> >
> > > I don't see living together as a cop-out, though. If you define "marriage" as "having had a church wedding ceremony", then I would have to say I am not married. However, if you define it as a committed lifelong union of love, mutual respect and all the rest, in which separation is not an option, then I am certainly married. After eleven years I see no difference between our "living together" and anybody else's "marriage" - in fact, we have seen one of our properly-married friends get through upwards of three properly-married and subsequently properly-divorced wives in that time.
> > >
> > > Brunnen-"not against getting married, there just hasn't seemed to be any reason to"G
> >
> > Although I have my views on living together, that wasn't my main reason for posting. I think Brunnen_G explains what I failed to do and that is that people can use stupid reasons for living together and for getting married and there are often stupid reasons involved in ending the relationship. In the U.S., Brunnen_G would be under a common law marriage at this point. I admire her commitment even though I disagree with her method. At least she is sincere and open about it instead of trying to set up a smoke screen for herself.
> >
> > Marriage (and commitment) is too often not taken seriously and people try to fool themselves into thinking otherwise. I would rather see a wedding ceremony at a hotel, run by a judge, and completely absent of "religion," than one where it is in a church because of tradition or because they don't want to upset Aunt Martha. If the wedding day is already a sham, how well can the participants actually treat the marriage?
> >
> > Ferrick
>
> One thing that ... puzzles ... me about marriage as a religiously/legally sanctioned event is this: A couple gets married in the church or the temple or whatever and that religion recognizes them in a new way and gives them certain "rights," if you will. It allows them to live together, have sex, yadda yadda, and, because they're married, the religion says it's okay.

Well, it's not just that. Marriage exists as a time-honoured tradition/sacrament -- whatever you want to call it -- which offers the privilege of protection to the couple's children, if and when they come. The Declaration on Marriage and the Canadian Family cites it thusly: It is "an institution (originally ordained by God) and rooted in human nature. It exists to satisfy the longings of the human heart to give and receive love, to propagate the human race, and to provide a safe and secure environment in which to nurture, teach and love children." I think that's a beautiful definition.


> But they also have to get a marriage license from the state. What rights does that give them? In some states, an underage spouse can drink in the presence of their of-age partner. State sanctioned marriage used to give couples the right to insure each other,

What??? I was supposed to buy a *marriage license*? Uh-oh.

We were required to take a pre-marital counselling course with a bunch of other to-be-weds, but I never got any legally sanctioned paperwork out of it.

Wolf "I thought all we had to do was fill in our income tax forms for the last four years saying we've been hitched, so that 'Please Mr. Revenue Minister' could take MORE taxes from us being married, rather than the usual income benefit that married couples supposedly get in the rest of the world. Grrrr" spirit