You are here

Marriage or Long term Partnerships

Acratopotes's picture

Not to derail another posting, lets go on here...

Should a long term partner be treated like a spouse .... referring to step kids weddings, pictures holidays or what ever.

In short:

Savvy was upset cause she's been living with her partner for 11 years, and she was treated like a stranger at her SD's wedding....
HeavenLike made the point of if you are not married you can expect to be treated as a spouse.

SO Stalkers, how do you feel about this, I've been with SO way longer them most marriages and we are not legally married, does that mean I'm not committed to him, him not to me?

Yet I know of people legally being married but one is screwing around and having affairs, I know of people who divorced after 5 years.... is this commitment cause they did the legal wedding?

Who says my wedding is illegal, a plain simply promise between SO and myself, promising each other to stand by each other through what ever (believe me we had allot of what ever's) to be faithful to one another only... yes we did all of that, just not in courthouse or church, but simply to one another..

Comments

Livingoutloud's picture

Before meeting my husband I lived with long term SO, we were together about 9 years. Long time. We treated each other as part of s family. We were at each other kids graduation and weddings and were together on holidays with families etc we treated each other as families BUT i have to say being married does provide a different level of commitment.

It is a bit different than my mom saying "this is my daughters boyfriend", "it's my son in law". I don't know why it's different but it's different. I personally prefer being married rather than just having a BF/SO. I don't think there are rules though. Things are different in each family. Some people don't consider BF/GF as serious as husband/wife. And some don't care. Whatever works for you

ESMOD's picture

TBH, I think a longtime partner should be given the same social courtesy as a spouse.

That doesn't mean that the family has to like that person or include them on every social occasion. It does mean that if they invite the Bio parent then their spouse should be invited as an equal footing guest.

That being said, even in bio families, rifts appear and even bio family can be excluded for a variety of reasons including toxic relationships.

I can't imagine that it would be an easy pill to swallow for a child to have a step parent that has made their life hell growing up front and center at their wedding for example.

But that is really only something that might be acceptable in the extreme. Part of being a mature adult is the ability to be around people you may not be in love with and behave appropriately, even if it is only for the sake of someone you care about.

secret's picture

Common law is regarded as just as legally binding as institutional marriage.

If the couple views themselves as married... who the hell am I to make the decision that they aren't, just because they haven't formalized it with a piece of paper? Especially given that the government recognizes it...

I don't think so highly of myself that I think I have the authority to decide the level of commitment from a couple towards each other purely based on whether they signed a paper or not.

By that stupid logic, I would/should hold more respect for the "relationship" a 65 year old man who just married an 8 year old has, than two people who have spent 20 years together, being publicly known to be together, who refer to themselves as spouse... because the 65 year old perv and his child bride have the paper to prove their union.

FFS.

Livingoutloud's picture

Some US states don't recognize common law marriage. So it has no legal standing.

secret's picture

Actually it does - because even if a state does not recognize common law marriage, it MUST recognize it as legal if it is legal where it originated.

moeilijk's picture

I'm in the EU. Many countries grant the right for same-sex couples to get married. Say a same-sex couple gets married in France, but then moves to Germany which does not recognize same-sex marriages. Then the couple's marriage is not recognized.

But, all registered partnerships, married or not, same-sex or not, are recognized throughout the EU.

I don't know how it works in the rest of the world.

fairyo's picture

Here in Fairyland which may not be in the EU much longer common law marriage has no standing in law. It does not matter if you have been co-habiting or not you have no claim to your partners estate if they die first. A lot of people are unaware of this and are left penniless when their partner dies. We have same sex marriage and civil partnerships which are only same sex. Lots of people leave Fairyland to get married- I think they have to pay more to register it here. It can also be an expense if they want to divorce later.

moeilijk's picture

I'm in NL. Most people don't get married anymore. They register their common-law marriage. It's the same as marriage, legally speaking. Usually it spells out how a future separation would be handled as well. It's the legal equivalent of a civil partnership elsewhere in EU.

secret's picture

yes, well the states aren't the authority on marriage.

Besides...it's not that many states don't recognize common law marriage as a contracted marriage.... it's that they vary so greatly there is no standard for them. Despite this, thanks to comity, all states DO recognize the common law marriage as valid if the common law marriage was considered valid where it originated.

So, despite many states not recognizing common law marriage as "real" - they are still REQUIRED to consider them "real" if they originated in a state which does recognize it.

Thanks, comity.

New word for you.

secret's picture

you would NOT have to be in one of them...because ALL states recognize the common law marriage if it originated where's it's valid.

Except Hew Hampshire - they only recognize it upon death, for probate purposes. lol

secret's picture

lol, that IS interesting. Seems like they're still working out kinks about if you move to a state that does recognize it and move back to a state that doesn't.... do you still need to divorce?? lol

WalkOnBy's picture

I just think it's funny that to dissolve a marriage that never took place, you have to do the thing that dissolves marriages that did take place.

WalkOnBy's picture

Actually, states ARE the authority on marriage, since they license and recognize them...

secret's picture

exactly.... so if your common law marriage happened in Kansas and you find yourself in Oregon... Oregon would have no choice but to consider you legally married.

secret's picture

sorry I meant the USA is not the authority on marriage. Obviously each state deals with the issue in their own way.... but have no choice to accept it if it's valid elsewhere

WalkOnBy's picture

Nope - I meant the word "states"

"yes, well the states aren't the authority on marriage."

secret's picture

so did I lol

"yes, well the States aren't the authority on marriage."

meaning, US of A. lol

semantics Blum 3

It's the same as people saying America when talking about the US of A. I always ask "North or South?"

They look at me like a have 2 heads... "North, duh..."

Ok... "Canada or the States?"

lol

WalkOnBy's picture

Uh - since when is there United States of America North and a United States of America South??

I can see why people look at you like you have two heads Smile

Acratopotes's picture

WOB... I hope you are sitting down....

see us non Americans are rather stupid.... South America and North America... I always thought it was the same country.. same laws, same president... like South of France and North of France etc.

but then there's the different thing.. United states of America... which is 52 states? also North America??

Disneyfan's picture

But that doesn't make sense. :? :?

I have never heard anyone simply say America when speaking of a whole continent.

secret's picture

lol

seems normal.... you wouldn't really hear people from the US refer to America as a continent - they say America to refer to the United States of America.

Most everywhere else, America is generally used to refer to USA. It's use is semantics... semantically, it's correct...but it's geographically incorrect.

secondplace's picture

I get where you're coming from Secret. Most of the folks I know up here in the Great White North refer to the USA simply as "The States".

BethAnne's picture

I am afraid that is a bias and misunderstanding that I have come across frequently in the USA. There does seem to be a consensus that America can only possibly refer to the USA. Being more precise with language acknowledges that there are a ton of other countries within the continents of America and the citizens of which are also American, much as being from the U.K. I am also European.

secret's picture

Uhhh...since always?? lol

America is a continent, not a country. There are 2 continents with the name America in it - North America, which includes the United States of America, and Canada - and South America, which are the latin countries...

People refer to the United States as America, which is not really accurate. Acceptable, yes, but not "accurate". It is a PORTION of North America, it is not America though it is commonly referred to as such.

http://www.usaisnotamerica.com/

lol

Acratopotes's picture

see how much I know lol...

thought Canada is Canada.... ignorance of a Martian lol

secret's picture

Canada is a country... but it is a country in North America.

Africa is the continent. Egypt, Madagascar, and South Africa are countries IN Africa.

Afghanistan is a country... but it is in Asia.... as is Israel and Japan.

Acratopotes's picture

yeah yeah I get the African thing.... but that's where my interest stopped...

I think the ancient old series... North and South.... confused me.... it's not North America vs South America

it was the northern part of North America against the southern part of North America .. or do I still have it wrong lol

secret's picture

Are you talking about the Napoleonic wars? They lasted a lot longer than "the war of 1812", but in the war of 1812 (USA vs. Great Britain), there were border invasions from the southern part of North America (in other "modern" words, the US tried to invade Canada).

In 1812, Canada was a colony of Great Britain. At this time, Canada was "known" as Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Canadian and British soldiers were largely responsible for stopping "American troops" from invading. The "American troops" tried to invade both "Lower Canada" and "Upper Canada".

Eventually, the White House was burned down by soldiers in 1814 when Washington was invaded - some sources say it was Canadian soldiers, some say it was British soldiers... regardless, Canadian soldiers at the time were allied with the British soldiers so there may have been some of both.

Canada is still considered part of the Commonwealth, under the Queen (as are some African countries) - the USA is not.

Acratopotes's picture

nope.. was a series about the north and south in america and slavery... one side had slaves and the other side not...

I am looking for it again on the internet, I was very young but it made a huge impression and I would like to see it now that I'm old.... I do not agree with the slavery business

Acratopotes's picture

yes was that one....

dang I only see now Patrick played in it... I only remember Kristy Alley?

secret's picture

Oh, ok - that has nothing to do with Canada.

Northern states in USA weren't really big on slavery... it was more of a Southern states in USA... that's my recollection from history classes, anyway. I could be incorrect... and I do believe that people from USA also refer to the North when talking about places like NY or Maine... and the South when talking about Alabama and such...

Disneyfan's picture

That is a huge misconception.

Slavery was not just a southern institution. Slavery was a part of life in the north. Slavery didn't end in New York until 1827. Segregation and descrimation thrived here.

secret's picture

dup

secret's picture

I didn't say it was just a southern institution...

Hey as an aside, did you know that Canada was the first British colony to move towards abolition of slavery, in 1793?

Disneyfan's picture

I wish he and his band of misfits woukd move out of the "dump".

I was on DC all day Saturday and didn't go to the White House. That is one site I never skip when I'm there, but I just couldn't bring myself to go this time.

secret's picture

Trump won't live in the "dump"
But it should be Trump's "dump"
If Trump won't live in the "dump"
The "dump" should "Dump Trump"

secret's picture

I was trying to say they weren't as into it as the South, not that they didn't do it at all.

It's my understanding that the slaves in the North were (generally) treated better than in the South.... it's my understanding that slaves in the North were treated like unpaid hired help, sometimes even living in the home and sharing meals, but that in the South they were treated like worthless dogs, unpaid, unfed, housed outside... but I wasn't there, so I can only based it off information I read, mostly during February.

secret's picture

For sure it's a generalization, I thought that was clear.

The information I read are generally publications put out during Black History Month, but my "generalizations" are just what I remember from school/things I've read. Obviously they're not fact... but the generalizations are the information I remember.

I didn't mean to be offensive, I apologize for offending you.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Fruity, I don't know how old secret it, but my understanding is that history being taught nowadays is not the same history that was taught a hundred years ago when I was in school. Oldsters are up in arms because true atrocities are considered to be a "work of fiction" by some arseholes.

secret's picture

I'm in my 30s.

The history I remember being taught, was that it wasn't as bad in the North as it was in the South. I can't help if that's wrong, it's what I was taught.

secret's picture

yeah, totally disgusting.

I didn't consider it a "line" but more like a local cultural thing... differing as you move to different areas.

Maybe I'm remembering what I understood (which was that the North treated slaves better than the South) is while that was happening... I don't know, I've been out of high school around 20 years lol

secret's picture

so I'm not allowed to discuss something because you're offended at something I have wrong information about?

Please.

How about you educate me and provide information that IS correct, instead of trying to shut it down because your fees are hurting?

secret's picture

Well excuse me for my educational institution's wrongful education plan... jesus. It's not like I'm arguing, calling you liars, or refusing to believe it... I took the information for what it's worth.

They're outlandish to YOU, because you learned different things than I did. They're NORMAL to me, because that's what I was taught.

I didn't make the statements as statements of fact, at any time - I was very clear in that it was my understanding of it. You put the information out there, thanks. You ALSO could have left it at that instead of trying to pathetically drive your request home for me to shut up because I didn't know about it - I never said I "knew".

You "know" what you were taught, and I "know" what I was taught. You don't need to tell me to shut up just because what we were taught is different.

secret's picture

Didn't think I needed to research it to begin with, I didn't think I had to "check" the veracity of what's passing as history.

You might want to educate Fruity, though, on what really happened to the slaves who were apparently treated as "family" - she seems to think they were valued members and respected.

In the meantime, I'll check it out...

Don't get the wrong idea Disney - maybe I don't know much about black slavery - but I do know quite a bit about the poor treatment of a class of people... and unlike you, these things DID happen in MY lifetime... in my mother's lifetime... my grandmother's lifetime... look up Residential Schools when you have a moment. What you will find seems kind of...well... lame, in comparison to some atrocities written about in black history - however.... I have lived it - and it's not AT ALL what is described in the politically correct information you will find. The stories from the survivors... that's where it's at.

The realities are much much more terrible...very similar, in fact, to your mention of slaves being made to rape their own family members... there was mental abuse, physical abuse... name it, it was there.

I wrote once about leaving home at an early age... and spending some time in a cult - having spent most of my early life in a place where being treated like a mangy dog, quite literally, the cult was a welcome relief.

Don't misunderstand my ignorance about black history for ignorance of knowing how things really are versus how things are written about... because I know that all too well... firsthand... and not just from my ancestry.

Disneyfan's picture

Secret, her comments are not based solely on what someone taught her.

A bit of research and reading supports what she posted.

Slavery was not as simple as south bad, north good. Like every other aspect of American history, it was a twisted and complex phenomenon.

Disneyfan's picture

Fruit's comment was not a generalization about the system as a whole.

Some owners did not allow their slaved to be beat, sold off...some owners taught their slaves to read (secretly). That's how Nat Turner learned to read.

secret's picture

Of course there were "some" who didn't treat their slaves like crap. There are always "some" people who either fit or don't fit into any generalization. That's what a generalization is. It is never 100% inclusive, because there are always some that don't fit into it.

All I said was that my understanding/remembering was that generally, the North treated the slaves better than in the South.

From what I took away from AnotherStep's comments, it seems that that was in fact a time where "being a slave" was "better" in the North than in the South.... when the practice was abolished but the South resisted.... which would align with what I remember, if slaves in the North had more "freedoms" than slaves in the South.

I'm not saying slavery was positive, I'm not saying Southerners are terrible people, and I'm not saying Northerners are more noble or moral. I never said any of that.

secret's picture

Once slavery was abolished?

1977 in Vermont?
1804 for Northern States?

Whatever they were now not forced into...?

gradual emancipation from slavery upon reaching a certain age?
freedom to change the names they were given as slaves?
educational opportunities?
access to institutions founded for social support and cultural growth?
more protection?
ability to enlist with the military without a promise of "freedom" in return (I get that freedom shouldn't have been a reward, but a right)?

They got these "freedoms" before the South did, purely going on the fact that Northern States "abolished" slavery before the Southern ones did. I realize things did not happen immediately... but they did happen in the North, first.

Disneyfan's picture

Wait. None of the "freedoms" you listed were afforded to slaves.

Free blacks were not protected in the north. It was common practice for slave catches to snatch free blacks, claim they were runways and sail them into bondage.
This is one of the main reasons why the underground railroad ran into Canada.

Educational opportunities- slaves could not go to school. A slave caught with a book, paper or pen could be murdered. Free blacks were allowed to be educated on segregated schools.(poorly funded)

secret's picture

I'm not disputing what you're saying - but that's the information I'm reading. These "freedoms" were what was apparently given. Whether it was enforced, is not in question.

And it's from an "educational tv station" 's website.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html

I'm reading this, right now.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/slavery/file....

secret's picture

once slavery was "abolished"...the slaves were now free blacks, yes....they got those "freedoms"....

Disneyfan's picture

WOW :jawdrop: :jawdrop:
I can't

Do you realize that you said SLAVES in the north had freedoms that SLAVES in the south did not have?

secret's picture

you're right - it is shameful. What I was taught is what I was taught though.... and you're right, it was more or less a "they were freed, then things were better" teaching.

Disneyfan's picture

THIS

And just read. Just be you graduated from high school 20 years ago doesn't mean you stop reading/learning.

Intellectual curiosity is a wonderful thing

WalkOnBy's picture

Lincoln was actually the President of the United States, not "the north."

Yes, the South seceded, but that was AFTER Lincoln had been elected. Once the south seceded, Davis became its President.

Disneyfan's picture

What does as into mean? :? :?

Regardless of where they lived, slaves were PROPERTY.

"Living" in the home simply meant the
slave owner didn't have far to go when he wanted to rape one of his slaves. "Sharing meals" simply meant you got first dibs on the scraps after your owner and his family had their fill.

There's nothing good about being forced to have sex with your mother, daughter or sister in order to produce more property for your ownet to sell.

The laws in NYC that were put in place to control slaves and free blacks were HARSH.

moeilijk's picture

I really feel like this part of the thread has gone sour but we could take that energy and use it for good.

I'm from Canada. I'm white. I've never had to deal with racism and the historical legacy of racism did not influence me growing up.

As an adult, I took some university classes. One called, "The Social History of Canada." That's when I learned about some Canadians owning slaves (mostly black, but some white). I learned that some Canadians helped slaves escape to 'freedom.' I learned Canada practiced segregation. Canada's first national anthem had the refrain, "White Canada!"

I learned that Canada committed huge crimes against our First Nations and Metis peoples - things that Canada as a whole is still trying to heal from. Like removing thousands of children from their homes and not allowing them to visit their families or speak their native language. Like beating them and denigrating them and not treating them humanely. Not even treating them as good as livestock. Like what happened to slaves.

It was wrong. It was so deeply, terrifyingly wrong that I asked my professor, "Why didn't we learn this in school?"

You tell me. Why is so much information not taught in public schools? Not publicly available? Or at least, not nearly as easy to find as cat memes.

I think because of white privilege. I'm not bothered by a culture that shames and denigrates and discriminates, until I see it. And lots of people never see it. Because of white privilege.

It's really too bad, because privilege doesn't mean stupid. It means blind. But we don't have to be blind or stay blind. I truly believe that humanity itself needs to heal from such disgusting harm done. I have never committed an act of discrimination myself, at least, not expressly. And I try my best to teach my kid that everyone is different AND wonderful.

But if you watch that film of Jane Elliot, you can see by 7:15 how easy it is to fall into us-them thinking. All we need to do is teach acceptance and appreciation instead of excuses and blame. If it could only be so easy. Because when I try to teach my kid about acceptance and love and difference and unity, I have to combat so much unspoken crap that I never even realized was there, never mind have a vocabulary to acknowledge. https://vimeo.com/153858146

Sorry if I set people off with this. My heart just breaks over this.

secret's picture

I'm Métis.

Educational institutions don't teach students about Residential Schools. If they're mentioned, they're mostly that the R.S. tried to assimilate native children into "white society".

It's not like I don't "get" that some things are simply not taught... or taught in a tame way. Slavery is one of those things. I learned the tame version.

moeilijk's picture

Some of my family members are Metis. (Some politically, some blood.) I have a very dear friend who is from the Haisla nation, and I know what he's gone through in just the stupidest ways. My best friend in high school was a Chinese boy... and omg the stuff he got subjected to.

I am shocked at how awful people can be to each other. Because no one I know is like that.

So I need to spread the 'good', with my little girl, so that even though she's being raised in a super-homogenous society, she knows that people are all different, and all equal.

secret's picture

lol... you could twist your tongue ... the Southern part of South Africa is the southernmost part of Africa's Southern South Africa Biggrin Biggrin

Acratopotes's picture

Bright - I don't live in South Africa..... and they only have 5+2 regions Wink We call them all by their names..
(Oh the 2 regions is actually countries on their own.. Leshoto and Swaziland)

I live in Africa, small country called Mars...

Funny we do not divide Africa up in northern and southern parts... it's simply the country name...

but I get what you are saying lol

secret's picture

That's why I said I was missing a capital, not using the wrong word. I said "states" written as if I was saying individual states, when I meant "States", as in the whole of USA.

Livingoutloud's picture

I don't agree that it's semantics. "States" and "states" isn't the same thing.

moeilijk's picture

People from the US talk about it/themselves as Americans from America. People from other countries talk about people from the US as being Americans. Except in Canada, we talk about people from the States as being Americans.

So if you're not in and from the US, and refer to America, it's ambiguous.

secret's picture

yes... which is why I said semantics. Squabbling over the "meaning" of a word IS semantics.

The States, to people outside USA, generally means USA. We would say "the states" to refer to individual states, but "the States" to refer to them as a whole.

You say America, I say the States. Potato Potahto.

fairyo's picture

Here in Fairyland we often refer to America has the 'States,' as in United States of America. Sometimes we also call it America- though strictly this really applies to the continent of North America- although if we were talking about Canada we would just say Canada. Interestingly, South America is usually referred to as as such, and not just America. Of course- you then have Central America, which complicates things even more!

secret's picture

lol, but that's not "formally recognized" as a continent like North and South America. It's just the part that "connects" the N & S Americas. It's part of South America. Smile

Complicated, sure... but also basic geography - should be taught in schools.... Biggrin Biggrin Blum 3

fairyo's picture

If I was going to Panama from Fairyland I would say, 'I'm off to Panama.' If Fairies asked 'Where's that?' I would say 'Central America.' Although it is not a continent- it makes it easier for Fairies to understand where it is on a map. I wouldn't buy them Panama Hats though- because they are from Equador...!

secret's picture

I understand what you're saying. No different than North, South... the prairies.. the desert... it's helpful to situation the visual on the map.

Livingoutloud's picture

What???? You can't be serious. Since when Central America became part of South America???

Secret, you often complain that people don't like you, but all through this thread and all other ones you talk and argue about things you don't know anything about. That's part of the problem

I don't know if you receive any education beyond high school but you can educate yourself or you can at least stop arguing. There are plenty of things I don't know so I'd never argue about them. Why do you?

secret's picture

lol, it was already pointed out. I wrote South instead of North. Too many north souths. It's like, 2 posts right above.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Here in Anikiland, I refer to them as The Americas. North America, Central America, and South America. The United States is part of North America.

Livingoutloud's picture

I go to U.K. every year and I think I say "I am going to England". Well I actually do go to England as opposed to Whales etc

moeilijk's picture

I think it's frame of reference. It's like saying, "I'm going to the US," or "I'm going to Canada." I say I'm going to Canada to my friends here, because they don't know the difference between Vancouver and Toronto. (It's 6 hours flying, same as from Toronto to Amsterdam.) But in the Netherlands, a country which you can drive across in an afternoon (unless you get caught in traffic), people say where they are going down to the village. It's so weird, but everyone over here has an insane knowledge of all the other cities and towns. On the other hand, the country is just a bit bigger than Maryland, so that might be a factor...

I'd say which country, or more likely what city I'd be visiting in the UK.

Livingoutloud's picture

Interesting. It's all so interesting how we refer to things. When I go to Canada, i specify where because it's just so huge I guess?. Like I'd never say "I went on vacation to Canada", I'd say "I go on vacation to Toronto or etc". But if I go to France, even if it's only Paris, i still say I went to France. Hm

moeilijk's picture

When I first lived in Vancouver, I met someone who said, "Oh, you're from Toronto too!" And I said, "Yeah! Whereabouts are you from?" And she said, "Barrie."

Makes sense now, but then, I was expecting a more.... local answer. lol. Now I have conversations with people who get Toronto and Vancouver mixed up, might have heard of Montreal or Quebec, and have no idea about anywhere else. But give directions in their own part of the world down to the kilometre, and offer you tea as soon you arrive because you may have travelled as much as 30 minutes to come visit. Oh, how I used to laugh....

Livingoutloud's picture

Must be people who never went to Canada because toronto and Vancouver are no where close to each other! Gee. Like different sides of the country!

Livingoutloud's picture

Of course states are authority on legal marriage in the US. They aren't authority on seriousness of your commitment etc but from legal stand point of course they are.,

ESMOD's picture

The reason people may/may not legally bind themselves varies. There may be tax or property ownership issues that they don't want to mix. They may not need to use each other's access to health insurance. As far as common law is concerned, it is apparently only 10 states and DC that have it.. though other states may recognize it if it was entered into in another state.

Common Law Marriages in the United States:

Common law marriages in the United States are only contracted in Washington D.C. and 10 states—common law marriages are now impermissible in 27 states and were never formally allowed in 13 states. For those states that allow common law marriages, there are requirements that must be met by the couple to validate the contract. These requirements vary from state to state. With all this in mind, all states in the U.S. recognize common law marriages that are lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that permit it.

To be honest, I don't really feel that the legality of it all needs to be the over riding issue though. Certainly good manners should first and foremost strive to not inflict hurt or embarrassment on another party. So, a long time partner should be in theory treated very similarly to a legal spouse.

Weddings can certainly be tricky, but there certainly is room for some extra photos to be taken with a SO even if they are not legally married to the parent of the bride or groom. That kind of goes to the point of not making people embarrassed or unwelcome.

Of course, you can also take pictures with just your bio parents and your wedding party without the SO... no one says that you have to display one or the other.

BethAnne's picture

I think on this board it is an easy stone to throw and makes some people feel superior and is designed to delegitimize the experiences of non-married step parents by saying that they are not 'real' step parents until they are married.

Personally I do think that long term partners should be treated the same way as spouses and hate to see instances where they aren't.

secret's picture

lol.... if my 60 year old father was to marry an 18 year old twit, 3 weeks ago, after having known her for 2 weeks.... I would still seat her with my father.

She might be a floozy, but she's my dad's wife.

Now if he was just shaggin' her and brought her along as arm candy, she can sit in the back row. }:) }:)

ESMOD's picture

I don't think people tend to throw the stone at those in long term relationships..but only a few years and no formal commitment? I think at that point, defacto spouse treatment is maybe not warranted.

Of course, that does NOT allow for the new GF to be treated poorly or rudely... but maybe she really doesn't warrant a corsage and front row treatment at the wedding...

Or, the new GF doesn't really have the standing to start making decisions about the skids etc...

Note I said new... I guess it's a little tough to put a line in the sand. Certainly I would say 2 years or less is pretty new... and 10 years is certainly long term. But in between... may not be hard and fast.

Acratopotes's picture

Interesting....

GF, new or old, does not have a standing to make decision regarding skids....

well SM neither, whether you are married legally or just a long term partner... how many SM's on this board is legally married and treated exactly the same as me.. the long term partner, and if I'm not wrong... a married SM got worse treatment at a skids wedding then Kim.... who's a partner..

ESMOD's picture

A married SM may or may not have authority over things to do with their SK's.

In my relationship, my DH usually worked through SK issues with my input. I also had say over what happened in my home. So, in my case I did have input and say over the SK's. But, that may not be true with all situations.

My point is mainly that people should be treated respectfully. I know that it doesn't always happen. I also don't think that a fairly new relationship should expect to be held on the same social ground basis either. Sort of like the "no ring-no bring" rule that some families employ for certain events for their kids. For adults, I am thinking if you have been in a serious relationship for 5 years or more.. the GF or BF should be treated as if they are the partner of the Bio parent and afforded the same courtesy.

Disneyfan's picture

That sense of superiority happpens on both sides.

How many times have SM made comments about dad marrying them and not BM?

BethAnne's picture

Everyone does things or thinks certain ways at times to try to makes themselves feel like they are better than someone else. It is particularly easy to do when it is against someone you don't like and even more pressing to do so when we feel threatened somehow as it helps to make us feel more secure in ourselves.

Livingoutloud's picture

I don't think it's a fair question how people should be treated as it's entirely up to each family. Some families don't care if people are married and some do. It all comes to each family preferences as well what people are willing to put up with. If not being treated as a family is an issue for GF/BF then perhaps staying and suffering is a wrong thing to do. It might be wrong situation all together. Many women put up with a lot of crap from men and their families so they can have a man.

WalkOnBy's picture

My kids are Money-Ka's skids. Money-Ka and Asshat have three children. My kids adore their siblings, as they should. They are obviously closer to each other, since they have lived with each other their whole lives, while their siblings are significantly younger and they really didn't spend a ton of time with them, BUT I wouldn't say that they don't feel close to them...

Livingoutloud's picture

That's how this particular family operates. In some intact families people are Cold or outright nasty to each other. I don't think it's unique stepfamily issue, it's a family issue.

My DD has half-sibling whom she is close to and love to pieces (they are much younger). She is also close to her SM. There is a certain dynamic in Mrs. Zippers home that just wouldnt happen in my exDH household. Etc That's how their family is. I don't believe it's stepfamily issue.

Heck my SDs don't speak to each other and they are full bio sisters. We don't have anyone in my family who don't speak to each other. Some families are just how they are. Step or intact

moeilijk's picture

I always wonder what's motivating people. When I got married, everyone knew that my MIL and FIL were not together, and that he had a new partner who didn't attend. MIL and FIL did a lot of stuff as a sort-of couple, because neither brought a partner and neither DH nor I have large immediate families.

I wish he'd brought his partner, but they couldn't get a visa for her and I think there was family drama in the background with FIL's mom as well as MIL over the new partner.

But, for example, I arranged two taxis to pick up MIL, SIL, FIL and FIL's mom who were staying at the same hotel. Because I wasn't pretending that they were still together. Neither was DH.

And if FIL's new partner could have attended, she would have been welcomed as FIL's partner, full-stop.

At the time, FIL was still legally married to MIL and so not married to new partner. For financial reasons, they took about a decade to divorce after new partner came along.

I have a friend who has a really bad SM. Actually, she's probably ok as an SM, she's just a really annoying person! She welcomes her SM for family events, but keeps her distance and doesn't view her SM as family. I guess... she views her like a distant cousin. Welcome and belongs, but not among her intimates. I think that's fine - cordial and inclusive.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Uuuuuummmm.... that won't work. DH and I 'got busy' on top of the laundry... Dirol

Acratopotes's picture

Aniki - please share what stain remover you use for stains on clothing...

I might need it }:)

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Acra, I 'SHOUT' them out. Shout is a stain remover. Hydrogen Peroxide works well for blood.

hereiam's picture

Yelling at my laundry has never worked for me. I must not be yelling loud enough.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Renewal, I was in a hurry, so I sat on the couch, leaned back, and stuck both legs in simultaneously!

Acratopotes's picture

Aniki, Echo, renewal and hereiam..

opinions please....

let me ask you something else...

Why do people think that partner relationships is not commitment and only legal marriages shows commitment.

please no more geography lol...

Acratopotes's picture

I think it's more a moral thing... society expect you to do the white dress circus thing.. I feel it's to proof to the world that you are in a "committed" relationship... nothing more.. it's for the wrong reasons in so many cases.

I mean BM and SO was married for 4 years, shared custody of Aergia 3 years after that... I've been with SO almost 15 years, with Aergia 8 years..... ?? but I do not expect to be close to her , nor at her wedding, or get anything from her.. she has a mother lol... and it's not me, but looking at the figures... I'm suppose to be sitting at the bridal table and front row in the church }:)

hereiam's picture

I purposely did not jump into this debate but since you asked me directly, I have no idea why some people think that partner relationships is not commitment and only legal marriages shows commitment.

I am not one of those people.

If one looks into the history of marriage and the marriage license and how the marriage license came about...

Some may view a legal marriage as more of a commitment but that is not necessarily so.

Acratopotes's picture

thank you lol....

nothing wrong with a good old fashioned debate without name calling and mud slinging.....
we even had a geography lesson on this blog lol

you know me, my blogs are mild and weak }:)

fairyo's picture

Acrat I will put the record straight here- my DH and I are not married. When I joined this site everyone seemed to use the term DH so I did, and then I carried on. The reason why I didn't (won't) marry him is because he was married several times before- and no way am I going to be wife no ?, ever.
However, we have made separate legal provision for our separate families and jointly own the property we live in. I don't make judgements on other people's relationships. I know lots of married people who are only together for financial reasons.
When my daughter got married I let her choose the seating plan. Her dad sat with his girlfriend and I sat at the top table with my DH. It wasn't an issue for anyone- we all had a lovely day. Maybe Fairyland weddings are easier?

Acratopotes's picture

I use to call SO, DH, then Hubby and then he pissed me off, now he's SO... Biggrin Biggrin Biggrin

when I'm really mad at him it's plain Idiot

Acratopotes's picture

On this whole issue of being married or not...

How do you introduce your DH/DW/Partner.
How do your family talk about said person....

I simply introduced SO as : This is Idiot.....
My parents simply introduce him as Idiot to any one when we are together, hell they will introduce me as Idiot 2 and not our daughter...

In-laws... Introduce me as Idiots girlfriend...
Idiot introduced me as: this is my girlfriend.... :jawdrop: I though wtf are we in grade 1....never said it lol

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Ah, the introduction of the Significant Other who is not legally the wife/husband. Blech.

If people are not LEGALLY married, but consider themselves husband and wife (or husband and husband, wife and wife), and REFER to their other half as my "wife/husband", egads, but the reactions of people!!
"OMG, when did you get married?!"
"WTF, you said you'd never get married again!"
"You arsehole/beeyotch, why wasn't I invited?"
"What do your parents/siblings/children/pet rock think?!?!"

Girlfriend and boyfriend are terms for teenagers and twenty-somethings. When my Dad and nowSM were living together, he didn't call her "My Girlfriend". An 83yo man referring to an 81yo woman as 'girlfriend'. GTFO.

Other half, partner, significant other, partner in crime, better half, etc... we need a better word/term for ADULTS in a committed relationship who are not legally married and who do not want to refer to one another as husband/wife.

Acratopotes's picture

some times I will refer to SO as my Live in Maid Wink Wink Wink or he will introduce me as that, but it's an internal joke between us

fairyo's picture

It is good to have a choice! I hate the word 'partner' and SO is just so...insignificant. I tend to call him my Other Half- sometimes Better Half. We are too old for boyfriend and are no longer 'lovers,' so that won't do either, but we are more than friends. Occasionally people call him 'your old man,' which makes me smile!
Mostly they just use his name- which seems sensible to me. I always correct people when they say 'hubby' which sounds patronising. I like to see their expression when I say- 'Oh we're not married.'
I would never call him an idiot- although he is one!

Acratopotes's picture

I only call him an Idiot on here lol.....

Oh I forgot about the "Lover".... if I want to get him back about something, I will call him Lover but only in front of his brothers, I've never seen an 50 year old blush like he can

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Frankly, I don't believe a commitment has to be made "in church" or "in court". Do you commit to being a parent in church or court? Do you commit to be a grandparent or aunt or uncle or brother or dog Mommy in church or court?

I feel that commitments of a legal matter are for court. Commitments of the heart are for church or made spiritually and conducted by an officiant of that particular sentiment (pastor, rabbi, high priestess, ship's captain...). IOW, and IMHO, common-law marriages should be recognized as long as the couple specifies their commitment to the relationship and consider themselves married, united, etc.

Let the burning commence.

hereiam's picture

And that is exactly how it used to be...until the government decided to involve itself and make it a legal issue. It is big business for them.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Dupe

secret's picture

Didn't it just used to be a couple stood up in church and announced their intentions towards each other, and that was that? There was no contract.... just the whole "announcing your intentions" thing...

paper shmaper.

fairyo's picture

Aniki I won't condemn you to the stake- yet! I do believe in marriage- I did it once. It didn't work although I stuck at it for almost twenty years. I learn from my mistakes- unlike DH who has done it numerous times so it didn't work for him either. He seemed to disregard this fact when I met him because he would have married me after our first date! I told him not to ask me, to avoid disappointment.
The role of marriage has always been more of a social contact than a romantic one. Years past women got married because they were financially dependent on men. Men got married because they wanted to have free sex on tap, and raise legitimate children. Sometimes they liked each other, but I like to think they grew to respect each other. I believe true and lasting love between a man and woman is rare and very special.
Attitudes to marriage have changed because women are more independent- they can support themselves and are not so tied by constant pregnancies. We are so lucky that we can make these choices when in the past so many women couldn't.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Thank you, fairyo!! LOL

IMHO, marriages that are Legal Contracts should be deemed as such. Same 'spousal' benefits, but it is recognized as a 'business' contract and not a love relationship.

TheAccidentalSM's picture

I was with DH for about 10 years with no intention of getting married. Then one of my closest friends died. In the period of her final illness and the time after her death I realised that if you aren't legally family you have zero rights. DH and I were in a committed long term relationship. We wanted to be the ones to make the life and death decisions for each other. The easiest and cheapest way to achieve this was to get married.

DaizyDuke's picture

I guess I don't understand long term relationships? I always wonder why are they not married? Is one person not as committed as the other? Is one person opposed to marriage? Is one person scared ? Like DH's best friend dated a gal for years like I want to say 10 or so. She really wanted to get married, DH's friend did not, not because he didn't love her, but he just isn't that kind of pomp and circumstance kind of guy. About a year after they got married his wife cheated on him and left. He will NEVER get married again and he tells every GF that he's had since just that.

DH has another friend who was living with his GF for years before they finally got married in Vegas. Actually asked DH to be in the wedding. 6 MONTHS after they got married, he found out she was cheating and had been for like a year. WTF? I highly doubt he will ever get married again either.

I understand getting burned, but I feel like if you are in a long term relationship vs. being married that it's because there are deep down trust issues?

WalkOnBy's picture

DH and Medusa dated/lived together for 9 years before they got married. When I asked him what took so long, he told me that he didn't really want to marry her. Then one day he realized that all his buddies were married, so he thought it was the next logical step.

Ummmm, okay then Smile

carolbrady71's picture

I am not married, but I am definitely committed, and hope to stick around with the SO until one or both of us signs off of this planet.

We have talked about marriage, but both having gone through divorce, aren't in a real hurry to go through that whole thing again.
I have no doubt my dude is committed to our relationship, and being in my mid-forties, I see no need to "put a ring on it" other than to satisfy the expectations of others (which has no sway on me).

As a matter of fact, I am resisting the societal pressure to get married, because in my case, I feel the commitment is stronger if either of you could walk away without having to unravel a contract, we choose to stay and work on it because it is a worthwhile pursuit that makes us both happy. When I was married, I stayed in it longer than I should have because it was a complicated legal process to terminate.

The longer we are together, the more people will inquire, "when are you guys getting married". My stock response is, things are going really well, not sure I want to mess up a good thing. That usually shuts them up.

As for what we call each other, I kind of enjoy calling him my boyfriend, it's kinda funny at my age. Don't worry so much about what other people think is or isn't legit. It's your life, your love, and you are free to define it in what ever way makes you happy Smile

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Not to derail another posting...

Acra posts her own blog so as not to derail another... and her blog is totally derailed. I'm getting off the damn train.

Livingoutloud's picture

I honestly didn't feel any pressure to be married. I personally didn't marry because of pressure.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

Who takes their f*ck buddy around family?? If someone is important enough to bring to family EVENTS, that should indicate a serious relationship. I never had a casual boyfriend over for Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Acratopotes's picture

}:) }:) }:) I can give you a couple off names lol....... but I wont..

it's the in thing for some people to introduce their monthly new boyfriend to family..

MoominMama's picture

There's something about marriage that spells out permanancy more than living together or being partners for a long time, to most people. In reality i'm sure there are many unmarrieds who last a lot longer than married couples. But somehow, people seem to put more store in marriage. My SD went crazy when we got married, it was like the end of the world to her. Weird.

ldvilen's picture

Oh, HL. I agree with you on many of your points, but in response to your statement, "if you want to be treated like a wife, become one." You know the legal "wife" title for SMs means absolutely nothing for many SKs or BM or many others. There are many examples on Steptalk of legally married SMs, some even married to their DHs for 20+ years, being treated like DH's little piece on the side year after year after year. And, this is not just a DH issue. It is a societal issue.

Everyone always assumes that SM has been married before too, so SM and DH are both supposed to settle for a sloppy seconds type marriage. There are many SMs who have never been married before, marry their DH, expect that marriage to be recognized as a marriage, only to find out that as far as many are concerned, DH is still "married" to his ex-, and his ex-'s opinion is sought out for what to do with DH at family events. Yeah. Ex- still gets to control DH 19 years after their divorce and 14 years after he has been married to his current wife or with his current partner. AND, SKs who have been involved with and known SM and you would sure as H- hope that these adult SKs now realize that dad and SM are an item, these SKs are given a pass if they "forget" that SM and dad are married or partners.

I admit, I used to feel like you. I used to actually be angry that non-married SMs would come here and try to act like they deserved the same status as a married SM. After coming here for two years, I since have changed my mind. Why? Because it should be so F!@#$! obvious to these adult SKs that their dad is in love with another woman, and that is what they should be respecting AND recognizing--dad is clearly in love with another woman, and I want my dad to be happy. That is it. If BM is full of venom and vinegar and wants to plot and plan to make sure she is still thought of as wife #1, after dad has clearly moved on with another partner, F!@#$! that. No one, not even children of, should be feeding those types of delusions.

It isn't a question of whom should I please, or who has the stronger relationship, or how many years so-and-so have been together, or whether it is the 1st or 2nd plus marriage. It is a question of recognizing that there is nothing wrong with dad or mom being happy with another woman or man. Adults should know this. You pair people up with their partners, wives or husbands. You don't pair someone up with an ex- from 15 years ago, and expect all to go well when at least one of them has been in love with and partners with someone else for years.

Aniki-Moderator's picture

HL, not all married people are "off the market". There are people in Open Marriages and people who cheat. Also, there are people who specifically seek out a married person because they believe the married will not be interested in marrying them.

I have a question for you... Do you believe marriage based on love is the same as marriage based on business?

Acratopotes's picture

HeavenL - Your opinion is your opinion and not wrong, I did not mean to offend you, it just seemed like a nice discussion point.

But we do agree on a couple off things.... if the SM is not married she can't be all cry cry cause she's not treated like a wife, but then again even if she's married the skids will still not treat her as the fathers wife... this all depends on the up bringing of the kids of course... (Aergia would not give a shit if I'm married to her father or not, I will not be invited to anything lol, I've accepted that, it's her choice to make not mine)

Maybe it's not a big deal to me, cause our laws are so different. Over here there's no law stipulating who gets your life insurance, pension, property.... Hell I can be married for 50 years and my husband can not even name me as a beneficiary on anything... nothing I can do about it. The testament is the last word .

Legally with us... POA has to be signed to some one regardless if you are legally married or not, thus If I do not give SO POA in case of hospitalization, my parents will have the last say if they are still around, no one cares if I'm legally married or simply partnership. I can actually give any one POA if some one has to switch off the machines... or any medical issue I'm not able to speak for myself. Thus my living will with lawyers, I did not give it to my family or SO.. I will made that decision all on my own and they can't go to court to get it changed.

Common law marriages with us needs no paper signed or anything, if you lived together for more then 2 years, the law sees you as married in community... meaning if one party walks out, the other party gets 50% of everything and if it goes to court that's the way it is... but still with this you do not have to name your partner as beneficiary of your estate.

Acratopotes's picture

"I live in a conservative Christian church culture where sex outside of marriage is still taboo"

same here... My parents almost died cause I had sex before marriage (could not deny it they had proof lol)... and then again cause I moved in with a man not being married, dang even the reverent came around and demanded we live apart or get married.If I visit my parents, not allowed to share a room with SO, cause we are not married lol...

My argument on all of this... why am I stamped as a sinner , cause I've been with the same man for years, as his common wife.... but it's okay for people to get married, then divorced, re marry again quickly get divorced...
isn't that also a sin according to the Bible.. the whole divorce thing...

Now they leave me be, cause they know I'm right Blum 3

but I'm a one man kind of girl... and between the men - there's years and years of being alone, definitely not a bed hopper

moeilijk's picture

My religion is Baha'i, and in my faith, it is also considered wrong to have sex outside of marriage. The worst sin is gossip and backbiting, then sex outside of marriage, and then smoking and drinking (roughly, lol).

There are two points I feel are important. First, from what I understand, all religious writings contain something along the lines of, "It is always wrong to stand in judgement of another." One reason for that is it is hubris to imagine that I (for example) could believe that I can take the place of God and judge you, or anyone else. Another reason why we should not be judging one another is that doing so is socially divisive.

Secondly, the reason gossip and backbiting are even worse than extra-marital sex is because gossip and backbiting harm relationships even more than sex outside of marriage does. Destroying trust and love is the worst thing you can do, according to Baha'is.

Smoking and drinking are bad for the same reasons, but I also think we can understand that religious guidance was written down at a certain time and place, and that gives context. Drugs and addiction also damage relationships, drinking to excess leads people to make a lot of mistakes that can cause a great deal of harm. So in that sense, I agree alcohol is 'bad.' But actually, I don't think that a glass of wine is socially destructive, it's the context of that glass of wine that makes the situation and person involved potentially destructive.

My $0.02.

fairyo's picture

I will come back in on this. Marriage matters. People do it- sometimes over and over again even if it didn't work out before- maybe the expectation is that this time it will be different- even though a few years in they begin to make the same mistakes. They don't learn- they just think- this time will be ok- but it never is.
I cared very much about my first marriage- I stuck at it for twenty years and still maintain contact with my ex as he is the father of children. He divorced me in the end because he met another woman, but I brought about the separation and insisted he left the family home. I still have his name- it is my right to keep it. I still love him and care about him.
My DH has been married several times- he has no contact with the first few, and he rarely speaks to BM but there is no animosity there, just acceptance.
When I met DH I was in a very vulnerable place and I was grateful that he had come into my life- but I made a conscious decision not to get married. We are committed to each other, but when my FIL asked why we weren't tying the knot I just said people shouldn't keep making the same mistakes. They need to learn from them.
My OSD seemed very keen that we should marry- she said she didn't approve of people 'living in sin' although she is not at all religious and has no concept of sin. Think of a female Donald Trump with no power and you won't be far wrong. I now think she wanted us to marry so she could turn me into the legal rival for her father's attention, and his money. As it is, so has no idea how to treat me- she has no imagination and only sees the world in her own terms. I have taken no money from her (in an inheritance sense), but neither have I given her any. She can't cope with the fairness of it all.
I never regarded them as my step-children- it really did not occur to me until they had succeeded in ruining my life for a time- that this is what in effect they were. I make no apologies for using this site as it has helped me enormously in my efforts to regain control over my life.
As for the idea of what other people think or say- it matters not one jot to me. I do not wear a ring but do not think this keeps me 'on the market.' When I meet someone I don't immediately look at their hands to see if they have jewellery on that denotes their status. I have always been monogamous in my relationships and I believe DH wants our relationship to work. Maybe one day I will change my mind and we will make it legal, but only if the law changes and it would be financially expedient to do so. That is very often why co-habiting couples eventually tie the knot.
The other thing I don't get is the common law thing- if just living together makes you married in the eyes of the law (even in just some states)-then what is the problem with people not getting 'married.' Religion or culture may have more impact that we think. When I separated from my husband I went to see my pastor to tell him. but I asked that he didn't question me on why I had made the decision. I said no one had taken any interest in our marriage for twenty years, so why should they want to know now it was over? He told me hat a relief that was, as he hated listening to tales of marital strife. He said, 'You're doing it because you can.' And he was right. He then told me a story of how he was invited to a wedding anniversary of some significant years- during the 'celebrations' the wife took him on one side and said, 'You know, padre, I would have left him if I could.'
I have never forgotten that conversation- it taught me a lot about what it means to be a woman in the 21st century. I live with my DH and choose not to marry him because I can. I use this site because I can. Thank you for being there for me.

Acratopotes's picture

"Who, besides people on this website, would rally on her behalf?"

Easy people with empathy and decency..... people like us, not because we are basically in the same situation, but common sense.... In my eyes she has just as much right to the wedding as the BM, she's the fathers partner.
In my eyes he blind sided her... not his family...

yes the family is not fond of her, she's a threat to them.... but it was up to her SO to tell them, knock it off, either you accept her or I'm gone... That's what made me angry, she should blame her partner not his skids.
It's just my opinion, cause my partner stands by me and makes it clear to his family and friends, we are together, if they don't like it tough.. they don't need to see us then. That's why I'm still with my SO, cause when I need him the most he's there and backing me up

ldvilen's picture

Being a SM is hell. No question about it. That is why many of the, what I find to be, blatant discrimination against SMs in any manner, shape or form, often shocks me. Sure, there are some evil and bad SMs, because they are evil and bad people. Otherwise, much of what I read here on Steptalk from what ANY OP posts is nothing more than flagrant discrimination. SM is treated such and such way simply because she is a SM. In no other situation, using this one for example, would a partner or wife of 10+ years be forgotten, shamed, humiliated, ridiculed, so on. YET, there are people who go on and on and actually try to justify why SM was treated this way. Some have to put their arm way up their arse to pull out a "justification," but they'll keep chugging along claiming that "Oh, it's for this reason," "Oh, you are just being overly sensitive," etc.

You mention the discrimination of gays above. Thank God we are in the year 2017 where in our country gays are now allowed to marry in almost every state. Yet, in the year 2017, I still cannot attend an event with any sort of security, knowledge or confidence that I will be able to be seated with my husband or even treated like his wife, and this is after being married to him for over 15 years, and "No," it is not just my DH's fault for not defending me. SMs being treated like Offred in the Handmaid's Tale is a societal issue. It has to do with the way society perceives SMs and has to do with the way discrimination against SMs is tolerated or excused by many.

Acratopotes's picture

Brings me to another topic question.....

Why did it take so long for gay marriages to be legalized, isn't it discrimination that only straight people should suffer to get divorced and get rid of the wrong choice they made years ago...

Salems Lot's picture

I don't need a piece of paper to prove I am in a committed relationship with my SO.
Been there done it. Don't need to do it again.
My first husband got on my nerves just as much as SO does, if not more. A piece of paper didn't make a difference. Blum 3

Salems Lot's picture

I know. I'm not against marriage and I am not for it. It is what the couple want and none of anyone else's business. It's just that at this point of my life it's not for me.

moeilijk's picture

If I may, it's what that piece of paper signifies. I imagine that everyone who has a relationship akin to marriage takes it seriously. That other person matters in a way the rest of the world does not. The relationship is guarded the way other relationships are not. We define ourselves, and value that definition, at least in part by our role in that significant relationship.

So whether it's common-law or a religious ceremony or signing a legal document or hosting a huge reception, by choosing any path to celebrate finding someone special to share our lives with... there is something really important being acknowledged.

I think there is big disagreement on the details, but very little on what matters most.