In response to Liz's entry on mawwage, I thought I would write this. It might follow nicely from Question 1 as well.
People respect (or they say they respect) commitment in a relationship. If you say that someone may be less committed in relationship A (unmarried) than someone else in a different, married relationship B (a dangerous comparison to make, by the way), then it might be reasonable to think that you respect relationship A less. But from the point of view of someone in relationship A, depending on how secure they feel, your lack of respect is either of no consequence, or offensive.
Governments recognize marriages, not because they are more worthy of respect (I do NOT believe that governments are in the business of saying "Congrats on finding your TOBL!", no matter how wasteful they are) but because they are easy to identify. It would be an administrative nightmare to try to extend benefits to couples in fleeting, unmarried, and often uncommitted relationships. However, it leaves me with the question, "Who deserves benefits?" Come to think of it, why does a married couple deserve benefits at all? Why is the government trying to encourage marriage this way (not that I really think that tax breaks are something most people acually think about in their decision to marry, but still)? Is it to try to help families, a basic social unit, thrive? People are always saying how they want the government to help families. Maybe we should redefine "family".
Why is someone's relationship anyone else's business anyway, least of all the government's? Sharing assets and income gets easier under marriage, but why should it be that way just for them? Come to think of it, this is a good reason to get married. Maybe the more traditional reason of security and economic flexibility is a pretty valid one. But then, I don't see why marriage should be limited to limited liability partnerships of two people, opposite-sex or no. In fact, getting married for economic reasons should be a singularly unromantic thing to do. More on this later.
I don't respect any relationship less. I don't think of other people's relationships, not really. I know that for me, not getting married seemed like a silly thing to do if we were already living as a married couple.
I'm not making very much sense. Entry to follow.
If you live with somebody for more than a year, the benefits you get are pretty much the same as a married couple. In Quebec, at least. There's no economic incentive anymore to marry. It's purely symbolic. It's a statement of love, as in Liz's case.
I believe that, at least in Quebec, that was challenged. Common-law marriages have to be at least three years in length now and the benefits are no longer the same. They simply aren't as good as being married.
There aren't any benefits to being common-law anymore. I know, we've lived together for four years. If something were to happen to me, for example, my next of kin would be my mother. That was my motivator in finally getting married.
I would have had to go to a lawyer and have all kinds of papers drawn up, at a huge cost to me, and if my mother wanted to fight it, she could. And she would win.
Does being common law have any legal meaning in Quebec anymore?
That's a very good reason to get married, indeed. I thought it was just the same, legally, to be married or not but living together.
Nope. No legal meaning at all. You can check off common-law on some of the older paperwork, but it doesn't mean anything. For example, our appartment is in my name, but he's listed as my tenant. Because we're not married, we're common-law.
Don't forget that Quebec is very religious and even though we're having a civil ceremony, to certain people we won't be truly married because it hasn't been blessed by the church. Which is fucked, and their own damn problem, but there you go.
Common-law is worthless in the states too - at least in the two that my ex and I lived in together. And, we lived together for nearly 6 years. JP has a good point, with Americans at least, married couples are given tax breaks just because they are married. However, and this may just be reiterating your point, in my neck of the woods, someone like me cannot purchase a home in a good neighborhood, near my workplace (within a 45 minutes commute), simply because without the dual income, I wouldn't qualify. This is truly surprising, as I just barely fall below the median *family* income. I don't necessarily see home ownership as an incentive to get married, but rather as a bonus when I do. But - circuitous as I am, why should only the married couples (or the single ones who get financial assistance from their families) get this bonus? Bah! JP, you always pull out the topics that are frustrating, TOBL, marriage, ach!