oceangrl Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Has anyone done this before... gotten married (having a wedding reception, wearing rings) but not signed any legal documentation? With the divorce rate at more than 50%.....isn't that the best way to be married without the ugly consequences of a divorce? Shouldn't couples find their own definition of marriage? Whether it be religiously or legally or neither...should couples just be married just because they say they are? And because they feel it and believe it? My bf doesn't mind getting engaged or having a wedding ceremony.....but he's hesitant to be legally married. I understand this because realistically, we don't know how either of us will change.....so I think the only way to avoid an ugly divorce is to not get the government involved - but to be married under our own terms. But I was wondering if others have done this before. Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Just so you know, without being legally married you will not receive any of the benefits that come from being married such as various tax breaks and other privileges. You should do a search on the benefits of marriage and see if you are OK with not getting them. I wonder if you can even have somebody officiate (marry you) without a marriage license. You'll need to look into it. Link to post Share on other sites
Lauriebell82 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Hmm, well even if you chose not to be legally married, you would still have a common law marriage, therefore having to divide assessts among you if a break up was to occur. Another thought popped into my head though, that you are chosing not to marry to avoid an ugly divorce. Why do you not have faith that you will be together forever? Link to post Share on other sites
SoulSearch_CO Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 How about setting up prenups that spell out EVERYTHING so "ugly" doesn't enter the equation when it comes time for the divorce? Link to post Share on other sites
BUENG1 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Has anyone done this before... gotten married (having a wedding reception, wearing rings) but not signed any legal documentation? With the divorce rate at more than 50%.....isn't that the best way to be married without the ugly consequences of a divorce? Shouldn't couples find their own definition of marriage? Whether it be religiously or legally or neither...should couples just be married just because they say they are? And because they feel it and believe it? My bf doesn't mind getting engaged or having a wedding ceremony.....but he's hesitant to be legally married. I understand this because realistically, we don't know how either of us will change.....so I think the only way to avoid an ugly divorce is to not get the government involved - but to be married under our own terms. But I was wondering if others have done this before. Some states recognize, common law marriage some states don't, you'll want to look into that. Also do you want to have children? Will you stay home with them? This another thing to consider. As to your question I'd imagine its different from state to state, and from what little I've read can be disputed in the case of a divorce. Here's something I found. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=510089 "(d) The fact of issue of any unrecorded marriage license may be established by affidavit of either party to a ceremonial marriage, which affidavit shall set forth the date, the place, and the name and title of the official issuing the license." That's the law in Georgia so I'd imagine it can get tricky, have you considered prenuptial agreement? Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky_One Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I know people who have had commitment ceremonies, mostly because the woman wanted to buy a wedding dress and have a big party without having to be "legally" married. But they didn't call it being married. They called it being committed. If you want to be married, then get married. But if you don't want to get married, don't blow off the institution of marrriage but still borrow the name to give your union some sort of legitimacy.. Either you are married, or you are not. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 i know plenty of people who've had commitment ceremonies, myself, and they were all gay couples who could not legally marry however much they wanted to, and took that as an alternative. they all registered domestic partnerships and called each other 'husbands' or 'wives' and as far as i'm concerned, that's what they were, because it was in their hearts and they would have been if they could. my partner and i were recently handfasted in a non-legal 'marriage' ceremony by a dear friend who is a priestess in a religion where handfastings are common. he is an atheist and i'm agnostic, but we respect my wiccan priestess friend's beliefs and wanted a symbolic ceremony with just our closest friends, conducted by somebody who knows and loves us rather than a strange minister picked at random out of the yellow pages. my partner and i have been together for 4 years now, we have joint bank accounts and are considered domestic partners by our insurance companies, we have an infant son together and joint-custody of his older daughter from a previous relationship, and we've been symbolically bound together ceremonially...i consider us very united, partners in every way. but, he ain't my husband yet. we're getting legally hitched this fall, with only our parents and kids in attendance, and then going on a real honeymoon. we WANT the legal commitment, and consider that something necessary to finalize being actually married. making the commitment, taking the risks, becoming a legally bound family, is an important distinction to us. there's nothing wrong with getting a commitment ceremony and keeping your relationship on a different playing field...the ceremony can be beautiful, and meaningful, and you might be very emotionally/spiritually pledged to your man and he to you, and that's all good, that's great. but i personally believe that if you have the opportunity to take those legal steps and you don't because you don't want them and all their potential ramifications, then you shouldn't call yourself married or call your ceremony a wedding. call yourselves committed, or partnered, or united, whatever you like. personally i usually refer to my man as my partner, but sometimes i call him my gentleman caller, or my proto-husband, or Der InseminatOr. but i look forward to calling him my husband. Link to post Share on other sites
Touche Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I know people who have had commitment ceremonies, mostly because the woman wanted to buy a wedding dress and have a big party without having to be "legally" married. But they didn't call it being married. They called it being committed. If you want to be married, then get married. But if you don't want to get married, don't blow off the institution of marrriage but still borrow the name to give your union some sort of legitimacy.. Either you are married, or you are not. Thank you! Totally agree. What's this world coming to...having babies out of wedlock, getting married with no license..sheesh! I guess I'm getting old and I'm just old-fashioned. Link to post Share on other sites
2sure Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Anything you are happy with regarding committing your relationship is fine. But an engagement and wedding reception are for ...weddings. Certainly they can both be incorporated in some form of any commitment ceremony... But you cannot imply to your guests that you are "getting married" without getting married. For example, having engagement parties, bridal showers, even a wedding reception implies a traditional wedding. If your guests are under the assumption that you are getting married but you arent..... Thats called a fund raiser or a gift grab. Its like stealing from your family with a sense of entitlement. Just be honest, tell them its a commitment ceremony and let them celebrate with you honestly. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Thank you! Totally agree. What's this world coming to...having babies out of wedlock, getting married with no license..sheesh! I guess I'm getting old and I'm just old-fashioned. i'm pretty sure people were having babies out of wedlock long before you were born, touche. Link to post Share on other sites
Touche Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 i'm pretty sure people were having babies out of wedlock long before you were born, touche. Touche'! But you know what I mean. It's pretty much accepted and very common now. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 i'm pretty sure people were having babies out of wedlock long before you were born, touche. I was one of those babies. I suppose my mother bastardized "motherhood" the way gays have ruined marriage for heteros. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Touche'! But you know what I mean. It's pretty much accepted and very common now. i did know what you meant. but sitting here with my beautiful, healthy, innocent, 'illegitimate' five-month-old on my lap chewing on his fist, whose father i will gladly be marrying in october, i can't help but be grateful for the de-stigmatization, for his sake. i do believe in the institution of marriage, but i don't think it needs to concern itself with anyone's sexuality, and i do think kids can be raised successfully outside of it. my partner and i are marrying for a host of legal and symbolic reasons, but not to legitimize our son, who will be well taken care of no matter what his parents' marital status. i know that's not always the case, but i don't think that social stigmatization is the way to go towards helping babies who need additional parental support. that being said, sorry to turn a throwaway comment into a threadjack-y soapbox rant. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I was one of those babies. I suppose my mother bastardized "motherhood" the way gays have ruined marriage for heteros. i hope you're not trying to fit those words in MY mouth. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 i hope you're not trying to fit those words in MY mouth. Nope. I was being facetious towards someone else's comment about children out of wedlock. I don't think it's anyone's place to put boundaries or rules or limitations on how other people choose to bind themselves to other people, whether legally, spiritually, or familially. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I don't think it's anyone's place to put boundaries or rules or limitations on how other people choose to bind themselves to other people, whether legally, spiritually, or familially. agreed...with one caveat: i still would disagree with someone who was legally able to be married yet chose not to be because they didn't want the incumbent responsibilities, to call themselves married. i wouldn't want to persecute them or anything, i just don't think it's logically or linguistically sound. <shrug> my two cents. i happen to think commitment ceremonies are a lovely idea, btw, which is why, like i said, i had one of my own. of course, that was STILL after my son was born Link to post Share on other sites
Touche Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I don't think gays have ruined marriage for heteros. I don't think it's anyone's place to put boundaries or rules or limitations on how other people choose to bind themselves to other people, whether legally, spiritually, or familially. I agree. But I don't have to agree with certain things nor will I teach our child that it's acceptable for him. What other people do is their business. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I don't think gays have ruined marriage for heteros. I agree. But I don't have to agree with certain things nor will I teach our child that it's acceptable for him. What other people do is their business. this seems fair enough to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I agree. But I don't have to agree with certain things nor will I teach our child that it's acceptable for him. What other people do is their business. I always find that interesting... the whole "what other people do is their business comment" when it relates to teaching children. Your son is "other people," isn't he? Can't he make up his own mind about what's right? *shrug* Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 oceangrl, what do you really want? This is all that matters, when comes to life goals, unless you can accept what he wants and let it drop. If you can't let it go, resentment will fester. Btw, do you realize how much hassle and expense a wedding and reception are/cost? Why in the world would you want to do this, without getting married? Link to post Share on other sites
Touche Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 I always find that interesting... the whole "what other people do is their business comment" when it relates to teaching children. Your son is "other people," isn't he? Can't he make up his own mind about what's right? *shrug* SG, didn't your mother raise you with HER values? You will more than likely raise your kids with your values. That's the way it is. Unless you're one of those people who thinks kids should raise themselves and/or let their peers, media, society, etc. be their main influence. We don't believe that way. No, our son isn't "other people." He's our son to raise as we see fit. And that includes raising him with OUR values. If when he's an adult, he goes against our values, so be it. But for now, he's THIRTEEN...so no. He's most assuredly not old enough to really make up his mind about things like this. It's up to us to guide him. If "other people" think children should raise themselves and form their own values...so be it. We don't subscribe to that. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 SG, didn't your mother raise you with HER values? Depends on what you mean by values. She certainly instilled the values of respect, honesty, integrity, loyalty, hard work, perserverance...that sort of thing. But she did not tell me which God to believe in, or which political party had the correct view, or what's right/wrong in terms of who gets to be "married" and how, what's wrong/wrong in terms of having children before or after marriage, or anything else along those lines. Yes, she led me by example, but she didn't TELL me what my values in this regard were going to be. As a result, unlike most of my peers (and likely your son as well), in response to such questions as "Why are you a Democrat?" I didn't end up saying, "Well, because my mom was." I learned and decided for myself. In other words, my mother taught me to have an open mind. But for now, he's THIRTEEN...so no. He's most assuredly not old enough to really make up his mind about things like this. It's up to us to guide him. This is confusing to me. Why does he even have to have his mind made up about "children out of wedlock" or "gay marriage" at 13??? Do your values on those very personal issues have to be instilled in him? Link to post Share on other sites
Touche Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 this seems fair enough to me. Missed that before. Thanks. Yes, it's sad how God forbid you express an opinion that's the least bit un-PC people get offended. Like poor Miss California. It seems being PC is more important than our freedom of speech these days. How sad for our country. Who is she and who am I harming with MY views? I don't teach my child to look down or judge anyone. I just tell him "we don't do that in our family." I've told him that about our neighbors. The couple never married and have 3 kids together. We've told him we think it's wrong and that "we don't do that in our family but that doesn't make them bad people." We love our neighbors as does our son who is over there all the time. Anywho, back on topic...Why does this thread remind me of when I was a little girl and dressed up in my mother's high heels and pearls? No offense to the OP but it does. I'm sorry. I just don't see the point in the whole thing. It sounds like a farce..a charade of sorts. If you're not ready for marriage, you're not ready for marriage. Be committed b/f and g/f. What's so bad about that? Link to post Share on other sites
Touche Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Depends on what you mean by values. She certainly instilled the values of respect, honesty, integrity, loyalty, hard work, perserverance...that sort of thing. But she did not tell me which God to believe in, or which political party had the correct view, or what's right/wrong in terms of who gets to be "married" and how, what's wrong/wrong in terms of having children before or after marriage, or anything else along those lines. Yes, she led me by example, but she didn't TELL me what my values in this regard were going to be. We do both...lead by example and TELL him our views. It feels right to us. As a result, unlike most of my peers (and likely your son as well), in response to such questions as "Why are you a Democrat?" I didn't end up saying, "Well, because my mom was." I learned and decided for myself. In other words, my mother taught me to have an open mind. Well you don't know our son. He very much has a mind of his own. Trust me on that one. And one day when he's old enough (older than 13) he might go against our morals and values. We're hoping he won't though. We've taught him to have an open mind in regards to accepting others who don't believe as we do. As I've said, we don't teach him to look down on others. We are just trying to teach him our values and morals. And no one is ever going to convince me that that is wrong. No one is ever going to convince me that teaching him to not have kids out of wedlock is a bad thing to be teaching him. Sorry. This is confusing to me. Why does he even have to have his mind made up about "children out of wedlock" or "gay marriage" at 13??? Do your values on those very personal issues have to be instilled in him? What's confusing? We don't suddenly wake up at 18 and form our values. Or at 25. They're rooted in our past and our upbringing. He asks lots of questions and we answer honestly. He WANTS to know our views on things (imagine that? lol) So we tell him. Should we lie to our son in order to be "PC?" That would be absurd! And to answer your last question (again) yes. We feel that our values on those very "personal issues" DO have to be instilled in him. If we don't, who should instill them in him? His peers and the media? Or his parents? I'm genuinely confused about why you're so confused about this SG. I have an inkling that when you have kids of your own it will all become very clear though. Ok, let me ask you this: So you 'd be ok with your kids being against gay rights for example? You'd just hide your views on things and just let them magically come to their own conclusions? You wouldn't want to let them know where you stand on anything? That's so strange to me. I can't relate. If your 13 year old thought gays shouldn't have rights you'd be ok with him/her having their "own mind" on something like that? Yeah...right. (By the way, all the kids now say "that's so gay." I've talked to our son about this and told him that we don't like it. And I've told him why. I want him to understand. Maybe other parents laugh and say "yeah, that IS so gay. You're right Johnny. Hahah.") I don't know. What I DO know is that we will continue raising him as we have. All his friends parents talk about his manners and how he has the best manners out of all their kids' friends. We've heard this over and over again from several different parents. Maybe parents let their kids learn manners on their own now too? And it's all the same to us....maybe not to others but teaching kids manners, values (yes ours), morals, etc. it's all part of our job as we see it. I understand that others don't see it that way. I can respect that others don't agree with what we teach him. So be it. Respect MY right to raise our child as we see fit. Link to post Share on other sites
Stung Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 i think the bashing goes both ways, and not everyone on each side can recognize the forest for the trees. A lot of us liberals pile onto the 'PC' bandwagon a bit overzealously, but in kind of a reactionary fashion, as many have been, in their turn, castigated quite vehemently, for their own choices and beliefs. i can't think of any one group that is blameless in this regard, and i believe it's dangerous to start adapting too much of an 'us vs. them' mentality. as for 'poor miss california,' don't cry for her, touche. she's getting a LOT of mileage out of her fifteen minutes. personally, i disagree with her beliefs and think it's unfortunate that she sounded like an idiot while she attempted to encapsulate them for the media, but whatever. i think it's a shame overall that the two sides of this important national debate are being represented by carrie prejean and perez hilton, it's like ignorance vs. scum, cheap and hardly productive, IMO. as for the OP, trialbyfire asked the most pertinent question: how do YOU feel about legal marriage vs. commitment ceremony? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts