5 ms·

Anecdotally, among the people I know in Seattle, many people who have happily been in the same relationship for decades are not married. People are not avoiding

Anecdotally, among the people I know in Seattle, many people who have happily been in the same relationship for decades are not married. People are not avoiding long-term relationships, they are avoiding the baggage and fairly rigid assumptions that comes with state intervention in their relationships. There is zero social pressure to be “officially” married so people have no reason to do it for the sake of social conformity. Both men and women are subscribing to this. I think some of this is a side-effect of many people planning to never have children.

garciasn 2y ago
As someone who was married and is now divorced, I can absolutely see the draw. I don’t think of it as “state intervention in relationships,” as I’m not a libertarian, but aside from tax breaks, which mean absolutely nothing when I have to pay for my ex-wife to live carefree for the rest of her life simply because we were married and she was lazy, doesn’t offset the 19 years of tax offsets she squandered.
- graemep 2y ago
  I can understand that. My ex wife is currently after money from me after years of refusing to work (even when we really needed the money) - and I did more than half the work in looking after our kids too. Just to explain, divorce, child arrangements, and divorce finance are separate cases here. We do not have tax breaks for being married here in the UK. There is one tiny advantage if one person does not have a taxable income, but is pretty small. On the other hand I also (as I said in other comments) know women (and it is still almost entirely women) who have not got a fair deal financial because they were not married, but gave up work to look after the kids/be a home maker. That is just as unfair.
BowBun 2y ago
Agreed with this point. Folks are moving away from traditional relationship structures, and have been for a while. If you want a personal anecdote - I'm partnered, not married, we don't plan to have kids or marry, and worry pretty much 0 about retirement or having enough funds to pass on to another generation. We're just enjoying our lives for however long that may be.
willidiots 2y ago
One thing to be mindful of is that this limits your ability to help your partner as you age. State intervention can play both ways.
- jb1991 2y ago
  That’s unfortunate. And it’s a uniquely American mindset. Long-term relationships in Europe for example do not require marriage in the same way that Americans do. People get married in the states because of the law, people get married in other countries because they just want to get married for emotional or spiritual reasons.
  - pdabbadabba 2y ago
    > People get married in the states because of the law That's at least vastly overstated, and probably just false. I'm an American living in a major urban center and I don't think I know anybody for whom the decision to get married was influenced by legal considerations to any significant degree.
    - kgermino 2y ago
      I do know a fair number of people who got married for health insurance (not really legal reasons, but maybe adjacent?). Though very few of those cases we’re people who otherwise would not have gotten married, rather people who got a legal marriage very quickly to access health, benefits then took the normal amount of time for the ceremonial wedding
    - jb1991 2y ago
      Just google all of the legal and financial benefits that you get in the United States when you get married.
      - pdabbadabba 2y ago
        I'm not ignorant of the legal incentives in the U.S. and I'm not saying people never marry for those reasons. But the post I was responding to was making a much stronger generalization. Most people who marry in the U.S. also do it for "emotional or spiritual reasons."
Tireings 2y ago
Really unfortunate for some. I enjoyed my wedding. We invited family with the goal to celebrate together and we made sure our guests enjoyed it. I have seen plenty of our wedding pictures hanging on walls (from them in it, not us). I also can't tell you how interesting it feels that we share now the same last name. I think it's a nice progression for a relationship.
graemep 2y ago
What is US law on this and what are the "rigid assumptions" people find troublesome. In the UK the main effect of marriage is that it protects the lower earning partner if the relationship breaks down - most often (even now!) this is a woman who gives up work/takes a break from work to bring up kids. I come across a good many single mothers (mostly online because of an FB group I admin) who would have been MUCH better off financially if they had been married, and a lot who are a lot better off because they were married. Historically the main reason for legal marriage was to protect women from being left with kids by feckless men who evaded responsibility. Its a bit less pressing now we have paternity tests (and contraceptives) but its still a problem, and whoever gives up career for childcare still loses out without marriage.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  There is minimal US law on this. States have their own laws individually which vary considerably. The context here has nothing to do with children and these people commonly don’t have any. Legal jurisdiction can be quite fluid, which just adds to the complexity. A major motivating factor is that marriage can create myriad ruinous financial entanglements and eliminate most possibilities for recourse. Especially in affluent places like Seattle, people are often entering these relationships with a mature financial and business life. The loss of independence under law, both technically and in practice, in regard to these affairs in marriage has produced countless examples of bad outcomes for people, often forcing them to start over from zero in their 30s or 40s. It doesn’t matter if you divorce later, the damage is already done. By not getting married, they retain independence in these matters recognized by law which shields them from the downside scenarios. These cases are mostly about retaining the ability to continue to run their businesses, investments, etc as they wish both in marriage and after. States in the western US are notoriously much less accommodating of protecting the interests of individuals in marriage than in some other parts of the country (purportedly due to the strong influence of Spanish legal customs in that region of North America). The forced loss of agency is not compatible with many requirements of competently living a modern life. I probably know more women who were ruined by this in marriage than men. It has nothing to do with staying home or quitting a career to raise kids.
Dracophoenix 2y ago
> People are not avoiding long-term relationships, they are avoiding the baggage and fairly rigid assumptions that comes with state intervention in their relationships. Unfortunately, avoiding paper marriage is insufficient to avoid such intervention in the state of Washington (with its Committed Intimate Relationship doctrine) or states where a cohabitant may be legally entitled to "palimony".

garciasn 2y ago

As someone who was married and is now divorced, I can absolutely see the draw. I don’t think of it as “state intervention in relationships,” as I’m not a libertarian, but aside from tax breaks, which mean absolutely nothing when I have to pay for my ex-wife to live carefree for the rest of her life simply because we were married and she was lazy, doesn’t offset the 19 years of tax offsets she squandered.

graemep 2y ago
I can understand that. My ex wife is currently after money from me after years of refusing to work (even when we really needed the money) - and I did more than half the work in looking after our kids too. Just to explain, divorce, child arrangements, and divorce finance are separate cases here. We do not have tax breaks for being married here in the UK. There is one tiny advantage if one person does not have a taxable income, but is pretty small. On the other hand I also (as I said in other comments) know women (and it is still almost entirely women) who have not got a fair deal financial because they were not married, but gave up work to look after the kids/be a home maker. That is just as unfair.

BowBun 2y ago

Agreed with this point. Folks are moving away from traditional relationship structures, and have been for a while. If you want a personal anecdote - I'm partnered, not married, we don't plan to have kids or marry, and worry pretty much 0 about retirement or having enough funds to pass on to another generation. We're just enjoying our lives for however long that may be.

willidiots 2y ago

One thing to be mindful of is that this limits your ability to help your partner as you age. State intervention can play both ways.

jb1991 2y ago
That’s unfortunate. And it’s a uniquely American mindset. Long-term relationships in Europe for example do not require marriage in the same way that Americans do. People get married in the states because of the law, people get married in other countries because they just want to get married for emotional or spiritual reasons.
- pdabbadabba 2y ago
  > People get married in the states because of the law That's at least vastly overstated, and probably just false. I'm an American living in a major urban center and I don't think I know anybody for whom the decision to get married was influenced by legal considerations to any significant degree.
  - kgermino 2y ago
    I do know a fair number of people who got married for health insurance (not really legal reasons, but maybe adjacent?). Though very few of those cases we’re people who otherwise would not have gotten married, rather people who got a legal marriage very quickly to access health, benefits then took the normal amount of time for the ceremonial wedding
  - jb1991 2y ago
    Just google all of the legal and financial benefits that you get in the United States when you get married.
    - pdabbadabba 2y ago
      I'm not ignorant of the legal incentives in the U.S. and I'm not saying people never marry for those reasons. But the post I was responding to was making a much stronger generalization. Most people who marry in the U.S. also do it for "emotional or spiritual reasons."

Tireings 2y ago

Really unfortunate for some. I enjoyed my wedding. We invited family with the goal to celebrate together and we made sure our guests enjoyed it. I have seen plenty of our wedding pictures hanging on walls (from them in it, not us). I also can't tell you how interesting it feels that we share now the same last name. I think it's a nice progression for a relationship.

graemep 2y ago

What is US law on this and what are the "rigid assumptions" people find troublesome. In the UK the main effect of marriage is that it protects the lower earning partner if the relationship breaks down - most often (even now!) this is a woman who gives up work/takes a break from work to bring up kids. I come across a good many single mothers (mostly online because of an FB group I admin) who would have been MUCH better off financially if they had been married, and a lot who are a lot better off because they were married. Historically the main reason for legal marriage was to protect women from being left with kids by feckless men who evaded responsibility. Its a bit less pressing now we have paternity tests (and contraceptives) but its still a problem, and whoever gives up career for childcare still loses out without marriage.

jandrewrogers 2y ago
There is minimal US law on this. States have their own laws individually which vary considerably. The context here has nothing to do with children and these people commonly don’t have any. Legal jurisdiction can be quite fluid, which just adds to the complexity. A major motivating factor is that marriage can create myriad ruinous financial entanglements and eliminate most possibilities for recourse. Especially in affluent places like Seattle, people are often entering these relationships with a mature financial and business life. The loss of independence under law, both technically and in practice, in regard to these affairs in marriage has produced countless examples of bad outcomes for people, often forcing them to start over from zero in their 30s or 40s. It doesn’t matter if you divorce later, the damage is already done. By not getting married, they retain independence in these matters recognized by law which shields them from the downside scenarios. These cases are mostly about retaining the ability to continue to run their businesses, investments, etc as they wish both in marriage and after. States in the western US are notoriously much less accommodating of protecting the interests of individuals in marriage than in some other parts of the country (purportedly due to the strong influence of Spanish legal customs in that region of North America). The forced loss of agency is not compatible with many requirements of competently living a modern life. I probably know more women who were ruined by this in marriage than men. It has nothing to do with staying home or quitting a career to raise kids.

Dracophoenix 2y ago

> People are not avoiding long-term relationships, they are avoiding the baggage and fairly rigid assumptions that comes with state intervention in their relationships. Unfortunately, avoiding paper marriage is insufficient to avoid such intervention in the state of Washington (with its Committed Intimate Relationship doctrine) or states where a cohabitant may be legally entitled to "palimony".