On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:38:14 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 07:54:06 -0300, wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:36:39 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:53:23 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:44:31 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> https://www.childtrends.org/indicato...married-women/
> >>> >> The proportion of births to unmarried women has increased greatly in
> >>> >> recent decades, rising from five percent in 1960 to 32 percent in 1995.
> >>> >> After some stability in the mid-1990s, there was a gradual rise from
> >>> >> 1997 through 2008, from 32 to 41 percent. The rate appears to have
> >>> >> stabilized again, and was at 40 percent in 2014.
> >>>
> >>> Marriage has nothing to do with it. The 50s are over. Lots of people
> >>> see marriage as a useless piece of paper. An unnecessary government
> >>> (let alone church) approval of your relationship.
> >>
> >>It does provide legal protection for spouses. Everything from
> >>parental rights, to Social Security benefits, to
> >>the right to determine what happens to the body after death.
> >>
> >>That was uppermost in our minds when we got married.
> >>
> >>Cindy Hamilton
> >
> >Here the benefits are the same after two years of co-habitation.
>
> Yes, I think the legal side is covered in most western countries or
> you can get it covered without actually getting married. I would have
> thought the US has that too.

Not throughout the U.S. Marriage is a matter left to the states.
Some states have common-law marriage; others don't. I'm not sure
where the Feds sit on common-law marriage vis a vis Social Security.
We don't have common-law marriage here in Michigan, so I've never
investigated that.

We do have no-fault divorce, which is a boon to people without
children or real estate.

Cindy Hamilton