It's a little silly (and bleak) to say divorce rates are sky-rocketing. They've actually been pretty consistent over the last several years, even falling slightly in some. Plus, it's easy to gloss over the distribution of divorce rates based on different demographics.

It's my honest and sincere hope that you are going into marriage not to "get things." (But truly we are selfish creatures, so we all are) If you are going into a marriage looking to become happier or more fulfilled, you will feel empty in your marriage. You cannot (in any relationship) put such expectations on another person, they are set up to fail, and then you feel that the relationship "didn't work out," or "didn't meet your expectations." Of course it didn't!

You don't need a legal binding to be married. This is simple and obvious. Anyone who thinks you are not married until you sign is mislead. For a real definition of marriage, I suggest looking to the ancient Jewish one. After the ceremony, the relationship is consummated through sex, and then you party and celebrate the marriage. The difference is how you act in a marriage.

Our actions defines our commitment. If you are seeking to make your wife/SO happy, and they are seeking the same, the relationship is fulfilled. Both are happy, both are selfless, and everyone's needs are met in a beautiful way. Only when you are committed to this (regardless of a legal binding) do these beautiful things in marriage and relationships happen.

On a side note, I know someone who had a common law marriage for over 30 years and got legally married last year. He said he can't explain it, but his relationship is different. There truly is something about a public profession that does need to be considered.

Personally I'm bothered by the exclusivity of marriage. If my friends can't get married because they happen to be of the same gender then I would feel an immense amount of guilt celebrating my love in a way that they can't. Also, seeing as how my boyfriend and I are both gainfully employed there really isn't much of a financial advantage for either one of us to get married. Perhaps my feelings will change when/if we decide to have children but at this point in our very committed relationship I don't feel the need to be legally bound to another human being.

I was married for a brief time to someone I had known for 10 years. I was 24, idealistic and immature for such a union. I was responsible for EVERYTHING; even finances. Yup, he got the better end of the deal. Due to several small things,(sad really that we could not communicate) our relationship did end up in divorce. I am now 55 years old, and never remarried,not interested nor do I want someone to move in with me or vice versa. It's not a lifestyle I want. Sure, it gets lonely and scary at times (financially) but the advantages of being single and unattached outweight the loneliness; for me anyway.

Census figures show divorce rates decreasing rather dramatically over the past couple of decades.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/marriages_and_divorces.html

Shared financial responsibility seems to be the only attendant thing that is attractive to me, but that presumes at the very least that the guy is financially on okay footing. I find that I have always been the one to leave relationships, and shun the prospect of marriage, because I felt that it would not add value to my life. Sad maybe - depending on how others see it? But it's been my reality. so far, I seem to have done okay in my 39 years - i own property by meself, and manage quite well. I have a great social network. And since I'm not aching to have offspring, there's less motivation there as well.

At this stage of the game this question seems kind of moot. It's no longer the norm (in my circle anyway) for a woman to marry so she can quit her secretary job and move out of her parents house. So "benefits" are really vague and ill-defined.

I went to Austria a few years ago and was very surprised to learn that over there marriage is much less common than it is here. Couples there simply commit to oneanother and that's it, there is no social pressure to actually 'make it legal.' It's surprising because it's a fairly religious country, very traditional. If you introduce someone as your girlfriend/boyfriend it's taken the same way as if you were introducing your wife/husband here. They live perfectly happy lives like that, have children, build houses (not many houses sold there), have jobs just like us in the US but no marriage certificate. I don't know how different it is with gender roles and who does what and whether it's exactly 50/50 on the 'benefit' scale, but it interactions were noticeably non-male dominated (around me anyway).

I personally don't believe you need marriage, if you're committed to each other tax status and a piece of paper won't change anything. That said I am married, simply because we caved into social pressure of 'that's what you do.' It hasn't changed our relationship at all.

Legally, people who marry have lots of advantages in terms of things like retirement protections, access to the partner during serious illness and the like. These are BIG advantages and are one of the sets of equal rights those who cannot married are trying to access.

Few things in life are universally true, but I think it's generally true that in heterosexual marriages men are the ones who gain more than they lose. Women have a tendency to take care of people and things around them. They manage. Husbands are beneficiaries of that.

Money -- who has it, who earns it -- can complicate things, as can extreme differences in age. Children who predate the marriage change the balance, as well. Sometimes, too, the "win" is determined by who holds citizenship and who wants to legalize their status. But I digress.

I think marriages work best when people in them are on the same page, in life, goals, and in contributions. I don't think a sole breadwinner is exactly the healthiest for a marriage because it can create inequality. Society places so much emphasis on money as being a contributor that when there's only one breadwinner, it can be frustrating for the non-working spouse to reaffirm his or her role in the marriage and family, and to quantify his or her contributions. I have always been up front that I would never be a stay at home mother, no matter what the circumstances were (obviously, barring the extreme). I had relationship difficulties because of that opinion, but when I found a person who understood my reasons, it meant something very significant to me.

@Jess13, it may be that property laws (and hence divorce settlements) are such in Austria that younger people choose not to join estates.

I am married. Frankly, the SO/boyfriend/girlfriend labels are silly after a certain point/age. In my opinion. So I am married, because I met someone who also felt great about saying "I DO". There was no cajoling, deciding, etc. We both felt that this was the right thing for us to do. Period.

I find marriage holds more value when there are children involved (and yes, I changed my last name so that we all (including kids) have the same last name. Sometime we joke that hubby should have changed his last name to mine. Which would have been fine too). I find that it makes the logistics of child rearing somewhat easier. Again, for us.

While there is a category of women who will always seek marriage. Some, like me, are in it because we met the right person. When the relationship is mutual and positive. If it was not, or if this fact were to change, I would consider the single status again.

There's really no right or wrong answer. It always depends on individual situations.

PS. we are also the couple who didn't want/have a fancy wedding. What a waste of everyone's energy.

My primary reason for wanting to marry is that is requires a thought-out and planned commitment to each other. Ideally, both parties have talked about the commitment that marriage requires before becoming engaged, how they want to live their lives together, future, finances, etc. To me, marriage (whether it is legal, a civil union, simply declaring to each other that we are now married, etc) is a commitment for a lifetime. Anything less than marriage seems too piecemeal to me and I personally am afraid of the "easy out" that anything less than marriage could provide. If we enter a rocky period, I want that ring on my finger to remind me of what I promised to this man and to give me incentive to fight for him.

I am currently not married and do not live with my boyfriend. I want to marry him and it will change our relationship, mostly because our relationship won't involve living together, children, shared finances, etc, until we make that commitment (for me, engagement is required before cohabitation).

This is entirely my opinion and what marriage would mean to me. It does not have to mean the same to other people and I respect every person's and every couple's right to create their lives individually and together in anyway they want.

The financial and legal benefits are also good. I want no questions as to whether I can make medical or financial decisions for my husband should the need arise. I believe that those rights should be available to all couples and I will advocate that and vote to make it legal. In the meantime, I will take advantage of the rights myself.

Well I think 'who's getting the most' is the question that shows the root of the problem. How about 'what am I giving?' instead of 'what am I getting?'

I was married early- at 22.
I have been married for 9 wonderful years.
I don't think marriage is at ALL about what I get out of the relationship. It's more about what I can give, and what I can BECOME as part of something greater than myself.

I'm not just me anymore, I'm part of something bigger- a family. One that I believe is not only around for this life, but for eternity. For me, marriage is something that shows commitment and religiously signifies to me that she and I are one.

I get that other people feel they are achieving the same thing without the tax hassle of being combined by simply living together and having a family without a marriage...

I find it odd that I am not in the norm anymore to espouse such traditional beliefs about marriage... the kind of beliefs our parents and grandparents had.

I do believe people get married for the wrong reasons. As a nation, we are inherently selfish and when marriage turns out to harder than we expected or we don't "find" ourselves in our spouse, divorce ensues. There also seems to be rising rate of infidelity as the contributing factor in divorces.

I chose to get married because I'm religious. My husband and I abstained from sex and did not live together while dating. Therein lies the issue. Our society says its OK to do the things married people do without having to be married. That may be fine for some but that wasn't fine for us.

I won't lie. Marriage is damn hard. I knew it would be hard but it has been a bajillion times harder. The whole concept of "leaving and cleaving" is the hardest. There have been times when we have both wanted to leave, but we've hashed it out and stayed because we don't believe in divorce (except for in cases of abuse or infidelity). Marriage is a sacrifice and so many people are just not prepared to make it.

Modern society is complex beyond anything our grandparents would have fathomed in their time. Our standards for happiness are higher than perhaps they've ever been. We have the luxury of considering what would make us happy, and of making choices in that direction. This luxury is relatively new (especially for women), but already we take it for granted. I think it's a fair question to ask whether the institution of marriage is still relevant, given these changes in our collective psyche.

I married someone I loved, because it was the "thing" to do, because it was expected of me, and because my religious upbringing condemned co-habitation and sex outside marriage. I was unhappy from day one, and three years later, we divorced. For me, marriage represented a trap - I felt smothered, stuck, and betrayed by the impossible vows I had made.

I am now in a committed relationship with someone I love dearly. We are not married, and have no plans to be. Yes, we have difficult times, but now I get to choose to work through them because I want to, not because I "have" to, or because I'm afraid of what people will think if I walk away. Staying with someone who makes you miserable isn't love, it's masochism.

So yes, let's call marriage what it is: a social and legal contract that gets you a new name, a different tax status, and shared health care benefits. Beyond that, it's what you make of it, just like any other relationship.

If divorce rates have dropped, that is probably because fewer people are getting married.

At 41, divorced after a 14 year relationship (9 years married), recently dumped after two and a half years with someone, and now single again, I confess I'm a little jaded.

Marriage, or any long term relationship, is moot without commitment and devotion. I still have this lofty ideal, perhaps naively romantic, that it's supposed to be supporting one another. That's regardless of gender.

Having grown up around strong female influences I find it surprising that women feel any sort of loss within marriage. Either person, regardless of gender or sexual orientation ought to support their partner and receive the same in return. Someone once described it as a team. Not a bad analogy. There is no MVP though. Equality in every sense.

COLL454...yeah I think they should stick to design as well...since they don't seem to employ a fact checker, they should stick to decorating apartments which is what I came here for.

I know this a "blog" format site but when you are as big a brand and site as this one, you should really fact check something like "marriage rates declined and divorce rates skyrocketed over the past decades" because the claim is totally inaccurate. Or don't make these sort of statements.

Having been married twice, the first time to a woman and the second to a man. I have had a chance to see the differences and similarities of both kinds of relationship. The tendency of heterosexual couples to blame short comings on gender doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I think it was more about what kind of environment we were raised in. In my relationships both my wife and my husband and I took/take on the household tasks that we were/are best at. Rarely were tasks divided by gender rolls. In all of my relationships I have been the one who cared about food and hence did all the cooking and shopping. Both my wife and my husband cared/care more about the laundry and cleanliness of the bathroom. Other tasks were/are negotiated and gender was/is not an issue. I was raised in a household where I frequently had to babysit my siblings and cook lunch and dinner. My brother made beds and vacuumed. My sister did laundry and took out the trash. None of us were expected to do anything because we were male or female.

Clever photo! I've been married and divorced 3 times. Slow learner. Now at 58 I live single and am much more content. My son and his wife have been married over 10 years, through various ups and downs and are generally content, expecting their second child in January. Old Irish marriage laws,also known as Brehon laws, included various degrees of marriage and it makes sense to me to have something like that again though those laws were far from perfect. People get married for different reasons, in different circumstances and a one size fits all marriage doesn't really make sense.

I'm quite young, 25, and although I've been living with my boyfriend of three years for the last 2 years, I'm not ready to be married. In fact, I feel much the same way that @RSmithShelley mentioned, I like the fact that for these early years in both our lives and our relationships we choose to be together and that when we go through rough times, we make the executive decision to stay together, it gives us both breathing room to grow up and change and consciously reiterate our commitment to each other.

That said, I would like to get married. I think that at some point, when we are both ready, I won't want that option to leave anymore, and instead I'll want more of an incentive to stay. After so many years together, I'll be ready for the institutionalization of our relationship, that it will be made set in stone, so that we'll have to hash it out when things get rough.

That said, one thing that I've always loved about this site is the great multiplicity of families that are shown in their lovely homes. Singles, couples both straight and gay, single parent families, married or committed hetero and homosexual families with children, its really lovely, and its one of the reasons that I enjoy coming back to this site so frequently.

As a young, educated, and financially independent woman, I'm very skeptical and wary of marriage. I often feel like my male partner gets the better end of the deal. I always end up taking up more than my share of responsibilities. It's not fair, it's not nice...but I it's the reality of the unspoken gender roles thrust upon us as children. It's certainly not relationship-specific, men seem to come out undeservedly ahead of women in many aspects of life.

As a woman, I'm putting my career and future at serious risk for not a lot of gain when it comes to marriage. That said, I'm happy for those who decide to take the risk.

@arpark

Jewish weddings require a ketuba, a binding marriage contract.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/61282/unveiled

"It’s as if the artists were expressing the paradox to which every illustrated ketubah points. Marriage, unlike romance, depends for its survival on the legal fine points: promises made not in general but in specifics, intentions made good in routine provision of raiment and furnishings, 10 zuzim here, 6 zuzim there. Even conjugal rights are codified. But marriage also requires romance and, I’d wager, always did: splashes of color and extended plays of line, flourishes that are and are not measured, order that is accomplished in and through profusion."

Not a bad sentiment for a discussion of marriage on a design blog.

" ... just who's getting the most out of marriage as it stands today?"
If this is the question, then the answer is FAIL. Marriage is a never-ending series of sacrifices. The reality is that the sacrifices cannot be quantified, and it is highly unlikely that the scales will ever balance. To expect otherwise is immature and foolish. But if you are willing to give your all for the other, then you'll have a successful marriage.

I don't think marriage should be viewed in terms of who gains most, and certainly not as a battleground. Ideally, it should be about an equal partnership, even if one partner chooses to stay at home. Each partner contributes to the marriage, not necessarily a monetary contribution, and everyone's standard of living is enhanced.

My husband and I chose to marry because in the year of 9/11 and after the French were not welcomed in the USA and my husband is French. He was in America working as a contracted consultant. I knew he would soon be 'let-go' and when that happened he would have just a short time to remain in the USA. The way it worked, regardless of who went to the other's country the stay could only be 90 days. Sure, it was possible to round trip back and forth but what an expense and look at just how time consuming that has become. We chose to get married. The week following our marriage he was 'let-go'. We packed up and moved to France because the social environment was so negative towards the French at the time. I can honestly say, I never experienced in France the type of rudeness and nationality slurs that he sometimes was recepient of in the states. Will we move back to states? Anything is possible and I do miss my family there. But I do love France and right now I want to stay here.

When the article talks about marriage in terms of "what do I get?" – the selfish motive of one person - it suggests a poor understanding of what marriage is which is a partnership. Many of my peers in their twenties repeatedly misconstrue marriage in this way. This thing we call marriage consists of two people, which makes it a partnership. Even in modern society today, marriage is still about what a person can give; you give, share, and dearly care for your partner every day for life, and it a natural exchange. Marriage is a kinship. When you meet the right person, these good behaviors appear consistently, each day in a good, stable marriage. And to respond to conventional wisdom about the poster, I live in a densely populated urban area, am young and liberal, and cherish traditional family values.

I am not married but I own a home with a partner I've been with for 6 years. He's been married before. We aren't having children. We plan to be together until one of us dies. I do find it daunting that one of us will die first (eek.) For all the questions we get about when we'll get married, I just haven't been able to come up with a compelling reason to do it. I feel strongly (and often in conversations express) that marriage (or any long term relationship) is about finding someone you can negotiate with. We have that, and we frequently renegotiate. (Things change over time, after all!) I'm not totally sold on "for better or for worse." "Sickness and health:" yes. I believe in that. It's good to know that my partner would care for me if I was sick, and (though I'm far more squeamish) I know that to do the same for him would be to experience the greatest love possible. But if someone becomes willfully negligent or bitter or horrible for some reason...what kind of masochist would stay? Why promise to?
I recently had a conversation with a teenager about the benefits of getting married. The only one I could come up with is that it works to the advantage of the person who makes less money if there is a divorce. In my relationship, that's me. If my boyfriend and I broke up we'd sell our house (or rent it, or he'd buy me out, or something like that) and split. But if we were married and we broke up I could claim some sort of entitlement to his money. It makes me feel icky to think of it.
I do hate referring to each other as boyfriend and girlfriend, though. We are both well over 30; he's over 40. There should be better words.

I feel like you do, Mcqueen--it's the relationship that matters, not the paper. My relationship is solid, and getting married wouldn't change that. The problem, though, is all the legal benefits of marriage; my partner and I are in our 40s and having some health problems and not being married scares me. If my partner becomes ill and the hospital needs someone to make a decision about his care, I have no legal right to do that. Would they waste precious time trying to reach his sister--his only living family member, since I don't count--in rural France, where her phone service is spotty and she doesn't have internet? If I were incapacitated, my mother, whose values are quite different from mine, would have legal say over my care and could tell the hospital not to allow my partner to see me. I think we're going to have to get married, for that reason alone.

I got married at 22 (now 23, just celebrated our first year!) for many reasons. One being that my husband is the most amazing person I can even imagine. I don't think the institution of marriage is less culturally relevant today that it was to our grandparents and parents. To me, it's sad that it's suffered so much. Many of the people I know who are skeptical about marriage or are not considering it are people who have been deeply hurt by a relationship, or relationships, group of people, their family, you name it. And it's forced them to put up their guard towards such a commitment, or level of intimacy. I encourage them that marriage can far exceed their expectations (realistic expectations) and be the most fulfilling relationship they can imagine. The analogy of marriage being a team is great, either you both with or you both lose. It's so great to always have someone in my corner and to know I'll always back him up too.

I believe in Jesus and to me, marriage is a reflection of the relationship He has with the church (anyone who believes in Him). Jesus died for anyone who believes in Him, and the bible tells us that in marriage the husband is like Jesus. Not that the husband is a savior but that he should serve and love his wife as if he was dying to save her. A completely selfless act! I think that is incredibly romantic! It's really too much to type, but it boils down to being selfless, serving each other, and committed for life. And of course having fun!

And since this is a design blog - I love the sense of permanence it gives me when buying things for our home. Before getting married it was so hard to decide what to invest in because roommate situations changed every year or so and I never knew what I'd need in the next place or what I'd have to get rid of. It's nice knowing that a piece of art work or furniture will be staying with me for a while.

@RSmithShelley I am right with you. I married young because it was the expectation. It was a disaster. I was responsible for everything and my relationship with my ex really was masochistic at best. And I put in 'the effort' longer than I should have, because that was the expectation, but effort from one person does not make a relationship. Getting divorced was the best decision I ever made.

Now I am in a committed, not married relationship that we CHOOSE to make work because we want to and truly care about each other. We are very happy and equal players in as much as is possible for us. We have no plans to marry, to our families horror. It works for us.

@CarmenJo - Not to start a religious debate, but my issue with your statement is that the marriage is a vehicle for committment. Having seen some very destructive relationships based on marriage, I can say that being a "team" is great - if you've committed to being a team in the first place, and that's more important than whether two people decide to get married. I've seen people completely devoted to one another and not get married, and people who didn't fully commit before getting married. The act of getting married is not how you decide you've committed to someone. That's the thing I think most people need to understand nowadays.

I find it sad that people need a ring on their finger to be reminded of their commitment. If you love each other, and you want to share your life, you should be able to go through the ups and downs without a legally binding document. What scares me about marriage (I am divorced) is that some people just see this as a way of controlling the other person. You are not allowed to work, to have certain friends, to do certain things, to have financial independency. And when you finally realise that you want to be your own person and want out of this a legal battle starts, that is physically and psychologically affecting you. 12 years later this man still tries to control my life, telling me I am not allowed to move with the kids (I am), trying to get access in my house legally (he can't) telling me I am spending the child support on my own holiday whilst the kids are with him (I have my own income) and so on. Marriage is too often a power game. And when you are not married, you have the freedom to go. Immediately. This kind of powergames, abuse, happen more often than one thinks. I truly truly believe if real love is involved, and you both have good moral values, you do not need a legally binding document.

@PI didn't mean to offend! I think marraige can mean different things to different people. I just meant to share how I felt about it.

My husband and I got married after it was necessary for a paper work thing. The paper work thing seems so irrelevant now to how it has changed how relationship. We were never against, nor for Marriage. But, since being married, it somehow changed nothing yet absolutely everything. The question of what do i get out of this? Is completely redundant and seems very naive now. Marriage is about 'having someones back' and doing whatever we both can to help the other person in our little team. I love sharing the load and taking on the world with someone. It sometimes seems a shame to me that less people want to take the 'emotional step' of marriage.

@CarmenJo - No offense taken at all. Everyone has different perspectives.

I don't get this article. Is this an attempt to get more into the "therapy" arena that your readers so clearly aren't interested in?

Gotta agree with PI's comments. I had a brief marriage and then with sadness, divorced my husband for good cause. A few years later I met someone with whom I naturally clicked, also divorced. We've been together since--quite a few years now--without marriage, and neither my child nor his has had an issue with it. One of these days, we'll likely get married as we move fully into retirement. Our commitment is genuine and durable; the legal protections are what will ultimately push us toward marriage. When that time comes, it will be a short and simple ceremony. I've always been puzzled by big weddings, for the expense and the public nature of a private milestone, and had only a handful of guests on hand the first time. The next time, if there is one, will be even smaller. Throughout my life, I've preferred to live by myself than with someone I didn't find a good fit. That remains true. Friends and family (by blood and by choice), interests, and a measure of self-reliance are essential components of a contented life, I think. Freedom from incessant financial stress helps a heck of a lot, too, for those fortunate enough to have it.

@designclaire: You find it "sad" that "people need a ring on their finger to be reminded of their commitment"? Don't you thnk that's more than a little insulting to those of us who have been married for (in my case) more than 20 years? I don't wear a wedding ring, by the way. It was stolen years ago and I do NOT need a bit of bling on my finger to remind me to honor my marriage contract. My husband chooses to wear a ring because he likes the symbol.

Do not take it upon yourself to belittle or diminish the life choices of others. I lived with my partner for more than 6 years before we married. I can tell you for certain that there is a huge difference between living together and being married -- both emotional and legal.

@PHD28POLISCI, I think it's a way for AT to ramp up their hits when things get slow. Start a cat fight.

Here is some food for thought: http://www.economist.com/node/21526329
The article is called "The flight from marriage".
Since you are trying to quantify who "gets most out of marriage as it stands today": it's wedding planners, overpriced bridal boutiques, jewelers, caterers, Disney, card companies, divorce lawyers, and everybody else trying to sell you something for your wedding, anniversary, Valentine's Day, or divorce. I don't believe that you need anything any of these people want you to buy to be truly committed to each other.
To those not wanting to use "boyfriend/girlfriend" how about "partner"?

Haha @Rurual and Rueful, that was exactly my first thought when I saw the heading of the article. Not unlike articles asking "what is your design pet peeve" and "what is your design allergy". Now I see those dang karate chop pillows everywhere. Once learned can't be unlearned.

Marriage is totally irrelevant today, as it is currently defined. The whole concept of marriage will change in the next 100 years - or die out. It needs to become a personal, spiritual ritual rather than a political one. I think that's where our ideas of marriage are heading, and I think that's where they will end up.

@HHRI - yes, I think the word "partner" will be used rather than husband/wife. It's genderless and doesn't carry sexist connotations. It's the word I use.

I think it is a tie. The things are just different. While not everyone takes it seriously when they entere it, marriage is designed to be permanent. It is comforting to know that my husband will always be my husband. It is also nice to know that if I have some bad days he is not going to run out the door and never come back. Marriage is also designed so that kids can have a stable life. There are things and perspectives and roles in life that only a woman can give and fill. Just like there are things and perspectives and roles that only a man can fill. Children deserve to have all of those things from their parents. As a girl, knowing that I get to have my wonderful husband with me forever (because that is what marriage is supposed to be) and knowing that we get to be parents one day brings me joy that I couldn't find through any other relationship.

Marriage is more than legally binding one person to another. In fact, that part of marriage is probably the least important in our society. If you want to get all legally anal about a marriage, there are plenty of options out there that keep men and women on the same footing if it ever came to a divorce.

And the household burden doesn't have much to do with being married... if your boyfriend is a slob chances are if you marry him, he'll still be a slob. And vice versa.

Marriage is about celebrating your love and commitment for someone and declaring that love in front of your family, friends and God - if you believe in that.

And there is nothing "sad" about wearing a wedding ring. It's disrespectful to say something like that. Some people cherish their rings.

My mother's wedding ring was a ring my father wore on his pinky finger for years before they were married. When I was young my mother burned her hand and because of the swelling they had to cut the ring off her finger. She cried harder about the ring being cut than the pain in her hand. It's a symbolic representation of love, and that means quite a lot to some people.

I totally understand about the men getting the better deal in most marriages, but if women don't force their men to take equal responsibility for household chores, then that is sort of their own fault.

I have the same deal with a higher cleanliness standards, but so long as my fiance does dishes and mops floors and helps with laundry and puts away his own clothes, and cleans the bathroom and kitchen, I try not to complain. Some of our chores split along traditional gender roles (I cook, he fixes the cars/changes the oil), but we tend to help each other or do just about everything together. My only complaint is that he doesn't take more of an interest in cooking (sometimes I could use a sous chef!) and that I am usually the one who takes care of the dog/gives her attention/plays with her.

We're getting married in a couple years (long engagements = more time to save money for weddings), but these are things we need to talk about. The pluses are: lower health insurance costs, lower taxes, automatic family status for emergencies, and, of course, commitment!

There's something about making a commitment before others, a judge, your loved ones, a minister, God if you choose to recognize him, that makes a marriage commitment very significant. Some might say it's "just a piece of paper" or a "ring on a finger", but deep down I think even those know that it's more than that. If you'll humor a quote from a fairly popular 90s movie, a certain actor and actress have this conversation after she proposes marriage,

"I want you around in the morning."
"You already have me around in the morning. How, I don't know, but you do."
"I want to know you're legally required to be there."

Interesting comments. It helps if both sides acknowledge the contribution the other partner makes, especially if one partner stays at home. Society often does not place value on the role of the homemaker, who provides a launchpad and haven for all family members, breadwinner included.

Who benefits most? NOt the Bride or Groom.
Average cost of U.S. wedding hits $27021 | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-wedding-costs-idUSBRE82M11O20120323

Kariwk said "Legally, people who marry have lots of advantages in terms of things like retirement protections, access to the partner during serious illness and the like. These are BIG advantages and are one of the sets of equal rights those who cannot [be] married are trying to access."

I agree that these are BIG advantages and I believe they should be unshackled from marriage and applied to individuals regardless of marital status. People can designate the party (e.g., spouse, SO, sibling, etc) to receive a share of retirement, to make medical decisions if they are incapacitated or to receive insurance benefits. Why shouldn't everyone share in these advantages? It is only fair.

I don't have a fact checker but I have heard that you'd be surprised how many people do not have wills and that leaves all kinds of complications for longtime committed partners if one dies. Caring for your partner with or without "a piece of paper" means thinking about the future and doing your best to make sure they are taken care of financially if something happens to you. Being legally bound in marriage does help in that regard.

If couples were to place each other first over their children, who will eventually grow up and have a life of their own, you wouldn't have the ridiculous divorce rates you have today. That doesn't mean you don't love your children but your spouse should always come before children. The couple is the foundation of a family and a household.

Women are the worse when it comes to placing their children over their spouse, and I say that as a woman. "My children are more important to me than anything else." Sound familiar? I'm too tired taking care of children or cleaning the house that I can not even be bothered with sex.

Really? You can't take literally minutes of your day to bring love and pleasure to your spouse but you'll get up right away to tend to the non-critical demands of a child? You can't say to your husband that that sounds great but that you would appreciate it if he could take care of some things around the home so you don't feel so tired?

What it boils down to is concerns, values and priorities being all screwed up.

Marry for love and friendship - it's give and take, sometimes you give more sometimes you give less, depends on the day, your mood, your schedule, etc. Hopefully, happiness and fulfillment balance out for both parties and hopefully their hearts are in it for only the right reasons.

no relationship or marriage is the same, and we can all bring the ghosts of past experiences into current situations. One sticking point for my partner and I is money.
We love, care and support each other, but the topic of marriage and kids brings up a lot of strong opinions. One topic that lead to a heated discussion was weather or not couples should maintain separate bank accounts after marriage and split everything; mortgage, bills etc 50/50. He argued yes, I argued no. both of our responses were based on breakdowns of marriage we had witnessed when children were involved.
I argued that it was not likely that we would both be on the same wage or have the same expenses/hobbies. should it be as petty as dividing food bills by who eats what? and how much? and who last bought the toilet paper. it could get ridiculous. and what happens when we have kids? child care expenses are currently higher than my actual wage, which is not likely to increase dramatically. we would be saving money if I stayed at home and did free lance work. what about the mortgage then? or our retirement? what if I couldn't meet the 50/50 requirement? then having lapsed in our 50/50 agreement, what happens if 20 years later we divorce? not a happy thought, but part or reality, it is possible. how would we split the house? the retirement fund? savings? the financial costs of any kids that are still reliant on us?
He argued that men loose out on divorce and end up financially ruined, while the women get the house, car, retirement and child support.
I believe marriage is a team, it doesn't matter who earns what, it should be considered equal. And if it ends? split it right down the middle, and nobody should get the house, sell it and say goodbye to any hard feelings, regrets and sad memories.

Is it a double standard to want financial contribution and distribution to be considered equal, when it may not be the case, and want an even split if it all turns sour?
possibly, but compromise and sacrifice are all part of it too.

@AUSSIEGIRL

I don't think you can blame men for being wary about money when traditionally they are taken to the cleaners after a divorce, as your "partner" said. That's a fact.

I'd also be worried if I were with someone that expected me to support their "hobbies" after a divorce. That would be a comment that would be worrying to most men, if not all.

Also, why not just say boyfriend? A business associate can be a "partner" but calling someone much more special a "partner" is not very endearing. I think it cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I think it is things like that that contribute to our divorce rates.

@Aussiegirl: "Is it a double standard to want financial contribution and distribution to be considered equal, when it may not be the case, and want an even split if it all turns sour?"
No, not when you consider what you give up to become a stay at home parent. If you wished to continue working after having kids, would your partner be willing to contribute towards childcare costs, even if it made less financial sense for you to work? Would he also be prepared to share all of the household chores and parenting equally? Can 'parenting' even be quantified, and would you want to? You are wise to consider these issues now as having kids does complicate things.

@arpark I agree. Marriage is about how you act toward one another and in the face of society, not about whether you signed on a dotted line. Marriage certificates are an advent of the state to keep records for taxation. It used to be that marriages were just kept on record by the local church where the couple was married.

Marriage is perplexing to me personally. Even though I would like to be married, I think people make too much out of the wedding and not enough out of the marriage. If you want to be married, just act married. If you want a ceremony, have a ceremony. If your only reason for getting married is a tax break, you have no business being married.

@lynnindc--I completely agree.

Been there, done that, not interested in doing it again.

Just don't tell my girlfriend.

Although I don't find it surprising, I do find it a little sad that society can still examine who benefits more from a marriage. One would think/hope that by this point in civilation we would have evolved past that. But perhaps that is delusional thinking.

I had no interest in marriage. I believed, as many have already commented, that you can have the same level of commitment with a partner without the legally binding document (and still do believe this). Part of my rationale is based on the fact that I am not religious so I never felt the need to confirm my committment to my partner in the eyes of a God. However, the relationship I am in now has changed my mind. I want to marry my partner. It has less to do with legal advantages and more to do with my desire to share how I feel about him in a ceremony (private. I've never really understood big weddings, but don't disapprove of people who do).

If we don't get married, I won't be upset. I can live without marriage, but something about the love we feel for each other makes marriage feel like the right thing for us. I can't really explain it, but I know that neither one of us is thinking about what we will be gaining from the relationship. Thankfully I've found someone that values equality in a relationship (and in life). I feel as though we support each other equally (not only emotionally and physically but also in the day to day activities such as household and financial concerns).

I think, as many have mentioned, that marriage has become something very personal - different for each person/couple. I think it will continue to evolve and hopefully in a positive and equal way for everyone.

PS Although I wrote a long comment on marriage here, I too do not completely understand why this post is on AT. :-)

I got married at 24 -- 38 years ago -- and I can tell you that if you are worried about who is "getting the most" from a marriage or any partnership, whether sexual, financial, or whatever -- you are in trouble. Focus on what you give each other -- and not just in material things -- and you have a chance. Marriage is also a spiritual exercise -- if you want to keep growing, developing, staying together, you need to be creative, imaginative, thoughtful, persistant, patient, wise and occasionally lucky. I could go on -- I've learned a couple of things in 38 years, but some of it one has to figure out for oneself.

A piece of paper does not cement a relationship. People need to make a commitment to be together - the paper is just paper. That said, if children are involved, I think a couple should marry. It keeps the traditional family unit alive - and yes, it should stay alive. It's worth a lot.

I defied the odds; both my husband and I were both 19 when we married and have been married for 13 years now.
Both me and my husband benefit from our marriage although it's not about who benefits the most. It's a give and take relationship. He's "down" and I try to be "up" for him; I'm "down" and he tries to be "up" for me...
The problem with many marriages is pure selfishness. If I have to be more self sacrificing at times then so be it. I know he is at times for me. I married him because I love him. I stay with him because of equal parts commitment and love.
"Who benefits the most in this marriage" is the wrong question to be asking and only sets a marriage up for complete failure.
vix vax commented "That said, if children are involved, I think a couple should marry. It keeps the traditional family unit alive - and yes, it should stay alive. It's worth a lot."
I completely agree.

Cool photo!

Being a man in this so called modern times quite confusing. Seems like women wants their cake and eat it whole. Want equal rights and yet want to be treated like a lady. In a divorce, child rights given to the woman, at least in the uk. the money matters in a divorce... In the uk, the guy has to give half of his future income to the woman until she remarries or dies. Gender equality?

I am married, but not legally. The law does not recognize my affection because it applies to two men, but it is based on love, shared responsibility, and planning for a lifelong future together. We make financial decisions as a group, we support each other and are happier together than we are apart, and we have been for quite some time now.

My vote is to remove marriage from the legal lexicon - too complicated to legislate! - and instead to have a suite of specific benefits (medical, emergency, tax, child co-responsibility, etc) that you can give to whoever you feel most appropriate - be that a romantic partner, a parent, a child, or a friend.

We still assume that the most important structure in someone's life and success is a romantic partner for the purpose of producing children. Sometimes it is...sometimes it is not.

Let marriage ceremonies be a religious/personal activity, and make the actual benefits and responsibilities something more akin to a contract between adults.

I am a woman and have been married to a man for nearly seven years. We were lived together for three years prior to our legal marriage and chose to get married strictly because my workplace offered health benefits to spouses and he needed them. (We probably would have gotten married eventually anyway, but our focus at that time was health insurance.) I have been the primary earner for our entire marriage and he now stays home to care for our kid and our home.

As frustrating as it is to live in a word where the benefits of our legal marriage are not extended to everyone and where it is is still a major novelty for a man to be a homemaker and a woman to be a primary earner, there is absolutely no competition in our home.

We can't answer the question of "who wins" because there is no battle of the sexes in our home. There are plenty of places where that ware needs to be waged, but my home and my marriage are not among them.

Also, I echo the statements of those who point out divorce rates have been relatively steady for the past three decades and have dropped in in recent years. Rates demonstrate percentage of the total, not number of divorces, so it's not just that fewer people are getting married, fewer marriages are ending in divorce.