Posted on 08/26/2024 4:03:00 AM PDT by grundle
Dear Quentin,
My girlfriend and I don’t plan to get legally married nor married in the eyes of the church. We’re simply having a wedding to celebrate our love, but we are not signing any paperwork. I am concerned that my significant other would lose her state health insurance because she doesn’t work. To cut a long story short, I feel terrible that she’s utilizing a program for low-income people, but she has serious mental-health issues that are completely treatable but expensive. I make too much money for her to qualify for medical assistance if we marry, but not enough to absorb what I’ve calculated to be $35,000 a year in additional expenses.
We want kids eventually and I’m concerned that, given that I live in a state famous for treating men poorly in divorces, she’ll end up with at least half of everything I own despite the fact that I accumulated quite a bit in assets before we ever met. I’m also likely to accumulate quite a bit more in assets before we have a child, and it’s actually necessary or helpful that she stays home to care for said child. We agreed several years ago that it was best she stop working because she was in an extremely high-stress environment as a pharmacy tech that was exacerbating her mental-health issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Ever since LBJ, the government has been waging a WOM.
War on Men.
War on Marriage.
War on Morality.
Take your pick.
and kung-fu grippy!
They’re just making a common law marriage.
“I feel terrible that she’s utilizing a program for low-income people”
The author doesn’t feel terrible, or he wouldn’t be involved with her. She’s a loser leach.
“but she has serious mental-health issues that are completely treatable but expensive.”
Run like the wind! 💨
“Her first AND middle names are Tiffany”
“Tiffani” with an “i”.
“Checking this again I can’t help but notice he’s not looking for advice.”
The more I think about it, the more it seems that some goofball told AI to create the most ludicrous question re marriage.
My son went to one such “wedding” - both families were in attendance - the “wife” was suffering from cancer and needed extensive treatments - but didn’t want to be removed from her parents’ health insurance. Apparently, after she ages out of that system, it would be cheaper for the parents to get a rider on their insurance for her.
Marriage is a tool of Government by man used to convert two becoming one into a legal contract governed by men.
Two becoming one is a tool of God.
< >
all who are “married” are not truly one... and all who are truly one,
At least if they stay together, they won't be ruining two other perfectly good couples.
So. You’re shacked up with a former drug abuser (Pharmacy-tech) with mental problems and contemplating on having children with this person and also expecting on a future breakup which otherwise would be a divorce if you were ‘legally’ married.
WTF is wrong with you, idiot?
Thomas Jefferson had a marriage license and Washington paid for his nephew’s marriage license.
I have tax clients that were married in another country. They are both are US Citizens.
They both use his last name. They have two children 13 & 10. Have been together and lived together for 15+ years.
They do not claim they are married in the USA.
They file separate tax returns.
In some states this could cause inheritance tax problems if one of them dies, but not in the state where they reside.
(Had an attorney screw up a will of another client who was common law married for over 30 years and the attorney listed them as single in the will. (Pennsylvania did away with common law marriage unless you were common law married prior to the law change, which they were. Were even on the same health care plan at his employer for 20+ years.)
He died and it cost her $45,000 to inherit the house she lived in for thirty years as it was in his name alone.)
If you live with her long enough (the exact amount of time varies by state) she is going to get some of your stuff when you split especially since you admit that you got her to quit her job so she would become a housewife.
Maybe that’s why she doesn’t want to get officially married ..cause she is he.
And it would come out if “she” actually tried to get married.
RUN!
Sounds like they’re perfect for each other.
There is a wide range of mental health issues. Some are just annoying or frustrating, others are downright dangerous. And they do tend to be expensive.
Hers is treatable, and marrying her might bankrupt him pretty quickly.
“Thomas Jefferson had a marriage license...”
1771 paid to the king of England.
Another tax!
...and we rebelled against that king.
Nearly all licenses are a tax in disguise.
A dog licence? Really now. Perfect example. It’s a tax!
But no biblical evidence requiring a marriage license.
No examples in the Bible showing it.
No laws in the Bible spelling it out.
We’ve become so accustomed to our chains that we rarely even look down on them anymore, much less question their purpose and simply go along to get along. Some even encourage others to stop questioning, noticing, or asking about the chains. Sheep, hoping they’ll be eaten last
We still patiently await your “thoroughly biblical” examples for a state sanctioned marriage license...
You’ve posted since I asked you, so we know you read my post, which challenged your premise.
Maybe you’ve chosen to not reply, because you found that there isn’t even one and rather than own your error, you slinky away after being arrogantly rude.
We didn’t rebel because the colonies had marriage licenses and in fact increased the practice, the license Washington authorized was after we were a nation.
Marriage licenses and public banns/legal notification go way back many centuries, proof of marriage was required for federal widow pensions for the revolutionary war, and Muslims could not legally marry multiple wives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.