# Legally married vs just having a ceremony



## september_sky (May 17, 2018)

So, I’ve been thinking about something and I’m just curious what your thoughts are. Today, a friend on social media asked the question “what are the pros/cons of getting legally married vs just having a marriage ceremony?”. She is currently engaged and is supposed to be getting married in a few months. I was reading through some of the comments and then all of a sudden the post disappeared, so I’m guessing she deleted it for some reason. Anyway, I was a bit surprised because when I think of someone who’s engaged to be married, I automatically assume that they’re planning to be legally married. I mean, why wouldn’t you? She stated that she had heard negative things about getting a marriage license but didn’t specify what those things were. The only negative I can think of is that if you decide to break up, the process is going to be much more time consuming and more costly. Other than that, I can only think of positives for getting married legally. I know my husband and I started getting tax breaks after we got married, it’s also the only way you can be added to each other’s health insurance, and I’m also pretty sure you can’t change your last name otherwise. My opinion is that becoming legally married is taking the next step in a relationship. It shows that you are serious about being 100% committed to that person for life. In the case of a breakup, couples who aren’t legally bound together can simply get their stuff and get out. They don’t have to deal with lawyers, fees, etc. Am I missing something? Are there other negatives to getting legally married? I can’t think of any reason as to why a person wouldn’t want to do it unless they’re unsure that the relationship is going to last long term.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm actually for kicking the state out of marriage.

They don't have any business being involved.

Getting power of attorney and legal powers in order are necessary. Involving the state is not.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Marriage is a legal contract. If your situation is such that you would benefit from the contract, then I think it makes sense to get married. This is especially true in a traditional situation where one person stays home and raises children while the other has a career. 

You can change your name without being married, or not change it if you are married if you wish (at least in the US)


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Like a non binding handfast ceremony vs a legally binding JOP/ notary ceremony?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Sorry, but for as long as marriage, in and of itself, is deemed to be a binding contract, then the state, judiciary, and lawyers are going to be involved!

No other options!

And you're just as married under the auspices of common law as a traditional ceremonial marriage!

You need a legal divorce or annulment to extract yourself from it! *


----------



## Pam (Oct 7, 2010)

But would a common law marriage allow a widow to draw SSI survivor's benefits? I have a friend who had been with her SO for 20-odd years; they are getting toward the ages for SSI, so I strongly advised her to get married. They did.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

september_sky said:


> So, I’ve been thinking about something and I’m just curious what your thoughts are. Today, a friend on social media asked the question “what are the pros/cons of getting legally married vs just having a marriage ceremony?”. She is currently engaged and is supposed to be getting married in a few months. I was reading through some of the comments and then all of a sudden the post disappeared, so I’m guessing she deleted it for some reason. Anyway, I was a bit surprised because when I think of someone who’s engaged to be married, I automatically assume that they’re planning to be legally married. I mean, why wouldn’t you? She stated that she had heard negative things about getting a marriage license but didn’t specify what those things were. The only negative I can think of is that if you decide to break up, the process is going to be much more time consuming and more costly. Other than that, I can only think of positives for getting married legally. I know my husband and I started getting tax breaks after we got married, it’s also the only way you can be added to each other’s health insurance, and I’m also pretty sure you can’t change your last name otherwise. My opinion is that becoming legally married is taking the next step in a relationship. It shows that you are serious about being 100% committed to that person for life. In the case of a breakup, couples who aren’t legally bound together can simply get their stuff and get out. They don’t have to deal with lawyers, fees, etc. Am I missing something? Are there other negatives to getting legally married? I can’t think of any reason as to why a person wouldn’t want to do it unless they’re unsure that the relationship is going to last long term.


I cant see any point in having some sort of a marriage 'ceremony' if you are not getting married. Just live together if you dont want to be married.
I think that either she or her fiancé are having second thoughts.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

arbitrator said:


> *Sorry, but for as long as marriage, in and of itself, is deemed to be a binding contract, then the state, judiciary, and lawyers are going to be involved!
> 
> No other options!
> 
> ...


You can have all the legal bases covered with zero government involvement.


----------



## Edmund (Apr 1, 2017)

Pam said:


> But would a common law marriage allow a widow to draw SSI survivor's benefits? I have a friend who had been with her SO for 20-odd years; they are getting toward the ages for SSI, so I strongly advised her to get married. They did.


Do you mean SSDI benefits? You have to be very poor to get SSI.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

At least in the USA, fewer and fewer jurisdictions are recognizing common-law marriage as legally binding.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

samyeagar said:


> At least in the USA, fewer and fewer jurisdictions are recognizing common-law marriage as legally binding.


Yeah! 
Reckon it's cause they want people to assume to enter into a contract without permission is illegal, and therefore must have permission by way of license, or/and people to admit they are mentally incompetent and willingly declare themselves a ward of the state?


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

Social Security benefits can be given to a common law spouse if the state in which they reside recognizes common law.

It all depends on the state. If common law marriage is not recognized as binding, you don't need a divorce to end the relationship.

I have a friend who was "married" to her partner for 30 years. Upon his death, she was eligible for nothing. Yes, they comported themselves as man and wife. But in this state, that is not considered legal. She lost out on his Social Security and his pension.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> At least in the USA, fewer and fewer jurisdictions are recognizing common-law marriage as legally binding.


*Better thoroughly read all of the Federal and State statutes!

If it will help that entity get additional tax revenue, then they'll readily and statutorily subscribe to it!*


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

We really need to check out our legal status. We (Americans) got married in the UK, in a church. A marriage that is performed outside US is generally accepted as valid in the US if it was legally performed (we met all the legal requirements there) abroad. But we only have a document from the Church of England. It’s never been a problem, but as we’re getting older...


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

september_sky said:


> So, I’ve been thinking about something and I’m just curious what your thoughts are. Today, a friend on social media asked the question “what are the pros/cons of getting legally married vs just having a marriage ceremony?”. She is currently engaged and is supposed to be getting married in a few months. I was reading through some of the comments and then all of a sudden the post disappeared, so I’m guessing she deleted it for some reason. Anyway, I was a bit surprised because when I think of someone who’s engaged to be married, I automatically assume that they’re planning to be legally married. I mean, why wouldn’t you? She stated that she had heard negative things about getting a marriage license but didn’t specify what those things were. The only negative I can think of is that if you decide to break up, the process is going to be much more time consuming and more costly. Other than that, I can only think of positives for getting married legally. I know my husband and I started getting tax breaks after we got married, it’s also the only way you can be added to each other’s health insurance, and I’m also pretty sure you can’t change your last name otherwise. My opinion is that becoming legally married is taking the next step in a relationship. It shows that you are serious about being 100% committed to that person for life. In the case of a breakup, couples who aren’t legally bound together can simply get their stuff and get out. They don’t have to deal with lawyers, fees, etc. Am I missing something? Are there other negatives to getting legally married? I can’t think of any reason as to why a person wouldn’t want to do it unless they’re unsure that the relationship is going to last long term.


Dispelling some myths.

Nowadays, many companies do offer, despite SSM now being legal across the board, insurance to partners not legally married. USAA put my daughter's partner and father of her daughter on her auto insurance. So the options are out there. They're just not universal.

Furthermore, there are many ways to get your name changed beside marriage. The ability to do so depends on how willing a judge is.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

arbitrator said:


> *Sorry, but for as long as marriage, in and of itself, is deemed to be a binding contract, then the state, judiciary, and lawyers are going to be involved!
> 
> No other options!
> 
> ...


Not all states are common law states. I can say for a fact that MD does not have common law marriage on its books.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> You can have all the legal bases covered with zero government involvement.


Actually no you can't, unless the law allows for a simple declaration of marriage. Without legal recognition, a spouse no longer has immunity for testifying against the other spouse. There are many legal benefits in the law, that only legal recognition provides. Additionally, even with all the aspects that can be done outside of legal marriage, it is all separate and with its separate fees. Now many arguments can be made as to what should or should not be a legal benefit of marriage, but that is for another thread.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> *Not all states are common law states. I can say for a fact that MD does not have common law marriage on its books.*


*No real argument there, but it takes a bonafide divorce to get out of a common law marriage, in both the states that recognize it and accept folks that are CLM in other domiciles!

A state that, just as the Federal Government does, that does not statutorily have legal CLM, will still deem a couple married, who is CLM in another state!*


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

arbitrator said:


> *No real argument there, but it takes a bonafide divorce to get out of a common law marriage, in both the states that recognize it and accept folks that are CLM in other domiciles!
> 
> A state that, just as the Federal Government does, that does not statutorily have legal CLM, will still deem a couple married, who is CLM in another state!*


I'm not quite following you here. Are you saying that even though I live and have lived in MD all my life, since another state would call my living with a woman I refer to as my wife, but have never gotten the legal paperwork done, MD will call it a legal marriage?

Or are you saying that if we lived in a CLM state, met the state qualifications for CLM (still never filled out paperwork), and then moved to MD, that MD would then recognize us as being married? And since MD wants a certificate for showing that you qualify for various state benefits, how would they verify such, since we have no certificate?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> Actually no you can't, unless the law allows for a simple declaration of marriage. Without legal recognition, a spouse no longer has immunity for testifying against the other spouse. There are many legal benefits in the law, that only legal recognition provides. Additionally, even with all the aspects that can be done outside of legal marriage, it is all separate and with its separate fees. Now many arguments can be made as to what should or should not be a legal benefit of marriage, but that is for another thread.
> 
> Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


I've been researching this for decades. I'm convinced otherwise.

I would do it tomorrow if I had the time and money and would do it if I was ever getting married again.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> I've been researching this for decades. I'm convinced otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I would do it tomorrow if I had the time and money and would do it if I was ever getting married again.


How do you provide your spouse immunity from having to testify against you without the government providing the legal recognition in the form of a certificate of marriage?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> How do you provide your spouse immunity from having to testify against you without the government providing the legal recognition in the form of a certificate of marriage?
> 
> Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


That actually isn't a concern of mine.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> I'm not quite following you here. Are you saying that even though I live and have lived in MD all my life, since another state would call my living with a woman I refer to as my wife, but have never gotten the legal paperwork done, MD will call it a legal marriage?
> 
> Or are you saying that if we lived in a CLM state, met the state qualifications for CLM (still never filled out paperwork), and then moved to MD, that MD would then recognize us as being married? And since MD wants a certificate for showing that you qualify for various state benefits, how would they verify such, since we have no certificate?


*Probably!

The proof would be witnesses who would be called to testify to the fact that a couple lived together in a jurisdiction that recognized CLM!

The federal government, as well as some states will do it for taxation purposes! Most times, being married is tax friendly, but if the governmental entity deems you married by your mere cohabitation, then, in their eyes, you could be considered as matrimonially entwined.

And it can well cut both ways! Conversely, that same governmental entity can press to have a common law marriage null and voided, provided that the couples single status would entitle that entity to added tax revenue!*


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

arbitrator said:


> *Probably!
> 
> The proof would be witnesses who would be called to testify to the fact that a couple lived together in a jurisdiction that recognized CLM!
> 
> ...


First off I asked you which of two situations you are talking about, and you answer probably. That does not clear up what you are trying to say.

And what you are saying is sounding rather CT. Do you have any documentation of either the Federal government or a non CLM state, invoking upon a couple who don't claim marriage, the CLM status? Or is all this supposition?

And while we're at it, let's throw out a hypothetical. I have made it clear that I am poly and in a polygamist marriage with a husband and two wives. Legally speaking, each man is married to only one woman. But we do claim marriage to each other. Is it your assertion that a CLM state would force the CLM status on us in order to prosecute? Or would a non-CLM state do so if we moved from a CLM states?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> That actually isn't a concern of mine.


It may not be a concern of yours, but it is still a part of your claim that "You can have all the legal bases covered with zero government involvement." Whether you want to claim a certain legal base for yourself is irrelevant. You have made a claim, and I am asking you to back up that claim.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> First off I asked you which of two situations you are talking about, and you answer probably. That does not clear up what you are trying to say.
> 
> And what you are saying is sounding rather CT. Do you have any documentation of either the Federal government or a non CLM state, invoking upon a couple who don't claim marriage, the CLM status? Or is all this supposition?
> 
> And while we're at it, let's throw out a hypothetical. I have made it clear that I am poly and in a polygamist marriage with a husband and two wives. Legally speaking, each man is married to only one woman. But we do claim marriage to each other. Is it your assertion that a CLM state would force the CLM status on us in order to prosecute? Or would a non-CLM state do so if we moved from a CLM states?


*Federal IRC, the U.S. Code and the Federal Reporter System, but I'm not going to take the time to look it up for you!

But as I said, they don't usually ever fool with it unless there's a prevalent situation of advantageous taxation to them! *


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

arbitrator said:


> *Federal IRC, the U.S. Code and the Federal Reporter System, but I'm not going to take the time to look it up for you!
> 
> But as I said, they don't usually ever fool with it unless there's a prevalent situation of advantageous taxation to them! *


It's your claim, thus it is upon you to support it. _I'm _not going to do your work for _you_. So at this time, we can assume you are blowing smoke. Mind you I am not stating that CLM states won't impose the status on cohabitating couple, especially when marriage type issues arise. But there is no evidence that an non CLM state will do so, nor will the Federal government if such a status had not been entered into record in the CLM state. 

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> It may not be a concern of yours, but it is still a part of your claim that "You can have all the legal bases covered with zero government involvement." Whether you want to claim a certain legal base for yourself is irrelevant. You have made a claim, and I am asking you to back up that claim.
> 
> Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


While this is a legal concern of yours and certainly not mine, I could probably get similar privileges through the clergy privileges.

Your tactic totally fails to take into consideration that I don't give two ****s if the state recognizes my marriage or not.

Barring criminal behavior, they have zero authority as far as I'm concerned about marriage.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> While this is a legal concern of yours and certainly not mine, I could probably get similar privileges through the clergy privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We are in a thread where people are looking for advice on the difference between legal and social/religious marriage. You said:



ConanHub said:


> You can have all the legal bases covered with zero government involvement.


This is demonstrably false. Now if you want say the ConanHub can have all the legal bases he cares about covered with zero government involvement, then sure. Those are your specific concerns, thus that statement has to be assumed true. But you phrased it as if all current legal rights and benefits can be obtained through other means outside of the legal marriage route. I have shown that this is not true, especially for others who may want benefits that you do not care about.

Personally, I don't really care if the government recognizes my marriage either, and actually it doesn't since I am in a polygamist marriage. But that doesn't mean I won't take advantage of those legal benefits with a legal marriage to my one wife, and as such, were I the OP would want to accuratly know what I can and can't have if I try for a marriage outside of the legal route.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> It's your claim, thus it is upon you to support it. _I'm _not going to do your work for _you_. So at this time, we can assume you are blowing smoke. Mind you I am not stating that CLM states won't impose the status on cohabitating couple, especially when marriage type issues arise. But there is no evidence that an non CLM state will do so, nor will the Federal government if such a status had not been entered into record in the CLM state.
> 
> *When I instructed in the Fed, I did not look up anything for my students. Of course, there was not an Internet then! My take on it is that your situation does not involve a Federal, State, or even a Municipal taxation issue! Given that, I wouldn't be all that concerned.
> 
> ...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> We are in a thread where people are looking for advice on the difference between legal and social/religious marriage. You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. I covered testifying in court. What else you got?


----------

