine. Merely stating you're husband and wife is "little more" in my book. It's pretty easy for people to think you're married, especially if you tell people you're husband and wife to make the conversation easier.
Can’t really understand doubling down on claiming it is relevant after having the relevant issue pointed out again, but, you know, you do you.
You can file separately.
"Two high earners" is not a meaningful description. Two people each earning $500K is far different than one earning $300K and one earning $700K.
Marriage is a complex and binding contract that for two high earners is a tax disadvantage. The most prominent benefits I’ve learned are some situations around visitation rights, and avoiding being compelled to testify against your spouse. It comes from a very dubious history of the husband essentially owning the wife. The “commitment” of the legal marriage obviously doesn’t prevent people from falling out of love or breaking up, not that it should – if one partner stops loving another they will still leave the relationship one way or another. So, why marry — besides “tradition” and “society wants you to for whatever reason”?