I’m an atheist, and I’m married. Marriage has nothing to do with religion or a belief in god for me. It was about making a formal commitment to each other. We could just have lived together, but we wanted to do something more than that.

I asked a similar question a while ago. Some jellies pointed out that it’s a cultural thing in the USA ie people get married because that’s what people do. In the uk people often don’t get married but have a good marital type relationship.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Marriage and religion go together? That’s new to me…

I don’t see the connection either. We had a rabbi at our wedding (not officiating) for the benefit/enjoyment of my wife’s older relatives, but it wasn’t the focus.

To hell with religion, been up to me i’d have humped the missus on the altar had it not been for sweet gentle kiddywinkies in attendance

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus questioning what theism and marriage have to do, one with the other.

To make him my property, of course.

Some stats related to love / relationship/ marriage..just fyi Here

Marriage is more cultural than religious.
I’m agnostic and was married in a casino by a female biker/hippy.

I’ve come to believe that a great many marriages are about one partner’s enthusiasm and the other’s willingness to comply with the tradition. In the past, the societal straitjacket around women required the man to “make an honest woman” of the girl in the relationship. And that insulting little turn of words shows just how lopsidedly the arbitrary load is saddled onto women. And as if the hill the girls are required to climb isn’t steep enough, the additional requirement of dragging God to the altar along with her “catch” is mandatory for certification as “proper” girl whether or not either partner believes in His existence. It’s pointless faulting people for striving to “fit in” and play the hand they’ve been dealt.

Marriage hasn’t got anything to do with religion. Religion just uses marriage as one of many methods to control the weak minded people who give them money.

Getting married doesn’t have anything to do with religion. It means two people love eachother. It’s a way to show that you don’t intend to leave later on (I know how most people get married without even knowing why, and end up divorced a few years later, I’ve seen it happen so many times). If you’re gonna marry, do it once, because it does mean something. And not in a religious way. At all.

I don’t see any relationship between religion and marriage.

Right now, the primary benefit I see is the ability to be able to make necessary medical decisions. I understand that there are also a number of financial/economic ramifications, but medical decision-making is the biggie I see.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the major religions. The purpose is to create a family unit. It creates a single entity that is comprised of the the members of that unit. You, your spouse, and any kids become the Joneses or the Smiths. You are bonded together legally, spiritually, and emotionally.

Marriage without religious ties is very doable. I don’t see why there would need to be any connection between the two.

I only have one friend that claims to be religious (he hasn’t been to church in 20 years) and I have seen a fair amount of my friends get married. None of the weddings were in churches.

Get married in your friends backyard, have your funeral in a church.

Marriage came about as a way of transferring property, creating alliances, and establishing paternity. It’s only in recent history that it’s been commandeered by religion (for some).

I didn’t know that marriage was only for people who believed in God.

My religion, or lack of, has/had nothing whatsoever to do with why I got married the first time, or the second.
The first time was because I wanted a family and children.
The second time was because, four years into our relationship, he asked me to. I just shrugged and said, “K.” There are more financial benefits to being married than not being married.
What would religion have to do with it, anyway?

Marriage conveys dozens of rights and benefits between two spouses. Some are well-known, while some are extremely obscure. There are valid reasons why same-gender couples fought so long for marriage; they wanted the same protections and privileges, under the law, that are granted to heterosexual spouses.

It’s unfortunate that U.S. states recognize religious weddings as legally binding. In other countries, couples need to be married under the prevailing law; if they choose to have a religious wedding, as well, that’s a bonus ceremony for symbolic reasons. The U.S’s rather peculiar standard has led many people to believe that marriage is a religious convention.

I am married. I was religious when I got married.

It seems to me most of the real benefits of marriage can be solved with other forms of paperwork.

Ultimately, I explained it to my son that marriage is choosing to make someone you aren’t related to part of your family.

Marriage isn’t exclusively a sacrament.

It is a contract.

<rant>What? How retarded can pervo-pseudo-Christian thinking get? Guess what pre-dates Christianity, and originally has nothing to do with it? Answer: Almost everything, including marriage.</rant>

But also, what? Why would marriage just be a piece of paper to you? How does that happen? How does someone think their lack of religion means what they commit to should be meaningless? How can someone be so confused about the difference between existential reality and social contracts?

Not that you aren’t correct that marriage can be a messy entanglement. But the messy part comes from not clearly thinking things through and talking about them and listening carefully and so on. Modern Western society’s ideas about marriage, particularly in the USA where we have so many different cultural origins and so much fictional nonsense, is really weird. So you need to either get on the same authentic page somehow, or rely on chance (or Providence).

Well. Thank you all for your contributions.

I’m sort of stumped as to why so many think there is no correlation between marriage and religion…..It’s usually done in a church, by a preacher. Almost all weddings involve a preacher, or religious figure in the community to( ‘join in holly matrimony’ ) marry them. Most vows include a mention of the service being done ‘before god.’

Thanks to those of you who weren’t flat out offended by the question. I get hit over the head a lot for some of my questions. I didn’t mean to offend any flutherites. It seemed a reasonable question to me….

@Zaku.It would be just a piece of paper to me,because it wouldn’t have changed anything. It doesn’t mean we love each other less when not married, or more when we are. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cheat on each other when we aren’t married, and it certainly doesn’t stop many from cheating when they are married. If your relationship changes in the way you treat , respect , support, love each other after marriage, then you probably shouldn’t get married to that person. Why would swearing before a god and getting a piece of paper change anything?

Weddings are performed by whoever you get to perform them, often in a church, sometimes by another type of minister, sometimes by a notary public, and sometimes by a dude dressed as Elvis.

Marriage is a legal contract filed by your local county Clerk of the Court. It is viable whether or not a wedding ever takes place.

That said, I’m a registered minister, and can legally perform weddings in my state. I haven’t yet, but I totally could.

Pardon my ignorance @Seek. Minister, to me, insinuates a religious tie correct?

I’m not married, like I just stated on another question, and don’t know if I ever will be. I’m agnostic with atheist leanings, and I think, other than the benefits you get from becoming married, it’s pointless. I don’t need an official document to know or prove my love for someone. That said, I don’t think it’s wrong and I’m not against it, I just think it’s really “whatever”.

@MrGrimm888 – the institution through which I am ordained does not require that one profess a belief. They have the religious freedom to ordain anyone they choose through their own faith.

@MrGrimm888, can I ask where you are? This is probably a cultural difference. I didn’t get married in a church and there was no religious component to the ceremony. I’m not sure what percentage of weddings would be carried out in a religious establishment in Australia. I’d have to do research to find that out, I would argue the figure has declined significantly in the last couple of decades though.

@Seek thanks for clarification , is that normal? For some reason when I hear the word minister, I think religion.

@Earthbound Misfit, I’m currently in Charleston SC USA.Yes ,I’m aware that this far below the Bible belt things have more religious overtones.

MrGrimm, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics.nsf/mf/3310.0 data, the number of marriages taking place has increased in Australia but 74% are civil ceremonies.

That is reasonable. I am not religious, but I am an ordained minister. Any wedding that I officiate would be nonreligious, unless it were a pagan ceremony (because I’m pretty cool with pagans, as a whole, and they know how to party) or Pastafarian.

So , @Seek . You said you were religious when you got married. If you got divorced (hypothetically, and with no offense intended ) , would you get married again? If it was the right person etc. Or would your current religious beliefs affect your decision?

Hypothetically speaking,

I don’t know. I can’t think of any pressing reason why I would. I don’t intend to have more children, and it’s not like I have a vast inheritance to share.

Besides, I just don’t like that many people in general.

I might marry @Cazzie so I can move to Norway. Also, she’s awesome.

<3 @Seek It is nice to know that the age difference wouldn’t bother you.

You can get married as citizens, regardless of religion.

@MrGrimm888 I’m rather surprised why you are still “stumped” at why most of us think that marriage does not, in and of itself, have anything to do with religion, even though most of the answers have explained why marriage and religion are two separate things. Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal contract. Whatever else it might be (religious or not) has to do with the two people getting married.

You can have a religious marriage ceremony, or you can have a secular marriage ceremony. I honestly can’t remember the last wedding that I attended in a church. The most recent marriage I attended was outside, at a winery. Many years ago I attended a wedding that was held at a very old historic church, but was officiated over by the bride’s father who happened to be a judge, so the ceremony was not religious at all.

There are lots of reasons that non-religious people get married. Living together and getting married are not the same thing and each of these options has very different legal ramifications, rights, and responsibilities as you can read about Here

The very reason that marriage means something quite different than simply cohabiting, is the very reason why same sex couples fought so hard for marriage, rather than simply accepting what was until recently called civil unions. Civil unions did not afford the same rights as marriage, and were basically relegated to a second class status of couple-hood.

Marriage may not have any actual religious connotation, but it does have a deep meaning to a lot of people, and it is definitely a public presentation of a couple’s commitment, whether or not that marriage lasts.

I didn’t read above answers.

What does atheism have to do with it? I don’t understand this question at all.

I loved my then boyfriend and felt like I wanted to be with him forever. Now that I am older I realize all the important legal protections it afford both of us.

Civil marriage is about the law. Pretty much everyone I know who is married cares about the legal stuff. That’s why gay people fought so hard for it. Do you think very religious people only care about their marriage in the church? Bullshit. Even they want the civil marriage to feel like a valid married couple. Maybe there are a few people around who would be fine with only a religious marriage, but my guess is they aren’t married.

@Seek. Let me rephrase the question. Knowing, or believing what you currently do, would you have married the person whom you are currently married to? Would your current beliefs have affected your decision?

I would understand if you said it’s just too complicated. I was only curious.

I’m not trying to ‘catch’ anyone here. I had no predetermined answer in mind. No answers are wrong. I was trying to understand the motivation for atheist marriages. The only thing that confused me was the separation of marriage and religion. But most have made it pretty clear,that they don’t see a correlation. And even though I don’t see a separation, it is an acceptable,understandable answer to me.
The thought process seems to be that marriage is a legal contract. That is understandable but seems to take some of the meaning from marriage.

I suppose, given the confusion, I should have asked ‘What does marriage mean?’

@MrGrimm888 Are you married? Are married because of your religion?

I am not married. As I stated in the details, I was thinking about my most recent relationship with my ex girlfriend. We were intellectual. We discussed marriage. I would have married her if it was important to her. It just had no meaning to me.

@MrGrimm888 Ah yes, I do remember those details now that you stated them again. Are you religious? I’m confused now.

No.I’m (well I used to be atheist, but apparently there are different levels, and I dont know where I fall ) an atheist. Which is why the marriage wouldn’t have meant much to me. I thought of it (marriage ) as a thing of religion and law. Two things I don’t care much for.

Why do I have to pledge my love before some ‘god’ to validate my relationship with someone. Why does it matter what anyone knows or doesn’t know about the relationship between me and my significant other? Why is it relevant ? I understand if it is traditional, religious,arranged, tax related, pregnancy related (not smart) etc.

It’s the same reason I don’t get jury duty. I would never swear on a bible. Because I don’t believe in Christianity. When I make my atheisim clear,I’m never selected. I would be pissed if I was forced, but I refuse jury duty. I’m against most of the litigious process.

If marriage is a legal contract, then it could be deemed illegal. Like gay marriage. To me, the government has no place in my personal life.

If I don’t have a god to profess my loyalty and love to, and I dont respect my government, I’m not thrilled with the idea of proclaiming our love with a piece of paper, sworn to a god I don’t believe in, and validated by a government I don’t care about.
I just don’t understand the reason for marriage, in this day and age.

I’d like to make it clear that I see no correlation between atheist beliefs and my dislike for the government. The government thing is a personal thing. Not an atheist thing.

@MrGrimm888 Where you live, they make you swear on a bible for jury duty? That doesn’t happen in my state at all. Have you considered moving somewhere more liberal?

No. Not for jury duty. But for testimony. I bring these things up and act belidgerent when in selection. I never get chosen. I want to appear unpredictable and disrespectful of the process.

Charleston is actually much different than the rest of the state (SC) in a good way. Otherwise I’d be long gone…..

I think you can reject it (the Bible swearing ) ,but it would potentially harm your credibility as a witness in religious areas.

Some wouldn’t care for what an atheist testifies to.

I don’t think you have to swear on the bible in any state. I had to do a deposition in GA and I didn’t swear on a bible, I just agreed to tell the truth.

Charleston is such a lovely city to walk around.

It doesn’t matter that you get annoyed with government and that you are an atheist, what matters is I think you haven’t found “the one” you want to marry. Not that anyone has to get married. I’m fine if people want to never get married, I can name reasons myself why marriage can be a negative, and I understand why people think if it as just a piece of paper not necessary to be committed to the person you love.

However, in reality it is not a piece of paper, it’s practically a book! When you die your spouse won’t pay any inheritance tax, and if your sick she can answer for you. If you have children with someone it’s much easier legally if you are married. If you buy real estate you own it as a married couple, which legally is not the same as two unmarried people owning a property together.

The government is involved in marriage for financial and practical, societal, reasons, not religious ones.

@JLeslie. Yes. She was not the one for me. But half a bottle of whiskey had me thinking about it. Did she leave me because I didn’t believe in marriage? That’s why I asked. I’m actually glad I didn’t marry her now. But I always think about it.

Is what it is…...

My husband was in his 40s before he got together with me and married. He’d been in long relationships, but had never wanted to marry. Perhaps if the person is right you might change your mind @MrGrimm888. As I said above, marriage has nothing to do with religion for us. It was and is just about us wanting to commit to each other.

^Makes sense

Wife and I got married for a stupid visa issues after 2 decades of “partnership”. I agree that there IS an obvious connection between marriage and religion, and that in a totally religion-free society, free love should be the norm.

GA^

Free love? That’s a completely separate topic.

@MrGrimm888 That’s what I meant, she wasn’t the “one.” When you find the person you can’t imagine being without, you might find yourself wanting to marry her. I don’t know for sure, but I hear story after story like that. Getting married to please someone else isn’t a great place to be in, and that’s what you were talking about with the gf. This is partly what I mean by people not understanding the marriage contract isn’t a paper it’s a book.

If you had married her and then divorced, you would have possibly have had legal crap to deal with. That might have been simple, or complicated, we don’t know. It partly would have depended on her. That might be reason to never marry for some people, but it also is reason to marry.

Almost every married person will tell you that being married is different than not being married. Mostly, people who have never been married think there is no difference. They don’t know from experience though, because they have never been married. For certain individuals there might be no difference, but just remember if they don’t have any experience being married, they don’t really know what it’s like.

Notice everything I said has nothing to do with religion or God. Also, I do tend to be in the camp that if you want to have children, usually it’s better to be married for legal reasons. Especially as a man. In many states a child born out of wedlock means the man has zero automatic rights to see the child, and he still will be obligated to pay child support.

Free love is the polar opposite to marriage, no?

I had to really bust my brain to figure out when I was last at a wedding that happened in a church. It’s at least 18 years ago.

Marriages here have to have the civil documentation to be legal. The religious component happens for some other reason for some people.

It’s not like this is new. The civil component was a requirement going back to the 50’s in Germany and at least the 60’s here in Ontario.

The church/temple/synagogue ceremony can be a festive cultural add-on to the legal wedding, which is the civil marriage.

Most weddings I’ve been to lately have been at country clubs or other party venues.

@Zaku.It would be just a piece of paper to me,because it wouldn’t have changed anything. It doesn’t mean we love each other less when not married, or more when we are. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cheat on each other when we aren’t married, and it certainly doesn’t stop many from cheating when they are married. If your relationship changes in the way you treat , respect , support, love each other after marriage, then you probably shouldn’t get married to that person. Why would swearing before a god and getting a piece of paper change anything?

Because marriage is not fundamentally about gods or papers. I would say that marriage is fundamentally about agreeing to a social contract not just with each other, but with your community. When you’re in a committed relationship but not a marriage, it can easily be mainly just between the two of you. Marriages by contrast are about becoming a couple in your relationship to the community. Of course, it’s possible to emphasize or largely ignore those or other aspects of marriage, and you’re an example of how many people largely do associate marriage primarily with religion. But I think the origin and fundamental nature of marriage is about formally changing your identity with the community.

It’s a palpable effect – try mentioning to someone (a good example is when booking a hotel room) that someone is your wife versus the same expression saying they are your girlfriend. Often there will be much more respect, sympathy, authority and propriety invoked and given automatically when speaking of your marriage partner as opposed to your lover or even “partner”.

(I do agree that the personal relationship can be just as strong/good/healthy, or more so, without the marriage, or not, depending on the people.)

@MrGrimm888 “Minister” can also mean tending to a people’s needs. Like, “ADminister.”

I guess I have changed my mind on marriage…. Thanks to all for their carefully crafted responses.
Maybe I was/am too much of a non conformist for my own good.
To me, the words spoken here , especially what @Zaku said about the relationship with your community, have plenty of merrit.
I was clearly focused on the wrong aspects of the concept of marriage.

Perhaps if I find ‘the one,’ I will marry her (if she’ll have me), but I’m not buying a diamond. That’s for another thread.

Thanks Fluther,
Peace n love

You better buy her a damned diamond @MrGrimm888! They’re so twinkly and sparkly. I still love looking at mine. It’s the only jewelry I wear. My husband picked it out all by himself. I was impressed. He did well.

Diamonds are not something I support. They drive terrorism and ruin the lives of many. Like I said, another thread…..

@oliver5 Most people who call marriage just a piece of paper, mean they can be committed without the paper.

My wedding ring is an emerald, @MrGrimm888.

Your symbols should be ones that are meaningful to you and your betrothed, not the DeBeers corporation.

@JLeslie We actually feared that the paperwork would spook our relation, but it didn’t. It IS just a piece of paper after all….

@MrGrimm888 Diamonds or any other super-pricey gift are a way to tell a woman: I am ready to make sacrifices for you. I guess in our age of gender equality, women should reciprocate, no? Why only one way?

I agree that what @Zaku said about the relationship with your community, have plenty of merrit. Marriage is a way to make a bonding known to all and accepted by the community; that’s why one needs to publish one’s intentions to get married a few weeks before: To let other suitors or suitorettes know and make some move. That’s also why the minister asks if there’s any contestation in the community (the room) before proceeding.

In our case, none of that really mattered.

@olivier5 Again, no it’s not. It’s a legal document, a contract, with all sorts of protections that can work for you, and in some cases against you. You mean it’s a piece of paper that doesn’t matter in terms of your commitment or love for your SO, but civil marriage is more than that, or I could even say aside from it.

@JLeslie It’s a legal document, a contract, with all sorts of protections that can work for you, and in some cases against you.

Protections from whom? From your mate? From the state? If the latter, fine, and that’s the point Zaku made: marriage is when a couple gets recognized by the collectivity. Thus the surviving one will get the SS or retirement plan of the other one—that’s all very useful. But if the former, it does imply that your trust in your spouse is quite limited.

I find it quite interesting that the engagement ring is the one that’s all flashy and showy, but the actual wedding band is much plainer. Why is that?

14 years ago, I HAD to get married to get a residency permit to a country I wanted to live in. I did it without religion. If I did it again, I would do it to secure residency for the person I wanted to bring into the country I currently live. No other reason. Not religious, at all. It would be purely using the system for a means to an ends. I did not have an engagement ring. He proposed over a chat on the internet as a way to solve our problem. I refused the idea out of hand the first time he suggested it. After MUCH time and discussion, I finally agreed. I paid for the wedding and the rings. Not the groom.

@cazzie is a PIMP!!!!!!LOL!!!

Yeah, because ‘pimp’ means wanting to be in the same country as the people you love. Exactly like that. *sarcasm.

I just like your style @cazzie. No disrespect intended.

Peace n love

@olivier5 If a woman needs a diamond or another pricey gift to get the message, she’s not someone who should be getting married at all in the first place.

@olivier5 Protection for yourself and your assets. SS is a good example where being a spouse is beneficial. Inheritance is another. Parenting is another.

Ability to stay and work in a country as @cazzie pointed out is another good example. Once I was married my husband could switch his status from being tied to his work to being tied to me. Basically, he was liberated. When you can only stay in a country, because of who you are employed by, you are practically enslaved to the employer. My husband happened to love his job at the time, but I’m just making a point.

I trust my spouse completely. He could wipe out my bank accounts and I probably would have no idea for months. He is the one who tends to keep track of the money, he pays the bills. I could have threats of foreclosure on my house and be totally oblivious, because I trust him to be paying the bills.

Sometimes things go downhill though. You never know for sure. If my husband drained our accounts a judge would make it as just as possible in the end. This is not only important for the individual, but for society too. Women too often get thrown into financial hardship when they divorce. This costs society tax money when she starts getting help from the government. If her husband has money and is court ordered to pay, society will be less likely to wind up paying.

@DrasticDreamer Some people want to be reassured that their partner cares; they need proof of love. I’m okay with that; i like getting nice presents myself.

@JLeslie Women too often get thrown into financial hardship when they divorce.
You’re aware that many women have a job these days? But no self-respecting man—even if poorer than his wife—would try to get a piece of his wife’s income after a divorce. This reeks of gold digging.

It’s interesting that when I asked the question, I never thought of weddings for citizenship…

Another cool thing about Fluther.

@MrGrimme888 That was one of the issues stated by gay couples. I’m not even talking about a marriage only for citizenship, I mean gay people who were in long term relationships, who truly wanted to be married, who might need papers were at a distinct disadvantage compared to straight couples. Not just citizenship, just being able to live in the country. Let’s say a gay man in the Netherlands got a great expat job in the US and his husband of course would want to move with him. When we didn’t recognize gay marriage, that spouse was just another guy trying to come into the country, not a spouse. They could have children and everything, and we were not recognizing them equal to heterosexual families.

@olivier5 If women were working part time or not at all it can take some time to get back into the job market. Women do statistically make less money. I’m not talking about equal pay for equal work, I mean just the numbers.

If the guy disappears and there are children, the mother is paying for the kid and the father is paying nothing. Even if both parents make the same money the woman’s life is more expensive in that case. Not to mention men don’t buy tampons, make-up, hair products, bras, those are just basic things, I’m not talking about $100 hair cuts or Chanel lipstick.

@JLeslie Of course child alimony should be paid – that’s only fair; but that should be all there is to pay. There’s no reason for anyone to subsidize an ex-partner.

men don’t buy tampons, make-up, hair products, bras

Even if this gross generalization was true, so what? Women buy these things because they want to. They are not necessities. You can live without make-up.

I don’t know about @JLeslie but I don’t buy tampons because I want to.

@olivier5
you can live without many things.
You do not need clean underwear, clean clothes, shaving, or basic hygiene either. Those are not necessities.

I’m not asking my exes to pay for my shaving cream, though…

Women buy razors too.

As far as alimony it depends on the situation. Sometimes it is warranted, sometimes it isn’t.

Once in a while a spouse just ups and leaves and the courts are the only way to get child support.

You are being idealistic. It’s not a big deal if a couple is young and have very little money and no kids. Once you get into building wealth together and raising children it gets more tricky. If you both have a lot of money that’s probably fine, but if it’s very uneven, the person not earning much plays a valuable agreed upon role in the relationship, her told has a monetary value if something goes wrong in the relation, or if the other person dies. If people were perfect about making wills that would be great, but a spouse can have full intention of wanting his SO to get his property and money, and if they aren’t married and there is no will all the estate will likely go to his children or siblings. She can wind up with nothing.

A friend of mine, a woman, pays child support to her exhusband, so I’m not saying women always are financially disabled after divorce.

I’m not saying everyone should marry. I am saying know the legalities and choose, don’t rely on just hoping your future will roll out as you plan.

If I supported my ex through his masters and his PhD, you better goddamn expect that I see something if he decides to drop me for an intern or undergrad. Likewise, if I helped support him through setting up his own professional firm and did that as well as looked after the kids, taking me out of the workforce for 7 years, essentially loosing my place at my professional job. Women sacrifice HELLA SHITLOAD and I don’t give a fuck if it impedes on your sensibilities, but if we sacrifice and you ditch us….. You gonna pay.

@olivier5 You don’t have to buy shaving cream. My soap works AMAZING as a body soap AND a shave soap. I’m magic with the chemistry.

So Michael Jordan’s ex deserved half his fortune? She got half. She didn’t win 6 NBA championships. And I think she could have managed to tolerate her life with only a few million.

I’m not denying women have it rough after marriage, but it is generally the man who is FUCKED financially after divorce.

@cazzie If I supported my ex through his masters and his PhD, you better goddamn expect that I see something if he decides to drop me for an intern or undergrad.

I have two male friends to whom this happened: each of them married girls with lots of smarts but no tertiary education. Both paid through their teeth for their wives MBAs (New York and London), and both were ditched soon after their wives’ graduation… Needless to say, none of them asked for a refund. They bit the bullet. That’s what society expects of you, if you’re a man.
Just suck it up.

@JLeslie And men buy skin and hair products too.

I am not being idealistic, just mindful of the damage these slightly sordid contractual matters can do to a relationship. It’s “kill love”, if that translates. I keep my eye on the ball, on what’s important for me. If material things were more important to me than romantic ones, i would be all for marriage, or some other form of contractual sex.

@olivier5 their stupid pride and loss then.

I would never want to marry someone who would have me for a husband.

@MrGrimm888 Did she get half? I only ask again, because that’s an expression used all the time, but some states are not 50/50 states. Did they get married young? Then I can understand no prenup was in place, but if he was already making millions he fucked it up thinking all rainbows and hearts. Wealthy people routinely use prenups.

And, about wealth, if you want to have reasonable wealth, married people statistically have much more wealth. They also tend to define roles in the marriage, and often there are at least some periods where one spouse is not working. They are taking care of children or supporting the working spouse in ways that are not paid, but it helps the working spouse in their success. These roles switch around throughout the marriage. That’s why people get half, or alimony, because what they did counts to.

The working spouse made a deal that she/he would be the one to earn money and support the family, so the couple both own the money and assets in their entirety. That’s what being married is. You two are one unit. Whether you have the paper or not, that is what your commitment to each other should be. Now, I have absolutely no problem with prenups when there s a situation of extreme wealth, and some other very valid reasons, but you don’t get to stiff your spouse out of everything if the relationship dissolves.

If you want to keep all the money separate and let her pay for her things and him pay for his things and split the rent, and the food bill, then that’s fine, but when taken to an extreme it’s tiresome. When you aren’t legally married it has to be more extreme to protect yourself.

You’re worried the girl was a gold digger? What is the guy just saying I love you so he can have sex with her, and parade her around, and then when he gets tired leave her in the sewer? You can criticize both if you want to talk about bad intentions. Most people don’t have bad intentions. They intend to stay married forever. Dissolving a relationship is traumatizing in many ways.

@cazzie You’re just blaming the victim now.

My point is that no marital contract and no judge could possibly have protected them. So yeah, they were “stupid” in the sense that they trusted someone who was not worthy of their trust, and once it happened they chose to lay low and take the loss. What alternative did they have?

You can sue a spouse for future earnings. It was suggested to me in New Zealand when my disaster marriage there ended, somewhat amicably, but I took a loss over a house and business. I felt sorry for the shmuck because he really had no sense of self awareness and after all the years of work and sacrifices I made, I decided to just be thankful that I never fell pregnant over the year and a half we were actively trying. Women can cut their losses, too. It doesn’t just work just one way. My ex in Norway ended up with half of my maternity money (half a year’s pay) that was meant to be spent of me and my baby during my year of maternity leave because he had built up his own credit card debt travelling over seas for work and not paying it off when he got the money for the expenses. I’ll never see that money again. I had a friend work as a cleaning lady and her husband took their vacation money and lost it on gaming machines at the grocery store. She bought him an expensive digital camera and paid for a photography course for him and she didn’t have a lot of money, working as a part time cleaning lady. He never went to more than a couple of the classes and stopped. After three years of that bullshit, she finally left him and his racist family. Don’t tell me women don’t just cut their losses and draw a line.

@cazzie Fair enough, it cuts both ways. We all extend trust too far sometimes and some of these times it may be legally actionnable. My point was and remains that these actionable cases are nit that frequent, and that most of the times people just take their losses.