[makeitdouble]

I'll be showing my utter lack of romanticism, but I think any long lasting relationship (marriage or not) is on the same boat, the only difference will be how the couple discusses these issues, and whether they have a leg to stand on when shit hits the fan or they're just SOL.

Imagine being in a non-married relationship and taking a mortgage for a house you'll both live in and potentially both pay. You'll still need to have these uncomfortable discussions, probably upfront and not when it goes south. Same if you have a kid, if one quits their job to take care of that kid (or take care of the other if needed).

A marriage will package a defined set of rules to apply to these situations, where not being married will force a lot of case-by-case examination, with probably one end of the relation getting shafted. Some countries (Japan is one, there must be others) have a "not married but could as well be" status for these kind of situations.

What I'm saying is, being in a marriage or not is akin to having a contract or not. It doesn't change what you're supposed to be doing, it will only help to frame the discussion in the dire times. By the same token, breaking up a long lasting relationship shouldn't be about whether the paperwork is a PITA or not, not being in a marriage doesn't make it OK to just screw the other side for instance, hopefully you'll still have the uncomfortable discussions either way.

[lizard]

Sorry, that's the point I was making to which I may have got off track. Marriage can't be ended by one party "calling it quits on frivolous grounds" because its a legal contract between two people.

Both parties must come to an agreement about how to break the contract, including conditions they may or may not have realized they agreed to, otherwise the must demonstrate how one has already broken the contract.

If you want a relationship you can just walk away from, or believe your parter does, you should not get married.