Is it easier to be Married?

[robert sailor]

Christianity while slightly improving things for women still considered them property of males and that existed until not that long ago. It wasn't the Churches that brought modern change to womens status, they simply got drug along for the ride.
Love has always been around but just wasn't necessary in a marriage for most of our history and the way things are today I'd say little has changed.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

If your spouse dies when you are in a foreign country, which inheritance rules are applied? The ones in the country where you happen to be at the time, the ones of your country of citizenship, or your country of residence?

Rules vary from country to country. In Switzerland for example a spouse does not automatically inherit everything from his/her deceased partner...

Likely the rules that apply are those where the asset is located - they may fit in with the Will from "home". or they may not.....of course a boat can get relocated (which would also save legal costs and paperwork ).

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

KVB-
Does Switzerland not have any laws regarding "common law marriage" ? In most of the west, if you have been cohabitating with someone for seven years, you may be married, whether you realize it, want it, or not.

The UK has no such thing as "Common Law Marriage" - and that still comes as a surprise to many folk when the SHTF! Not to say that living together does not give a person a claim on the assets from the partnership - but that one for the lawyers to argue over and likely related simply to what the person actually put in, and can prove that they did.

IIRC there was discussion a year or so back to give cohabiting couples some automatic "rights", but I don't think anything came of that.......

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

The problem is that in this hypothetical situation I would still be dependent on the authorities believing either my word, or whatever official looking document I present them with.
I think that the kind of authority that would refuse a signed declaration by my partner and me that we own the boat together and considered each other "next of kin" would also not be impressed by a marriage certificate produced by some town hall in a far away country.

I partly agree with you - but it's where the practice meets the legal where the benefits come from. Everyone from Idaho to Timbucktoo understands what "married" means and everywhere has the basics pretty much the same - and that also includes folks from illiterate peasant to lawyer or officialdom...........whereas a collection of documents that give someone "authority" may well be equally valid but are simply an unknown quantity / not understood. Folks will likely take a verbal claim of married status on face value until there is an actual legal requirement to prove the paperwork - at which point all you are doing is proving that the marriage was validly accepted as 100% legal by your home officialdom, not also proving that the agreement / authority itself is valid (a subtle difference that may or may not become a problem).

For me the status of "Next of Kin" is the important bit (rather than the inheritance of assets - because when abroad that likely only the boat, and that can get moved with a modicum of paperwork even if that requires being silent on the fact that the owner who gave the written authority is now deceased!)....Living Wills etc don't work the same everywhere and in some places not at all so I would not 100% rely on being able to nominate a "Next of Kin" no matter what paperwork you have.

Of course in practice that may well not matter, if a hospital is involved then a fair chance that whoever is paying the bills (and who claims to be Next of Kin) will be given the benefit of the doubt, especially if any paperwork is offered and that has been claimed whilst both parties are still around to do so! - capitalism meets medicine .

My experiance (with the Missus getting sick and then dying - abroad for me, albeit local for her) was that the hospital were happy to deal with me as the husband - including releasing her body for burial, without any proof of marriage (she had acknowledge me as Next of Kin / Husband and I was paying the bills!). Indeed I got her 2 funerals (Christian and Buddhist cremation) without needing to prove anything with paperwork (and cremation meant no paperwork for getting her onto the aeroplane back here - otherwise would be in the thousands and a slow paperwork heavy process)........the inheritance side of things was in my case irrelevant, even if she had had any major assets in own name rather than her interests being wrapped up in the family the claim of assets would have been less about the legal side and more the practical - involving who could deploy the most boots on the ground and who survived the "discussion". and with da Missus gone that would not have been me!

But pre all that we were (slowly!) doing the paperwork for getting her over here (do 2 years and pick up an easy travel passport ) - and we had to prove our marriage to the UK Embassy. All that involved was getting confirmation that the marriage was legally recognised (in Thailand), although that was above simply waving the marriage certificate (IIRC simply a written confirmation from a Ministry, albeit with lots of stamps etc - the same principle / practice applies from elsewhere) nonetheless it was only about proving that somewhere had recognised the marriage and not that both parties had actually agreed to it! and it was 100% legal (it being accepted that the authorities who conducted the marriage would have done all the checking needed to ensure that was the case).

Ooops, another long DOJ ramble - but despite that, am not saying getting married is 100% neccessary, just could be damned handy if the SHTF.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Marriage historically used to be a contract between families. It was a materialistic, legalistic and deadly practical institution. For centuries "destitute peasants" only could marry of their lord (their de facto owner) approved. Cohabitation without being officially married was thus quite common among the masses in the middle ages...
Love entered the equation with the advent of Christianity. The Church decreed that people should marry because of love, and also decreed that if people loved each other, and committed to each other and exchanged vows, even when no one was present, they were married.

ROTFLMAO

Christianity is the Borg of religions! - it simply assimilated existing practices and re-branded them. Not very good at inventing new stuff - certainly did not invent marriage or love, nor the idea of being combining the two .

Humans have been pairing up since year dot, and likely that not even a human thing to do - plenty of other creatures do the same thing.

But what is particularly human is getting the acknowledgement of the society (tribe / state) that the pairing exists......and how that is done has simply varied over the millenia - and not always with a single approach (shacking up probably pre-dates a long term commitment!). Always been a lot of practicality involved in "pairing off", whether from sharing assets (Ug has a club ) or simply marking territory (Mrs Ug now clearly off the market means less scope for disputes which harm the tribe)....and always been a lot of reasons for getting married (Ug has the biggest club to "love" ), and those mix of reasons still exist, even if in modern times often impolite to mention many things that make a partner more attractive over another. the shiney things .

No surprise that religion(s) "captured" the pairing off process and then used it to further own ends and brand. To be fair!, given that religions provided the structure that helped organise tribes then having the pairing up formalised under whichever god was flavour of the month made sense........modern marriage simply another way of the tribe formally acknowledging that the pairing off has happened (what pros and cons that attracts varies over time) - and in the West it is nowadays the State that provides the acknowledgement (aka legality) and not a local Lord (who was simply "the State"), nor even a man in a dress and a funny hat, even if that can be part of a nice day out ..........Personally I think that marriage is a good thing for a society as provides for stability - whether also a good thing for an individual is up to them and ability to choose (and snare?!) a "keeper" .

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by kthoennes

Boy, all this cynicism and this preoccupation with just the practical implications are really awful. Isn't anybody on here just married for crazy love? Wives change names in (most) western cultures because you're one family now, together, one unit. Tax implications, medical determinations, property distribution - yeah yeah yeah, blah blah but ultimately none of that makes any difference at all. I'm married because I love my wife, we're one family now, bonded, two halves of one unit. The institution hasn't lasted throughout human history just so spouses can keep each other's junk when they croak. Sure, marriage carries a pile of practical and legal implications, but if any of that is on your mind when you jump off the cliff, you're missing what marriage is all about. Talk about "missing the boat...". Boy the cynics on here.

Lucky You! Get divorced once, and I'll bet you change your tune! I had the good fortune to marry one with aspirations of becoming a lawyer. We were together for 17 years while she completed her studies (which I paid for), then she used that knowledge to bleed me within an inch of my financial life.

I was single for 14 years after that, and have recently became engaged..... Engaged to a woman who has her own damn money and (hopefully) has no designs on mine. That said, the whole marriage thing was at her insistence; i would have happily lived in sin with her for the rest of my life.

[barnakiel]

Mind the title by the OP: 'is it easier'.

Love is nice too.

Many owners love their boats. Some boat owners love to sail. Etc..

b.

[ArtM]

There are two kinds of marriage, as has been repeated several times already.

The second kind - legal marriage - is the one in discussion, and is not related to love. It is related to a need or desire to engage in a legally binding contract guaranteeing certain privileges and responsibilities.

The same contract could be enacted without getting married - I.E. by writing an explicit contract - but getting married is faster, cheaper, and recognized worldwide.

[David M]

I think that being legally married proves you are committed to the other person. Not getting married legally but pretending to be otherwise shows that you are frightened of a genuine commitment. It is much easier to walk away when you are not legally married, which is the whole reason for not getting married. Contracts are meaningless if they are not legally binding.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by David M

I think that being legally married proves you are committed to the other person. Not getting married legally but pretending to be otherwise shows that you are frightened of a genuine commitment. It is much easier to walk away when you are not legally married, which is the whole reason for not getting married. Contracts are meaningless if they are not legally binding.

Well David, you have the right to be dead wrong .

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by David M

I think that being legally married proves you are committed to the other person. Not getting married legally but pretending to be otherwise shows that you are frightened of a genuine commitment. It is much easier to walk away when you are not legally married, which is the whole reason for not getting married. Contracts are meaningless if they are not legally binding.

The lack of a legally binding commitment offers the partnership the opportunity to stay engaged without the threat of legal repercussion. Why should the parties to a marriage feel bound as if they were parties in a legal contract?

It makes sense when you are raising children - maybe - but does not make sense for a couple who have no need or desire for punitive repercussion.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that marriage is universally recognized around the world and thus makes it a worthwhile consideration for any couple traveling around the world , even if they are not in love. Even a platonic couple might consider getting legally married.

[hellosailor]

From TheGuardian:
"Common-law marriages have not existed in England since 1753, yet the belief that a period of living together - seven years is popular, but some guess two or four - confers legal protection persists so stubbornly that the government is planning a publicity campaign this summer to try to dispel the myth. Among the spurs to action was the British Social Attitudes Survey 2000, which found that 56% of the general public, rising to 59% of cohabitees, mistakenly thought there was some form of common-law marriage that gave them rights similar to those enjoyed by husbands and wives. "

Apparently, many of us never got the memo. And here in the US, where our common law derives from the UK, we've been frozen in time on this one.

[ArtM]

This is not even entirely true. Although "common law" marriage does not formally exist, there is legal precedent in many places establishing legal rights for partners in informal relationships.

If you live together for a long time, and share in financial and personal resources, your partner can be entitled to similar privileges as a legally married spouse - though they would have to sue to get it. Technically, a divorce is a lawsuit, so really there's little difference. But while every wife or husband is aware of their right to sue, not every cohabitant is aware of theirs.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well David, you have the right to be dead wrong .

As do you.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by David M

It's not easier to be married but it's better.

Well spoken. In my experience, marriage makes for better boat partnerships, as well.