Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
I strongly disagree. There are a lot of benefits to being married -- lower insurance, owning property in joint tenancy, can get on group insurance plans together, etc. There's very little reason not to be wed in their case. If they did end up splitting, one could bring a lawsuit against the other for division of the assets acquired during the relationship anyhow.
I think the theory is 'dissolution of a partnership,' but I could be wrong (and probably am).
|
They actually have very little reason to be wed.
They own property together- 2 vehicles, a house with acreage, and a boat.
Insurance rates go way down when you have a kid.
They have power of attorney over the others health and monetary decisions if one should become unable to express their wishes.
As far as I know, they are on a group health insurance through his job.
How is that type of splitting up different than suing for a divorce?
kddani- Who said anything about "sticking it to the man?" They watched their parents "marriages" mean absolutely nothing, they don't see the need to apply that label to their relationship.
"Marriage is an institution. People who willingly enter into it, need one."