Unmarried folks: How do you feel about the benefits, both social and legal, that married couples get?

Only wanting to hear from unmarrieds?

Well, I want to answer anyway. Our society is set up to favor marriage as a means of social stability and to encourage procreation.

Marriage has a lot of unseen benefits as well. Having a partner is emotionally satisfying. Married people enjoy better health and longer lives than single people.

At least you can look forward to Senior Cititzen Discounts on coffee and food.

These are just some of the benefits that married couples receive and rightly so.

I agree, also, with Marinelife.

@john65pennington: But why is it “rightly so”? If I choose not to get married but I do have a life partner or if I am in a same-sex relationship in a state that does not allow same-sex marriage why should I be excluded from these benefits?

In Quebec, married partners and unmarried partners receive the same tax benefits and I think, legal rights as far as I am aware. As someone who does not ever want to be married, I appreciate that. I think it is unfair to discriminate against those who don’t want the ceremony.

It’s wrong, because it forces people to get married, like insurance for example. I don’t care about the social reasons, if people have to ask why I’m not married, that’s a good chance to explain common sense to them.

@Blackberry: One social aspect that I notice is that I go out to eat by myself a fair amount. There’s an IHOP near my apartment where they know me and they’re used to seeing me by myself mostly, but the first few times I went alone, the host/hostess didn’t know how to react. It was both amusing and sad that they couldn’t deal with someone who just wanted some damn pancakes without any company.

@KatawaGrey : Just as a single, I agree that restaurants are notorious for favoring couples. Fairly often at diners, for example, I will be told to sit at the counter rather than take a booth that seats two. Couples, however, are not automatically seated in the 2 seaters if 4 seaters are available. It is, indeed, irritating. I’ll address the bigger picture of this Q later when my brain has engaged.

@KatawaGrey I actually have no problem with and favor the legal benefits being given to people (of any sex) who enter into civil unions.

I am single (divorced) and I have no problem with benefits to marrieds and , like @marinelife, favor them. As for treatment at restaurants, they seat me where I want to be seated, not where they want to seat me…..because I tell them where. And if I don’t like where they do seat me, I ask to be moved.

I’ve been both married and single, and sure, there are benefits to marriage, but, it is also a fact that men often benefit more in terms of health than women.
I read somewhere once that a study showed than a man benefits from almost any relationship, short of extreme unhappiness, abuse, etc. BUT…for a woman, if it is not a REALLY good relationship, women are happier and healthier alone.
I completely agree!

I think marriage and its’ legal protection is important for younger families raising small children, especially if the wife is an at home mother and out of the workforce for some years. However, as a mature woman who has been there, done that, I can honestly say that I have zero desire to remarry or live with a man again.

I also think that anyone that marries more than twice has serious issues…I mean c’mon! lol

Ah cmon, the work of marriage is worth the extra perks.

@KatawaGrey I frequently go out alone, too, but I sit at a bar for that reason.
@digitalimpression non-married couples still have work to do :)

I am unmarried and expect to remain so for the foreseeable future.

I think marriage is an important institution and should be encouraged. I don’t lose any sleep over the exact details of how it should be encouraged. I do think that health insurance should be universal—whether someone has health insurance shouldn’t depend on whether one’s spouse has a job with great benefits—but that’s a separate issue. Gay marriage is also a separate issue; if we extend the same advantages to gay couples, we could still ask whether legally united couples, gay or straight, should get advantages that others don’t.

I have no children, but I don’t resent paying property taxes to support schools. I’m not married, but I don’t resent the perks that married couples get. These institutions serve the long term best interests of the great majority of my fellow citizens and society as a whole. I don’t expect society to cater to my idiosyncratic lifestyle choices.

Oh, @plethora , I also am seated where I ask to be seated, did you really miss my point? Really? In case you did, it was about assumptions.

@Blackberry Yeah.. “work”. Just be happy with your freedoms.

@digitalimpression : Be fair, the OP was including long term committed relationships which are as much work to maintain as legally recognized ones.

All relationships are work, and I chose to be ritired from that kind of work these days.
I look at everything from a balance sheet perspective, breaking even is not an option, the positives would have to outweigh the negatives by at least 5–1 for me these days. haha

@submariner: I disagree with you. I don’t think legal marriage as an institution should be encouraged at all. Then again, I don’t think it should be discouraged either. It shouldn’t have anything to do with the law at all, in my opinion. What if someone was unmarried for whatever reason and they want someone other than their parents or children to be declared as next of kin? Say, a sibling, a long-term friend, a roommate, or a permanent caregiver? Why should that right be denied them simply because they’re not married to that person? I know that one’s next of kin could be legally declared, but that is still a more difficult process than simply “getting married” and legally speaking, getting married is easy, the wedding is a whole different issue and can be contested by relatives. There are issues with wills if a person dies unmarried. It is easier for family members to contest a will if a living spouse isn’t sorting it out.

Hey, they lobby for the benefits so let them have them. If singles want to lobby for equal or greater benefits, then let them do it.

I really don’t see the point in crying foul upon others who’ve made it their priority to ensure their world view is rewarded as much as possible. Anyone can do that. Time complaining about others would be better spent lobbying for desired results.

Not a fan. I want civil unions/domestic partnerships (and I can’t remember the difference) to have the exact same legal rights as marriage. And I think either we need to make it easier for single people to do certain things and then honor it more (like legal name changes, first of kin, inheritance law, etc) or make it harder for married people to do those things and more contestable. I don’t have any problem with individuals getting married, but I don’t think it should be an institution in our society, and definitely not the only option for a legally recognized non-business partnership. And I want civil unions and domestic partnerships to be for both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships; I think I remember them being divided that way?

I am married, but I certainly eat out at restaurants by myself often, or I did when I was working, or when I am travelling, etc. I never feel “treated” differently, except in a busy restaurant, for the waiter it means a lower tip at his two top if only one person is eating, or a couple has to wait longer, it is a business decision. But rarely am I asked to sit at the counter, I have only had it offered to me as a way to get seated faster, again in a very busy restaurant. It has been offered to me when I am with someone also.

As far as tax advantages, I am probably in the camp that married couples should not have a tax advantage. Especially when it comes to gay rights in America, and they do not even have the option, I think that is completely unfair. I guess there are some advantages to the tax codes in that if a spouse chooses not to work, the lower taxes helps the money stretch, and opens a job for someone out of work. I don’t think anyone gets married because taxes will be lower, I never heard anyone say that. They talk about rights to survivorship, how they are treated by family and society, and of course the love thing, but I don’t think we are talking about the emotional part on this Q, just the more objective and financial aspects.

Along the lines of money, it is much easier I think for people, let’s even say women, to not marry if they have plenty of money either because of their career or general wealth. Having someone who can help carry the financial burdens of life is part of the equation I think for many. Not that most people get married for the money aspect, I really think they don’t, but women who are independently wealthy really think more in terms of never getting married or seeing no need for it from what I have observed. Once married, when things are getting bad, almost everyone thinks about the money aspect if they get divorced.

@KatawaGrey I actually tend to lean towards marriage being a positive in society. I guess I would need to read up on societies that don’t have a lot of marriages that are doing well, to have a more informed judgement though. And, again, I am fine and fully support gay marriage. Because of my view I am ok with having civil marriage or civil union, if we want to change the name.

I think unmarried people are unfairly excluded from quite a lot. There seem to be a lot of social issues and legal (the tax benefits you mentioned) that go along with it. It’s not right.

I know I’m married, but I couldn’t resist answering. Sorry. =0)

You kidding? The benefits are the only reason we’re considering making our marriage a legally binding one.

I guess it makes sense a bit logically: one of the major historical reasons for setting up marriages is for economic sharing. The fact that these benefits don’t extend to all couples, though, is ridiculous.

@incendiary_dan: Yeah, that’s what bugs me. I don’t think anyone should get special treatment just because they had a big fancy ceremony and went to the courthouse to get a piece of paper.

@KatawaGrey But, what about things like a spouses right to survivorship? You think an SO should have the same right just because the two people live together? How would the government decipher who are roomates and who are SO’s? Or, you think no one should be automatically entitled to a persons money or property even if they are married?

@KatawaGrey I’ve actually thought several times about getting married to a friend just for the benefits.

And, it seriously bugs me how name changes are handled. It takes a loooong and tedious process to have your name changed if you aren’t married, including having your fingerprints run through both the state and federal bureaus of investigation, but only about half-hour’s worth of paperwork one day with no background checks if you just got married (and it doesn’t even have to be to your spouse’s name). Now, supposedly, this is to detour terrorists from using the system to get a new name and use that new name to carry out their evil deeds. Which sounds somewhat understandable, except that I’m having a hard time imagining some terrorist who isn’t ok with having something of a sham marriage so that they can circumvent that process. So then it’s just really hard for single people, and privileging married people.

Very good point, @Aethelflaed , I hadn’t thought about that side to the name thing. For a woman to not take a husband’s name has caused problems (in the past, I don’t know if it’s better now, beyond serious inconvenience), but of course, the opposite is also true.

@Aethelflaed Name change difficulties vary by state. Some states are very lax. Pretty sure in California for instance it is very easy. Most states it only takes a few weeks to get it done. I agree a name change with marriage is easier, but there is a legal paper trail, the marriage certificate, and what moves the paperwork through the quickest is almost anyone can sign the marriage certificate and make it official, anyone empowered by the state to perform the marriage, while getting time before a judge takes, well, more time typically.

@JilltheTooth Not taking a husband’s name is no big deal legally, those would just be societal pressures. The only hitch can be when someone’s children has a different last name it can be inconvenient, but for spouses it is not big deal, just sometimes the wife does get called by the husband’s last name by accident, but without bad intentions of course. It happens vice versa too.

When I give my name, and then have to give my husband’s for something, I always follow my name with then saying and spelling out my husband’s fist name, and then saying same last name. I never assume someone has the same last name as their husband, especially when filling a form.

I think in RI where I grew up, the law still automatically changes a woman’s name when she gets married. What the eff?

@JLeslie : That’s why I mentioned “in the past”. Today there is still a big social and convenience issue, according to my friends.

@JilltheTooth Yeah, I saw your wrote in the past, I was just telling you my experience. :). It depends by state/community also. Some places not taking one’s husband’s name is much more common.

@JilltheTooth And even worse than a woman not taking the man’s name is a man taking the woman’s name.

@Aethelflaed : I had a friend who did just that, and was roundly socially chastised for that forever. He did it because his wife’s family had essentially treated him like a beloved son from the beginning, his own had never. He asked if he could, her family was thrilled and touched, and the legal hoops he went through were more extensive than simply changing his name. It was a nightmare for him.

Interesting actually. When I first got married there were few legal documents we had to quickly after for my husband regarding immigration. I remember going to get some sort of paperwork or photos done, and telling the woman helping us I had not changed anything yet to my married name, but intended to whay should I use for what she was helping us with. She said, “whatever you want.” I wonder if the response would be the same for a man just having been married?

I was married in FL, and most Latin American coutries the woman keeps her fathers surname amd adds “de husbandslastname.” My mother in law, who is Mexican, uses her fathers surname on her passport still, but in America she uses her husband’s surname as her last name.

@JilltheTooth That’s what I’ve heard; that if you’re a woman changing her name after a wedding, it’s easy, but it’s downright near impossible if you’re a man – that it might actually be easier for a single man to change his name than a married man. Though, I have no sources for this (but would love some, if anyone knows of any).

Can’t give a source, sadly, it’s all anecdotal. But really, all it takes is one disapproving clerk to tangle up the process, as is what happened to my friend.

Without taking sides on the broader issue, I’d like to point out that most of the legal difficulties people have mentioned do not stem from marriage itself. If you think it’s wrong to treat same-sex relationships differently than opposite-sex relationships, eliminating marriage benefits is only one way of solving that problem. The other way, of course, is to allow same-sex couples to marry and get the same benefits as opposite-sex couples.

Laws about changing names are also varied. I got married when I was still living in New York, and changing names is easy there. I had the option of keeping my name, taking my wife’s name, hyphenating my name with my wife’s name (in either order), or taking a new name that was a combination of our names. Each option had its own checkbox, and only the last required any sort of oversight (there are rules about the combination process).

When I moved to Virginia, however, I found out that changing one’s name was a matter of filling out a form and mailing it in for a judge to sign. The presumption is in favor of the change, and judges must have a specific legal reason not to sign it. One of my friends is trans, and he got his form signed by a judge that I happen to know is rather conservative. So if we combine the New York and Virginia laws here, we can again solve the problems raised without even discussing marriage.

This is not to say that there are no special problems that marriage raises, but only to say that we need to focus on those rather than issues could be solved with some other change in the law.

@Aethelflaed Since the early 1980’s, women are encouraged not to change their names after marriage here in Quebec – it’s now very, very rare to see a “Mrs. so-and-so” under a certain age, because it’s not made easier to change your name after marriage than for any other reason. Women keep their own names, thankyouverymuch.

@dappled_leaves Is that true in the other provinces also?

No, just in Quebec. See here.

@dappled_leaves I was wondering if it might be similar to France. It’s like my experience in Florida, the Hispanic woman helping me thout it compeltely normal to keep my name, or take his, or not change my name legally, but use the other, it is sort of a non-issue, just use the legal one on legal documents, but being called by either isn’t a big deal. I like having my husband’s name, but when I call old friends, I say my maiden name, because they know it better; I don’t care if they ever learn my married name.

I once ran into a friend of my moms in a mall, she was in her 80’s at the time, and starting to slip, if you know what I mean. I wasn’t sure she would recognize me so I said, “hi, Carol, it’s Jleslie Maiden, how are you?” I used maiden because she for sure knows my mom’s last name. She said back to me, “no you’re not, your JLeslie marriedname.” Ha! Gave me a laugh.

There are literally more than a thousand benefits. It’s a problem.

@SavoirFaire: I have no problem with married folks having these benefits. The problem for me is that you have to be married to have these benefits. I think everyone should have these benefits.

@KatawaGrey I understand that. I just think that a few of the examples people have given don’t serve the argument very well. Like I said, I’m not taking sides on the broader issue.

@KatawaGrey Which benefits besides the taxes? It is different being married than being single. Married people get some protections that single people don’t need. Don’t get me wrong, I too see some of the marriage benefits as unfair, but I also see it might be hard for the government to give living together or SO benefits, or companies for that matter.

@JLeslie: Like I said above, what about next of kin? I should be able to legally and easily declare anyone I so choose as my next of kin. Parental benefits? If the adult I am living with and have been living with for the past 10 years is not the parent of my children, I think s/he should still have limited rights if I declare him/her to be a guardian, much like a step-parent would. Insurance? Why must I be married to someone for them to be on my insurance? I’m not saying I should be able to put as many people as I want on my insurance, but I should be able to pick one person to put on my insurance who is not a child or a direct dependent. All of these benefits could reasonably apply to non-SO adults. An adult sibling I live with could be my next of kin, have limited parental rights over my children or be on my insurance.

@KatawaGrey You can name next of kin. What I mean is, marriage creates automatic next of kin, I agree, but let’s say you want your SO to have legal rights next of kin does you can do it legally. Or, do you mean someone besides an SO. If I don’t want my husband to perform certain duties, I have to state it legally also. Like my father named me to be the one to decide to make health decisions if he is incapacitated, he doesn’t want my mother to do it.

Parental benefits are now tricky. Marriage meant and means any child born during a marriage gave the father automatic parental rights. Now with paternity tests, that can be challenged. But, should we have it that all children born, the husband is not the automatic father? The state actually wants a father named for financial reasons, even if the woman is not married. Most states will pay for paternity tests, in my state it pays, except for the real dad when found out, has to pay for his own. If the person you live with has legal guardianship, then she does have rights regarding the child. My aunt had guardianship over my sister for a while when she lived with her. My mom and dad being married did not affect that my aunt now had some rights also.

If a person with children gets remarried, the new spouse does not have parental rights to the child either, unless I am wrong about step-parents rights. If, God forbid, something horrible happens to the bio-parent, the step parent can try to fight for custody if the other bio parent wants the child. Marriage doesn’t really solve the problem when the child was born before the marriage.

Marriage does not help next of kin regarding a sibling, in fact unmarried and parents gone, your sibling is your next of kin.

Some companies do let benefits go to an adult living with the employee, I wish they all did. Hell, I want socialized medicine, and then that would be a non-issue, but that is a different Q.

Also: not testifying against your spouse. That one’s huge, since you do have to testify against your children and parents.

@Aethelflaed That is a biggy, I agree. Hopefully it doesn’t come up often.

@JLeslie You would hope not, but then again, criminals are people just like us, so…

I’m cool with married couples having benefits. It encourages marriage and I see that as a good thing. I’m not going to get on the merry-go-round with you guys on this. This is how I feel.

I don’t get what the big deal is. If I wanted the benefits really badly I’d probably just marry someone else who wanted them.

I can identify with the OP here and it is a form of discrimination. It is called singlism and there are many online articles/books written about this. There are people out there trying to lobby against this form of discrimination.

There is alot more than just perks involved here. The way you get treated or thought of by others isn’t always pretty either. It never seems that a day can go by without someone at work or elsewhere asking you if you’re married or attached, then if you tell them no it just seems they can’t comprehend this and they assume that something must be mentally wrong with you for not wanting or having what they do.

Our society will never get rid of its problems until we stop judging others because of not conforming to ‘social norms’. What this does is divides people further when we do these things. Also, not everybody who is single chooses to be this way but they may have a difficult time finding somebody because they are shy (especially if you’re a guy in this category), waiting for the right person, temporary hardships, etc.

I think marriage incentives/benefits are a great example of a perverse incentive. You’re supposed to get married so that you can strengthen the sanctity of marriage, so we give you benefits for getting married. But if you get married for the benefits, and then your marriage isn’t particularly sacred in the right ways, we get mad at you for ruining the sanctity of marriage. If marriage is so sacred, there should be no reason to do it other than because you genuinely love the person and want to spend the rest of your life with a legally recognized soulmate.

Do you think a 20 something thinks about the legal advantages at all when they get married? Excluding those with medical needs, who might be very aware of their lack of health care possibly. It seems a large portion of the US does not even understand civil marriage is about legality, money, property, not even people 30+, because they keep voting against gay marriage like it is some sort of statement against God, society, or some sort of moral involvement by the government.

I also mentioned the social pressures like @Paradox25, which in my opinion vary by where you live. Single in NYC, no big deal, single in an Ohio suburb, seen as an oddity (Ohio was picked randomly). I also think things trickle down, so the government being involved in marriage, probably does promote the general population thinking you should be married. However, one point missed, I think happily married people want it for other people in a very nice way of thinking, but most also realize everyone is different. I understand feeling bad when asked the question though, I feel it when someone asks me if I have kids, but I think at least half of those people think it is just fine not to have kids, even if the question bothers me a little. That is really about me having wanted to have kids and not.

Ironically, there does seem to be some government rules that encourage not getting married to get government benefits. I think this has worked against the poor. The break down of the family is destructive overall I think. Money makes up for this in some ways, and I am not talking about when well intentioned married people get a divorce, I am mostly only talking about someone having children who has trouble raising them financially and emotionally combined. The countries I know of that often cohabitate without marriage, and who have children not married as a well accepted norm, who all seem to be getting along just fine, have very little poverty and strong social systems.

And yet, @JLeslie , a 20 something asked this Q… ;-)

@JilltheTooth But, she is not an average 20 something, and she has a single mother who has thoroughly thought these things through, and she has significant family wealth. Wealthy people do pre-nups more commonly than others, because they have thought through the financial impact of marriage.

@JLeslie : Didja miss miss the smile and the wink? And, BTW, she doesn’t have “considerable” wealth.

@JilltheTooth I had thought from previous posts it is not necessary for you to work, and had assumed there was money in the family, my apologies if my interpretation was incorrect. Considerable is obviously a subjective term without defining it specifically, but I would guess you are in the top 2% maybe? I get accused of being rich also by some here on fluther, and I do not consider myself rich at all, certainly not wealthy, but looking at the stats it seems I have more than most. But, I know how much more others have, how wealthy, wealthy really is.

What I have or not does not reflect what KatawaGrey has. I am fortunate, and I am careful. She has some left over from what her grandfather set aside for college, as she had some lovely scholarships. We are significantly more fortunate than some, but on paper, it’s not nearly as fancy as it looks. I have worked very hard in the past, I’m blessed that I have choices now.

Okay, for those of you who think that it’s no big deal and that people should just get married if they want those benefits, what about a widow or a widower? My grandmother is an 87-year-old widow, should she “just get married” to the person she wants to make the decisions when her mind and health start to go? What about someone like myself who just simply hasn’t gotten married yet? I may be a “20-something of considerable wealth” but does that mean that if I do not trust my parents, that’s just too damn bad and should something happen to me, they should make all the decisions because I didn’t have the presence of mind to get married? What about priests and nuns? I know we all hate religion here on fluther, but these are still people who are most likely never going to get married. Why shouldn’t they have the option of easily declaring a non-spouse as the person to make all of their decisions, should something happen to them? Also, as I stated in the details, it is much harder to contest a will if the person who died simply left everything or a large portion of his/her assets to the spouse.

@KatawaGrey, regarding your example above, your grandmother or you can legally give someone a Power of Attorney which delegates them to make decisions regarding property, finances and other legal decisions on your behalf. There are also Living Wills for medical purposes.

@JilltheTooth Oh, I was not assuming or insinuating you have not worked, or that it is @KatawaGrey‘s money, meaning I was not assuming she lives off your money or family money. Only that she grew up in a family aware of money, which knows how to make and save money, and probably knows how various laws affect money.