Legal advice here

[miotas]

How warped. Trust someone more than your own wife to have an irrefutable claim on your property. This sounds like an excellent plan. You would have to hate and distrust your wife BEFORE you marry her for this to be feasible. I dare say that marriage at that point would be the unfeasable part.

Well the assumption is that most people have a closer more trusting relationship with someone they have known for their entire life than a person they have know for a few (months, years, take your pick) I certainly have relatives with whom I have an incredibly close bond that no woman could come close to matching.

The smart thing to do however would be to not get married and just live with each other, needing a piece of paper to tell you that you love your partner seems frankly, quite ridiculous. And needing to sign a contract saying you will never leave each other seems to be the most untrusting aspect of the whole issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well the assumption is that most people have a closer more trusting relationship with someone they have known for their entire life than a person they have know for a few (months, years, take your pick) I certainly have relatives with whom I have an incredibly close bond that no woman could come close to matching.

The smart thing to do however would be to not get married and just live with each other, needing a piece of paper to tell you that you love your partner seems frankly, quite ridiculous. And needing to sign a contract saying you will never leave each other seems to be the most untrusting aspect of the whole issue.

The marriage is a contract with the State that there will be a reasonable distribution between you and your spouse entitling each to benefits commensurate with work, support and sacrifice. It exists to protect the wife, children and, if the man is lazy, the husband. If you do not have an interest in protecting your wife from financial harm or joinign together in a religious sacrament - do not marry, there is no point.

[miotas]

The marriage is a contract with the State that there will be a reasonable distribution between you and your spouse entitling each to benefits commensurate with work, support and sacrifice. It exists to protect the wife, children and, if the man is lazy, the husband. If you do not have an interest in protecting your wife from financial harm or joinign together in a religious sacrament - do not marry, there is no point.

I'm not sure what they do in America, but here in Australia de facto relationships receive the same, or at least very similar, government befits as marriages, so that doesn't really count as an excuse. The religious thing is the only real reason that someone would, and most Aussies aren't religious so it seems like a redundant practice here.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not sure what they do in America, but here in Australia de facto relationships receive the same, or at least very similar, government befits as marriages, so that doesn't really count as an excuse. The religious thing is the only real reason that someone would, and most Aussies aren't religious so it seems like a redundant practice here.

Well, the stipulation in America, is if two people are in a committed relationship and live within the same residency for ten months to one year, depending on which jurisdiction you live in (some jurisdictions recognize common law; and others don't). if the relationship goes sour, one or both the shareholders of the property can file for a legal separation via marriage through common law; if they can prove that their relationship surpassed that time frame and is written in any sort of legally binding documentation (so if you're living under a shared rent for an apartment this would be enough). Its an important precedent, because in most relationships partners acquire more items, than before they were together, and both sides deserve to make their cases for which items they believe they have the right to own.
The disadvantage to common law marriage is then apparent; if you look at it from a financial perspective. Because you're legally married, but without the tax breaks, or any other marriage perks. So it's not entirely the religious aspect as to why it makes sense to get married, in America, its also about possession.

[pevergreen]

I've worked with too many people that have been recovering from divorce. I'm not going into anything without having an airtight pre-nup.

I worked at an IT shop for a week (didnt get fired :P, it was just for a week) everyone but the boss had been divorced and was paying the settlements made 2-5 years ago. One guy had over 50k to pay, didnt have the house and had to pay child support. His salary was about 45k, level with the rest.

Its horrible. I can understand the nessecity of going through a divorce, but sometimes I can't see the reasons. But that is just a bad memory now. it didnt happen lalalalalala.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not my parents

[naut]

Guess what. Here in the land of Aus, I believe it is the case that if you live with your partner for 2+ years, they gain the same post separation asset rights as with marriage. Great for gold-diggers!

[rory_20_uk]

If you are very rich and aren't after kids then why buy when you can rent?

The cost may appear high to start with until you factor in the "leaves with half of everything and you have to pay the lawyer bill"