Okay to cohabitate?

[Chortle]

Is it okay to cohabitate rather than marry if marriage would cause a heavy financial burden to your partner? I know someone who is living with his partner rather than marrying her because he doesn’t want her to be liable for his medical costs should he die. This potential liability may be as much as $500,000.

 

[sing]

Maybe they could find a priest who could marry them in the church without a legal marriage?

 

[tptram]

can’t
because a priest has the civil authority for marriage.

the potential for liability can be avoid by draw up a pre-nuptual.

ask a friendly lawyer.

Tak

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it okay to cohabitate rather than marry if marriage would cause a heavy financial burden to your partner? I know someone who is living with his partner rather than marrying her because he doesn’t want her to be liable for his medical costs should he die. This potential liability may be as much as $500,000.

marriage is for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness in health, til death do us part.
no vows, no marriage
no you cannot enjoy the rights and privileges of marriage without assuming the responsibilities and duties and commitments of marriage.
what a rotten scum this person is who suggests using the other person this way, yeah honey you can cook for me, work for me and let me use you for my sexual pleasure but don’t expect me to give anything of myself, my work, my money to you. get a job and health insurance like everyone else. If the scumbag is not ready to assume such a liability they are not ready for marriage.

if the person is this gravely ill, should they be considering marraige and possible childbirth anyhow?

 

[1ke]

Is it okay to cohabitate rather than marry if marriage would cause a heavy financial burden to your partner? I know someone who is living with his partner rather than marrying her because he doesn’t want her to be liable for his medical costs should he die. This potential liability may be as much as $500,000.

No, it is not ok.

 

[kell0618]

Quite simply, no. It is not okay to cohabitate in any situation. Or as I prefer to call it, ‘test drive’.

Kelly

P.S. And you did not ask for reasons, but if you decide to ask the ‘whys’, I’m sure many will be happy to elaborate for you.

 

[junk]

Is it impossible to get married by a priest without changing one’s legal status?

If it is impossible, would it be immoral to go through a civil divorce to change one’s civil status if it would be beneficial and if the laws one falls under when married in the eyes of the State are unjust?

One’s marriage need not be recognised by the State for it to be recognised by God (indeed, until relatively recently, it was the Church alone that regulated marriage, and to a significant extent, I think the Church of England may have retained its jurisdiction in this area for some time after the Reformation), and if the State made unjust laws with regard to marriage (say it levied an additional 50% income tax), would it be immoral to change one’s civil status in such a way that it did not correspond with one’s actual status in the eyes of God?

Seriously, I think this question should be asked in the AAA section, because I’d like an authoritative answer.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Is it okay to cohabitate rather than marry if marriage would cause a heavy financial burden to your partner? I know someone who is living with his partner rather than marrying her because he doesn’t want her to be liable for his medical costs should he die. This potential liability may be as much as $500,000.

That’s something that couple needs to talk about. This goes much deeper than simply cohabitating. If I was in her position, I would question whether or not the guy really loved me. Hopefully he’s told her about his potential medical expenses, if he should die, so that she would know what she’d be in for. If he’s told her, then they need to decide if they’d want to get married.
Cohabitating, in that instance, is just plain silly, especially for the female.

 

[setter]

marriage is for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness in health, til death do us part.
no vows, no marriage
no you cannot enjoy the rights and privileges of marriage without assuming the responsibilities and duties and commitments of marriage.
what a **rotten scum **this person is who suggests using the other person this way, yeah honey you can cook for me, work for me and let me use you for my sexual pleasure but don’t expect me to give anything of myself, my work, my money to you. get a job and health insurance like everyone else. If the scumbag is not ready to assume such a liability they are not ready for marriage.

if the person is this gravely ill, should they be considering marraige and possible childbirth anyhow?

Pretty strong language for someone you do not know. It sounds like the guy is a potential walking medical bill liability regarding the OP question …srumbag, dirt bag, …yet to be determined.

 

[JimG]

marriage is for richer for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness in health, til death do us part.
no vows, no marriage

I agree.

If a priest were to marry them without reporting the marriage to the state, it might constitute civil fraud.

It seems to me to be something less than marriage if one or both of the persons wants to have the richer without the poorer, the health but not the sickness, the good without the bad. Do they wish to join their lives, or just have an arrangement of convenience?

 

[junk]

I agree.

If a priest were to marry them without reporting the marriage to the state, it might constitute civil fraud.

It seems to me to be something less than marriage if one or both of the persons wants to have the richer without the poorer, the health but not the sickness, the good without the bad. Do they wish to join their lives, or just have an arrangement of convenience?

I don’t see how changing one’s marital status in the eyes of God and not in the eyes of the State would constitue fraud at all. It’s not illegal to live together, and considering the legal definition, rights and obligations of marriage are being distorted away from what the civil institution is meant to mean, I fail to see what is wrong with changing one’s legal status in such a way that it is of benefit to the spouse.

Let’s assume that that person has the best intentions. The reason they want to avoid a legal marriage is for legal reasons only. Now, assuming those reasons are naturally just, and provided there is a sacramental marriage, I do not see where the sin is in changing one’s legal status to unmarried or in keeping it as such.

 

[JimG]

I don’t see how changing one’s marital status in the eyes of God and not in the eyes of the State would constitue fraud at all.

I was thinking it might constitute fraud on the part of the priest, since he normally acts as an agent of both civil and religious marriage. While those functions may be separable from a canonical point of view, I don’t know if the state agrees.

Further a priest might be reluctant to perform the ceremony, even if legal, if he realized that the couple intends to remain civilly single and not married. It still sounds like the couple wants to assume the rights but not the responsibilities of marriage.

When they go to file their tax returns, they will file as single. If they apply for a mortgage, they will apply as single, unless perhaps it is advantageous to apply as married. When they register in a parish, they will register as married. If one is in the hospital, will they indicate they are single or married? The whole thing just seems rather schizophrenic to me. “We are married but we aren’t, depending on what you want from us.”

 

[junk]

I was thinking it might constitute fraud on the part of the priest, since he normally acts as an agent of both civil and religious marriage. While those functions may be separable from a canonical point of view, I don’t know if the state agrees.

Further a priest might be reluctant to perform the ceremony, even if legal, if he realized that the couple intends to remain civilly single and not married. It still sounds like the couple wants to assume the rights but not the responsibilities of marriage.

When they go to file their tax returns, they will file as single. If they apply for a mortgage, they will apply as single, unless perhaps it is advantageous to apply as married. When they register in a parish, they will register as married. If one is in the hospital, will they indicate they are single or married? The whole thing just seems rather schizophrenic to me. “We are married but we aren’t, depending on what you want from us.”

You make a good point, and I would understand a priest’s reluctance in performing such a ceremony for the reasons you have stated.

I would argue, however, that getting a civil divorce, temporary if possible, without the intention to terminate the marriage, and where one is at a significant risk of some legal injustice if one does not act may be justifiable in some unlikely and exceptional situations.

 

[sing]

I’m a big fan of separating religious marriage from civil marriage. There are actually a lot of situations where people do want to get married, but the legal marriage comes with financial hardship that being only religiously married wouldn’t have.

 

[rwoehmke]

Hey! You want to dance the tune, you pay the piper. Sounds like this guy has it good.

 

[rayne100]

I The whole thing just seems rather schizophrenic to me. “We are married but we aren’t, depending on what you want from us.”

More like Bi Polar… Schitzophrenic is not split personalities

 

[StCsDavid]

Is it okay to cohabitate rather than marry if marriage would cause a heavy financial burden to your partner? I know someone who is living with his partner rather than marrying her because he doesn’t want her to be liable for his medical costs should he die. This potential liability may be as much as $500,000.

A good family practice lawyer could structure their estate so the spouse would not be liable for his medical expenses. I would have him seek an attorney for advice.