Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Original poster: If it works for you then knock yourself out and live the way you choose to live without worrying what others think.
Just know that you are not unique in your arrangement, there are numerous people who do the same thing and some are married and have been for years.
I just wanted to say that you are in the exact situation I, and my better half are in, and I am so glad to know there are others out there. We are every bit as committed to one another as any married folks we know, feel as though we have a better openness and communication than many of the couples we know, but after us both being in long term, semi-dysfunctional relationships prior to this, and spending a few years independent between the last relationship and now, just feel like if it aint broke, don't try to fix it. We aren't ruling out cohabitation in the future, but we are both very cool with the arrangement we have now. We are 6min apart, see each other almost everyday, talk often, laugh often and I have never had a relationship that is so amazing, come so easily.
Outstanding. I concur, I am glad to know there are others out there.
Civil marriage provides legal protections that you might want to consider, since the legal situation you describe does not exist.
What if one of you becomes seriously ill? Some hospitals will not allow anyone except immediate family to visit in intensive care units. You would not qualify for each other.
Depending on your individual circumstances, are you leaving tax benefits on the table by not marrying?
I am assuming you do not have any children together. For couples who do, your living situation would be a bit strange, more like that of couples who are divorced.
The two of you might want to consult a lawyer to see what can be done to give you some of the benefits of marriage without making it "official". At minimum, do you both have wills and powers of attorney for medical care? How would assets you both contributed to purchasing be disposed of if one of you dies?
Lack of those benefits is one of the reasons that marriage is such an issue for the gay and lesbian community.
France only legally recognizes civil marriage. That is what I wish the US would do. Those who want religious ceremonies could have them.
There is no reason you two could not have a civil marriage and still enjoy the living arrangement that you do.
Edited to add: folks who did not want a civil marriage because it would be a disadvantage financially could have a religious marriage without changing their legal situation. An example would be older couples where pensions are involved.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 11-15-2014 at 08:31 PM..
OP, I must be missing something here. You're in a committed relationship, and the two of you have separate residences. Did you have a question? Did you think that was something out of the ordinary? I don't understand the point of your post. And btw, legal marriage has nothing to do with religion unless you want it to. You don't seem clear on that point, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Legal marriage does involve the state, though.
Maybe you could opt for a domestic partnership, in the states that still offer that as an alternative to all-out marriage. It might be worth exploring.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 11-15-2014 at 08:46 PM..
Been meaning to post this for a little while. Hope this is the right space.
---------------
First, what is your opinion of a married couple (no kids) who maintain their own homes. Independently purchased houses (or condos, or whatever). Say, 2 miles apart? Loving, supportive, dependable, vacationing together about half the time, chatting several times daily at work, on the phone, or online, hanging out and engaging in shared activities inside or outside the house four-ish times a week.
1. Any precedence for that? Success or failure stories?
---------------
Okay, now let's change it up a little and get rid of the "marriage" part. Imagine either person (who are partners but living in separate houses as above) never had much reverence for the religious institution of marriage. Imagine they're both lifelong atheists, and both kind of think the government should get out of the whole "marriage" game and instead just enforce voluntary contract packages between consenting adults (thereby neatly sidestepping the whole 'defense of marriage' vs. 'gay marriage' or even 'polygamy' questions) that grant a limited set of understandings and rights (POA, inheritance, etc.).
Of course anyone would be completely free to "marry" (I'm not trying to kill the Wedding-Industrial Complex or infringe on the right to practice religion) but this wedding would be a strictly religious (or secular) honorary ceremony with no binding power if not accompanied by the aforementioned legally-enforced contract, and NOT having said ceremony would in no way impact the legal hold of said contract.
2. Imagine there is no binding or privilege-granting legally-recognized contract (i.e. they're not married), but that the couple is still in a dedicated partnership as a pair. Now what do you say about our couple who are also living in their own houses? Good, bad?
3. Stepping back from our theoretical couple into a little more philosophical ground, what do you think of the idea of the government getting out of the business of marriage? Would you support this? Remember, weddings and marriages are still available ceremonially for those who are into that sort of thing, but they're not necessary to have a couple who plan to be together for a while and who enjoy a few of the reasonable legal benefits of marriage.
---------------
The theoretical couple is my girlfriend and me of course. We love living alone. We love spending time together. We love having our own complete houses to do with as we please and privacy and separate money and hobbies as well as emotional intimacy and honesty and dependability and shared money and shared friends and shared hobbies in some areas. We don't think living together is the only way to go and we see so many advantages to keeping separate places.
We both don't really see the point of a wedding / marriage / label. We think it's rooted in traditions and religions that we have little appreciation for (and we see married folks who aren't half as in sync as we are and married folks getting divorced left and right). But some legal acknowledgement of the partnership we've created and attendant powers would be good. This is what works for us. We'd love to see something like what I mentioned above (marriage moves out of the purview of government and instead partnership contracts are what the gov't cares about).
Thank you.
.
Actually, to me, the first part sounds perfect. But I don't agree with having the legal benefits of marriage. The "voluntary contract" stuff sounds silly. A "couple who plan to be together for a while" has no basis for reaping the legal benefits of marriage (and those benefits are there to promote the family unit - which I highly support). If you want to be treated like a married couple, then you get married.
Last edited by ChessieMom; 11-15-2014 at 08:56 PM..
Any thoughts on the 'actually married but separate houses a mile or two apart' thing?
The question that comes to mind is: If one of you, for whatever reason, could no longer live separately, could the relationship stand up to the challenge of the two of you living together?
Civil marriage provides legal protections that you might want to consider, since the legal situation you describe does not exist.
What if one of you becomes seriously ill? Some hospitals will not allow anyone except immediate family to visit in intensive care units. You would not qualify for each other.
Depending on your individual circumstances, are you leaving tax benefits on the table by not marrying?
I am assuming you do not have any children together. For couples who do, your living situation would be a bit strange, more like that of couples who are divorced.
The two of you might want to consult a lawyer to see what can be done to give you some of the benefits of marriage without making it "official". At minimum, do you both have wills and powers of attorney for medical care? How would assets you both contributed to purchasing be disposed of if one of you dies?
Lack of those benefits is one of the reasons that marriage is such an issue for the gay and lesbian community.
France only legally recognizes civil marriage. That is what I wish the US would do. Those who want religious ceremonies could have them.
There is no reason you two could not have a civil marriage and still enjoy the living arrangement that you do.
Edited to add: folks who did not want a civil marriage because it would be a disadvantage financially could have a religious marriage without changing their legal situation. An example would be older couples where pensions are involved.
This raises a very valid point, especially for us in the U.S.
We have talked of getting married, just because she feels I get screwed with health insurance. I am insured, but feel like Kaiser's slogan should be "Kaiser Permanente: Hey, we're Better Than Nothing". If we were to tie the proverbial knot, I could get on to her pretty amazing, firm provided insurance.
The health care issue HAS become an issue because I got diagnosed with some stuff beyond anyones control, and have been working through it. This is where while I love her offer, I don't want to be a burden.
Fortunately, neither of us have kids, we are both only children, there isn't a lot involved in the legal aspect of things (and trusts/estates is what she does for a living), while I can certainly see the positive aspects of being officially married, it would only change the things she might feel benifit my circumstance. I hate the thought of being a burden, even more so, I hate the feeling that I would be gaining an advantage of benefits, while I couldn't return the same favor to her. While I have a duel citizenship with the U.S. & U.K., I am not sure what I, or her, could stand to loose/gain either (mostly because of my ignorance on the situation).
The religious aspect of this, has never been, nor will be a factor.
This post has been a bit of a ramble, but that's just a little personal insight on a situation very similar to the OP's.
That would be the perfect relationship except that I would want our places to be about 10 miles apart. I don't want some woman around me 24/7 and I really appreciate my own space and privacy. Also, I think it would be more interesting if you saw each other 3 times a week, I don't want to see a woman every day of the week.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Outstanding. I concur, I am glad to know there are others out there. 
But I don't agree with having the legal benefits of marriage. The "voluntary contract" stuff sounds silly. A "couple who plan to be together for a while" has no basis for reaping the legal benefits of marriage (and those benefits are there to promote the family unit - which I highly support). If you want to be treated like a married couple, then you get married. 
