My statement, not assumption, that if you have been with someone long enough for you to be a couple you have made a commitment, is correct.
It is recognized as such by courts of law.
Of course I would see why some people have trouble with the concept. Illiteracy on the facts of social contracts is quite common these days.
It is one of the reasons there is so much conflict.
Your assumption that anything less then a ring and a certificate is not commitment is incorrect.
My statement, not assumption, that if you have been with someone long enough for you to be a couple you have made a commitment, is correct.
It is recognized as such by courts of law.
Playing house is only recognized in some states by some courts as a commitment. At best it is a quasi commitment in most areas. Assumptions are still assumptions. IMHO the government does not have to be the arbitrator but the social and culture does.