If those aren't your priorities though, then I would agree, marriage probably isn't a good option for you. If you view marriage as "what you can get" rather than "what you can give/share" then it will not work and will result in unhappiness.
Marriage (by which I mean the contract enforced by your state) adds nothing to the mix beyond a massive financial liability (for the man) if the relationship ends. Read this article for an example of the bad results of marriage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.h...
In reality most people in the US aren't as inclined to have life partners without the marriage part. And frankly, there is something special about professing your commitment to another person in front of your community that somehow makes your bond with your partner stronger.
Is marriage required? Probably not. But I think you are missing a good part of it by claiming financial reasons for despising marriage.
One gets big tax breaks for owing money to a bank for a mortgage loan or for having children, but not simply for being married. Hence the term "marriage penalty".
If you do the math you actually find that married folk pay less US federal income taxes in certain situations and more in others. (CA is the same - I don't know about other states) The result depends on the distribution of income between the two people
If both people make roughly the same amount of money, being married results in more taxes. If one person makes all the money, being married results in less taxes.
It turns out that a marriage differential (different taxes for married and unmarried couples) is a mathematical consequence of any tax system that has progressive marginal rates and treats a married couple's income as a lump sum.
That said, the marriage differential can be "married is always cheaper", "married is always more expensive", or "some times married is cheaper and some times it isn't" (as is the case with US and CA). It all depends on the various rates and deductions.
Other than the possibility where that could be interpreted as not trusting your partner, that sounds like a great idea from a "CYA" perspective.
Of course, it could only really work if the relationship you have with your father is very solid. You wouldn't want him kicking you out of "your" house because of some arbitrary conflict.
I suppose marriage is what you make of it. I consider being married to be a different state than not being married. I don't see any state change happening from writing a poem. But there is one with getting tattoos.
Whether or not you get married in the eyes of the state or a church I don't think is important. But I do think that promise is important, and it is further weighted if done publicly.
Now that I'm on the other side, I've seen that neither the church, nor the state, nor the social network of community witnesses (nor the legal commitment of having adopted her two sons for that matter) could stand in the way of her caprice-driven dalliances.
And, living in a "No Fault Divorce" state meant that her violation of the terms of the marriage provided me no benefit or protection when it came time to kick her to the curb out of self-preservation.
Society, with all its witnessing, was nowhere to be found. Everybody wants to come to the wedding. Nobody wants to come to the divorce.
Next time I'll opt for the tattoo. ;-)
I've always been a "it's just a piece of paper, you don't need it to signify real commitment" -- but I was wrong. I was surprised, myself.
Now, it is a contract between you, your intended spouse, and "The State". And therefore when you marry you are giving the State some measure of control over your life.
Seems more like a contract between you and your spouse that has been approved of by the state.
If they had been married for 10 years then there would be Social Security implications etc. Plus I think they still force you to take a blood test ect.
PS: Separation of Church and State my ass.
And there's no blood test in VA anymore (nor DC for that matter).
It's one thing to have both people say we agree to split property like this it's another to say you have to wait and jump though a lot of hoops to get divorced.
Consider two people that want a divorce, but can't really afford separate households at this point and don't want to sell the house when the economy is bad. Granted this is not the "normal" path but plenty of people get divorced without hating each other.
Keep in mind that with things like divorce and child custody/support, couples change their minds (sometimes a lot). Our court systems can't handle this (certainly not the costs). Over the years, our societies have required legislatures to define rules and processes for lumping everyone into a process. I don't think the state really wants to be involved in divorce cases, but there are reasons they are (property, debts, retirement benefits, child custody/support, etc).
Like it or not, state courts have to be involved in divorces. For some couples that can handle it without the courts, well, like education, they get dragged down into the mean.
I'm pretty sure a marriage + a solid pre-nuptial agreement would put you on much better legal/financial ground than a "committed non-martial relationship" without a written contract.
And, really, this is pretty basic legal advice. You should always have an independent, disinterested lawyer review contracts before you sign them.
There is an increasing phenomenon of women choosing to give birth out of wedlock. It's not yet clear if they are having children without a cohabitant partner.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/a-new-tren...
I really think you're being unrealistic if you think women don't care about getting married before having children with someone. You can place whatever value judgments you like on the reasons for that, but to say it isn't the case isn't realistic.
(I'm 15 weeks pregnant, I have no intentions of getting married.)
>I really think you're being unrealistic if you think most women don't care about getting married before having children with someone