[yummyfajitas]

You can get all those things from a committed non-marital relationship.

Marriage (by which I mean the contract enforced by your state) adds nothing to the mix beyond a massive financial liability (for the man) if the relationship ends. Read this article for an example of the bad results of marriage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.h...

[cujo]

I think you're still stuck with a financial liability if you decide to have kids with non person you aren't married to. Plus there are tax breaks for being married. But that is just monetary.

In reality most people in the US aren't as inclined to have life partners without the marriage part. And frankly, there is something special about professing your commitment to another person in front of your community that somehow makes your bond with your partner stronger.

Is marriage required? Probably not. But I think you are missing a good part of it by claiming financial reasons for despising marriage.

[grandalf]

Tax breaks for being married? Quite the contrary. You pay additional taxes if you marry. Do the math for single vs married tax rates at various income levels. Also, if you file as married (jointly or separately) if one person itemizes the other must itemize, or vice versa w/ the standard deduction.

One gets big tax breaks for owing money to a bank for a mortgage loan or for having children, but not simply for being married. Hence the term "marriage penalty".

[anamax]

> You pay additional taxes if you marry. Do the math for single vs married tax rates at various income levels.

If you do the math you actually find that married folk pay less US federal income taxes in certain situations and more in others. (CA is the same - I don't know about other states) The result depends on the distribution of income between the two people

If both people make roughly the same amount of money, being married results in more taxes. If one person makes all the money, being married results in less taxes.

It turns out that a marriage differential (different taxes for married and unmarried couples) is a mathematical consequence of any tax system that has progressive marginal rates and treats a married couple's income as a lump sum.

That said, the marriage differential can be "married is always cheaper", "married is always more expensive", or "some times married is cheaper and some times it isn't" (as is the case with US and CA). It all depends on the various rates and deductions.

[grandalf]

Good point... i'd only done the math for both people earning roughly comparable amounts.

[falien]

how about philosophical, political, legal, and financial?

[eli]

Pre-nup. Problem solved.

[pohl]

If only it were that easy. Pre-nuptial agreements are routinely invalidated by judges at the precise moment one needs them to be enforced.

[3pt14159]

That's because you need two more things besides just a pre-nup: A POST-nup and $15k to the woman to go find her own lawyer to work through the paperwork so she can't claim ignorance. With that you are pretty safe. As an aside, I know a guy who had his father own the deed to his house and paid "rent" to him. When the wife cheated on him and left/was kicked out she couldn't get much because most of his assets were in his dad's name.

[dsteinweg]

Interesting, paying rent to his father...

Other than the possibility where that could be interpreted as not trusting your partner, that sounds like a great idea from a "CYA" perspective.

Of course, it could only really work if the relationship you have with your father is very solid. You wouldn't want him kicking you out of "your" house because of some arbitrary conflict.

[eli]

Usually because they either poorly written and/or one party was coerced (or claims they were coerced). As with all contracts, you should get a decent lawyer. And your partner needs his/her own lawyer.