Conference turris::womannotes-v3

>What is
>    the reasoning behind me not being able to put [an unmarried partner]
>    on my insurance?  

Easy.  Money.  If companies offered benefits to live-in spouses, it would
cost them more, therefore, they don't.

Whether they *should* or not is a different story.

To me, it seems *obvious* that companies *should* offer benefits to 
"life partners", no matter the marital status (or genders).  

But there lies a difficulty in determining who is an who isn't a life
partner.  I mean, it isn't necessarily true that every person who lives
with another is a life partner - if that were true, then my roommate 
(who I hardly ever see) could get benefits through me.  What legal
marriage does is allow a way to register your "life partner", so there
is a way for employers, insurance companies, etc to determine who is
your life partner.

So - is this person your life partner, or not?  If he is, then - why 
haven't you married him?  If it was because you weren't sure whether he
was *really* your life partner, then why should he get benefits until
he really is?  (Of course, this logic doesn't apply to same-sex partnerships
since they don't even have the option of "registering their partnership"
[ie: state-recognized marriage]).

I guess I see the problem not as being that companies won't give benefits
to unmarried partners, but that marriage carries a lot more baggage
than just "a state-recognized partner registry".  Where did it come from?
I'm not sure.  But, from a legal standpoint, I can understand why companies
would only offer spousal benefits to people who have legally registered
the fact that they are life-partners.

How would *you* have it?

D!

    
    the city of seattle recognizes 'domestic partnerships' for the purpose
    of benefits, etc.
    
    (i believe a similar ordinance was considered in san francisco; i do
    not know if it was implimented)
    
    interestingly, a much smaller number of city employees have taken
    advantage of the law than people expected.
    

    Hmmmmm........ maybe because we live longer so we can wait longer to
    marry???  :-)
    
    I think maybe women since 1970 are going to college and getting
    educated  instead of getting married out of high school and having
    babies right away.   It makes sense since there is a terrible
    secretarial shortage...why aren't women secretaries?  Because they
    are educated and want to be  able to do other things.....whether it
    be in medicine, law etc....there are more things out there ....
    then people getting out of college want to look for stable
    relationships once their education is behind them hence I think the age
    23.8 for women getting married.....men on the other hand probably do
    the same thing....and men probably do the same thing and then want
    to get established at a company before they get married.  Those are
    just some basic things but I'm sure alot of people just don't want to
    rush into anything especially if there parents or close relative/friend
    had been through a bad divorce.
    
    Also I heard people are having babies later too...I think it was 28 for
    women and 30 for men or something like that.
    
    --bobbi
    
    

    Getting married is a weighty step to take.  When I got married 10 years
    ago we looked into getting married without the state involved. 
    Discovered that no minister would (or could) perform the ceremony
    without a license. (Except our freind with a mail-order certificate of
    ordination in a mail-order church.) 
    
    (I had and still have the feeling that a just and loving God is far
    more likely than a just and loving government.)
    
    I really don't want the state involved in my private life.   I got
    divorced and am now on the verge of remarriage.   Is this man my life
    partner?  Probably.  More than my legal husband was.  You can't
    guarantee that kind of stuff. Maybe we can simply live together until
    something happens that makes legal marriage more necessary.  But at
    least we have the option.  Would it be nice to point to Jim and say,
    "my (legal) husband?"  Very likely, but if he isn't husband to me now,
    how would getting married change that? 
    
    Like most couples, we have to cope with stuff like medical insurance,
    next of kin issues, wills (absolute necessity if legally single and a
    darn good idea if married), partnership agreement for shared property,
    car insurance, etc, etc.  By the way, it is cheaper to have two single
    medical insurance policies than one for both of us.  But it does make
    "flexible employment" all but financially impossible. 
    
    As for getting married late in life:  I didn't know there was a
    schedule.  If all that was available to me was wifehood or
    spinsterhood, then maybe I would have married at 17 (when I was first
    asked).  But there was a lot of stuff I REALLY wanted to do and getting
    married simply wasn't anywhere near the top.
    
    Now I find that getting married isn't even a necessity. 
    

Re: .2

They City of San Fransico has a domestic partners act for city employees.


Here is a news report about the census results. Reprinted with permission

	-- Charles

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Men and women are waiting longer than ever to
marry, a Census Bureau report said Wednesday, but the number of
unmarried couples living together has more than quadrupled since 1970.
	At the same time, the report said the number of children affected
by divorce, separation and out-of-wedlock births continues to rise and
less than three-fourths of all children now live with both parents.
	According to the report, a survey of marital status and living
arrangements in March 1989, the median age for a man's first marriage is
26.2 years, breaking the previous high of 26.1 years set in 1890. The
median age for a woman's first marriage was 23.8 in 1989, higher than
any previously recorded level.
	``At the beginning of the 20th century, the median age at first
marriage started a decline that ended in the mid-1950s,'' the report
said, ``reaching a low in 1956 of 20.1 years for women and 22.5 years
for men.''
	Delays in marriage are also reflected by increases in the
proportion of men and women who have not yet married for the first time,
it said, noting that the proportion of men and women in their 20s and
early 30s who have never married grew substantially during the past two
decades.
	``Between 1970 and 1989, the proportion never married at ages 20 to
24 increased by 75 percent for women and 41 percent for men,'' the
report said. ``The proportion for those in the 25-29 age group tripled
for women and more than doubled for men. For those in the 30-34 age
group, the never-married proportions tripled for both men and women.''
	At the same time, the report showed that the number of
unmarried-couple households continued to rise, from 523,000 in 1970 to
2.8 million in 1989.
	The majority of partners in unmarried-couple relationships -- 59
percent -- had never been married while 32 percent were divorced, 4
percent widowed and 5 percent were separated from their spouse.
	``The typical age of the partners was 25 to 34 years, 27 percent
were under age 25 and 17 percent were age 35 to 44,'' the report said.
``In six of 10 unmarried couple households, both partners were under 35
years of age,''
	The proportion of children under 18 years living with two parents
has declined considerably as the divorce, separation and births to
unmarried mothers take their toll on the conventional nuclear family.
	``Between 1970 and 1989, the proportion living with two parents
declined from 85 percent to 73 percent, while the proportion living with
one parent doubled from 12 percent to 24 percent,'' the report said.
	The report said black children are less likely than white children
to live with two parents, with jsut 38 percent of black children living
with two parents in 1989, compared with 80 percent of white children.
Among Hispanics, 67 percent lived with two parents.
	But it said for both black and white children, the decline in
two-parent living was greatest during the decade of the 1970s and has
slowed since 1980. For example, the proportion of black children who
lived with two parents dropped 16 percentage points during the 1970s --
from 58.5 percent to 42.4 percent -- compared with a decline of just 4
percentage points -- to 38 percent during the 1980s.
	``The demographic and economic characteristics of the parent ...
clearly reveal that children in one-parent situations are disadvantaged
as compared with their two-parent counterparts,'' the report said.
``Compared with children living with two parents, children living with
one parent are more likely to have a parent who has low income and who
is less educated, unemployed and rents their home.''
	_(_a_d_v_ _6_3_0_ _p_m_ _e_d_t_)

>    I really don't want the state involved in my private life...
    
>    Like most couples, we have to cope with stuff like medical insurance,
>    next of kin issues, wills (absolute necessity if legally single and a
>    darn good idea if married), partnership agreement for shared property,
>    car insurance, etc, etc.  

But that is the point.

The state doesn't have to be involved in your private life when your
private life is strictly private.

But when you ask that your employer, your insurance company, etc recognize
the reality of your "private life", then it is not strictly private anymore.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a way to legally
register two people as being partners, and then grant partnership bennies
to those who do so.  You are in no way required to get the state involved
in your partnership, but if you want the law and society to grant you
benefits for being in a partnership, then you have to let the law and
society get involved in that partnership.  It makes perfect sense to me.

I guess I don't think that anyone (comapny, state, whatever) should have
to offer bennies to non-married people.  I think, rather, that we should
get rid of the non-legal "baggage" associated with marriage so that it
really *is* a partner registration, and we should also allow anybody to
declare such a partnership legally (ie: without restriction on the
genders of those getting married, or the number of people in the marriage
etc.)

D!

re .0:    
    
>    Since this seems to be a way of life and not merely a trend, why
>    is it taking so long for organizations to start offering these
>    unmarried couples the same benefits awarded to married couples,
>    specifically in the way of health benefits.
    
    I could also then ask, "since this seems to be a way of life and not
    merely a trend, why is it taking so long for the federal government to
    recognize this trend and start hitting these couples up for taxes equal
    to those that married people (two-earners) pay?"
    
    Marriage means a lot more than a bunch of free bennies.
    
    Sarcastically yours,
    Ellen
    

    re .7:
    
    Sarcasm aside, I recognize that there is a *real* problem for
    homosexuals who have chosen a life partner, because marriage is not
    allowed by the state for these couples.  I very much believe that
    homosexual couples should be allowed the exact same benefits (and
    drawbacks :-) ) in a life partnership as hetersexuals have.
    

    
RE.3

    >> It makes sense since there is a terrible
    >> secretarial shortage...why aren't women secretaries?  Because they
    >> are educated and want to be  able to do other things.....whether it
    >> be in medicine, law etc....there are more things out there ....

	Gee, you really know how to make a secretary feel important!  According
	to you, only 'uneducated' women (who can't think of anything better to
	do) want to be secretaries.  God forbid we men should consider this 
        remark 'sexist'!  
    

    In Colorado the Common-Law marriage is simple. If two people declare
    themselves to be husband and wife then they are. No ceremony nessesary.
    Or if introductions are given "Here is Sally and her hubby James"
    Sally and or James needs to say no "I'm Sally and this is my friend
    James" An intro can --If I understand my Lawyer--be used as proof of a
    marriage.  
    
    I chose to get a divorce from a man who said we were married and then
    would change his mind. I figured with a divorce I could feel safe in
    that three years down the road he could not come back and say I was
    a bigamist if I found and chose to marry someone else.
    
              janet
    

    
    	why are people taking longer to marry?
    
    	Currently beining in this suituation, I agree with .9 COMMITMENT...
    Coming from a home where my parents were divorced right after I was born
    seeing what it's like being in a one parent family I want to know I am
    making the right decision.       
    
    ps....so far we set a date of June 1992.....

    There was an interesting article in the Boston Globe I think last
    Sunday about this new younger-than-yuppie generation. Interesting.
    It said these new twenty-somethings are afraid of commitment, better
    educated, and less concerned with civil/women's rights. They want to
    be able to spend more time with their children but they want to work
    too.(They also admit that thirtysomething music is far superior than
    twentysomething music!) Many are bitter at their parents for not being
    there. 
    
    re: Michelle,
        
        You could probably tell many of us why people are marrying later
        without reading the article. I babysat you folks as a young teen.
        I have a twentysomething brother. Your generation is very different
        from mine and I'm only 34.
    
    Kate

    Why are people taking longer to marry?  Because the reasons have become
    obsolete.  Traditionally, men married to have sex and women married to
    have security.  Both are now available to anyone without having to
    resort to marriage.  I think the demographics just show how many people
    would really marry if they had a choice, which they now do.
    
    I believe the rate will continue to decline as people begin to look at
    partnership realistically and realize that very little in life is
    forever and that the majority of people couple for the very simple 
    reasons of lust and companionship, (in varying degrees), and not 
    generally for the vague and complex reasons of "love" and "support"
    although we are raised to believe these are the goals of attraction.
    
    Society has woven all kinds of extraneous baggage into human coupling
    but it's finally unraveling revealing the true motivations behind each
    person's desire.  A truly realistic society would rally behind people in
    their attempts to support and raise their children but as long as it
    continues to make it expensive and difficult to orchestrate, it will 
    help to force people into marriage and those who've married into 
    staying there which I believe is the government's agenda.  Married
    people are generally more motivated to work and have less time to 
    question the government.  They're easier to herd around and push
    around than are single people who are adequately supporting themselves,
    have no dependents and who have leisure time. 
      
    Lastly, a "lifetime partner" can only be defined at death.  Everything 
    else is just candidacy.
    
    Major-league-cynic-who-finds-marriage-quaint

    re .14, Sandy, I don't think you're cynical, just realistic.  I agree.
    
    Lorna
    

    in re .10
    
    in re .3
    
    Bobbi is a secretary.
    
    BJ

    'n how about us male secretaries?
    
    :-)
    
    daniel

>	    Why are people taking longer to marry?  Because the reasons have become
>   obsolete.  Traditionally, men married to have sex and women married to
>    have security.  Both are now available to anyone without having to
>    resort to marriage.  I think the demographics just show how many people
>    would really marry if they had a choice, which they now do.

	This is a very interesting contention. I've been married for 17 years
and if I remember correctly 'having sex' wasn't the prime motivator. A twenty
two year old guy in 1973 didn't have to marry to have sex. The free love
philosophy was still around for those wishing to partake ( it never appealed
to me). If it's true that people couple for lust and companionship, and it
very well may be, then I'm not surprised at the divorce statistics.

	Is it a consensus here that many people are marrying for these
reasons?

curiously,
MAC

>	    Why are people taking longer to marry?  Because the reasons have become
>   obsolete.  Traditionally, men married to have sex and women married to
>    have security.  Both are now available to anyone without having to
>    resort to marriage.  I think the demographics just show how many people
>    would really marry if they had a choice, which they now do.

Is this your personal observation?  Maybe you've experienced this first-hand,
so this happens to be your perspective. I wouldn't generalize it in quite this 
way.  People marry for many reasons, including those mentioned above. Also
topping the list are family, companionship...present and future, and enjoyment
of one another, kids.   Also, what kind of people are you talking about?  
I sense that your demographics only consist of an educated, upper-middle class 
group.  No doubt, sex is available without having to marry, although feeling 
safe about it is something altogether different. "Security" is another matter. 
You'll have to define it in today's world...without resorting to stereotypes.

>	If it's true that people couple for lust and companionship, and it
>	very well may be, then I'm not surprised at the divorce statistics.

>	Is it a consensus here that many people are marrying for these reasons?

Lust is the wrong word.... Sexual fulfillment. Now that's more accurate. I can't
argue with companionship. It makes me feel secure. (Oops, I wasn't supposed to
say that).

    re .18, well, I got married 17 yrs. ago, too, (although I'm not married
    now).  We didn't decide to get married because we couldn't have sex
    without being married, but one of the main reasons we got married was
    because back then our parents wouldn't have let us get away with living
    together if we weren't married, something I don't think too many
    parents would have a problem with today.  But, both sets of our parents
    were of an older, and in his folks case, more traditionally religious
    generation.  We wanted to live together because we were in love and
    wanted to be together all the time, and back then getting married
    seemed like the only way to do that without having our families disown
    us.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, of *course* that's her personal observation.  You don't think the
    mainstream press has caught on or would share that view with us, do
    you?  And I find it strikingly close to the mark...more people aren't
    marrying *young* these days because they have more reasons to delay...
    and some of us don't plan to marry at all.  Right on, Sandy!
    
    DougO

    And given today's divorce statistics, marrying for security is a major
    joke.  I think that's one of the reasons I got married. I thought it
    meant that I'd always be loved. What a mistaken idea that was! I will
    never get married again. I never wanted the legal advantage, only the
    love. Perhaps the younger folks are looking at what happened to my
    generation and feeling a bit hesitant.

    I also question the life partner aspect. I'm beginning to believe that
    about 20 years is the "normal" life expectancy of a relationship. Those
    who stay together longer are the exception, not the rule. liesl
    

    re .22, you think *20 yrs* is the normal life expectancy of a
    relationship.  What an optimist you are, Liesl! :-)  I was beginning
    to think it was around 2 1/2 yrs. (since that's how long my last 2
    each lasted!)      (first one lasted 13 1/2 yrs. - seems amazing now)
    
    Lorna
    

		My humble offering is that marriages don't last for
long periods of time without changing form. From my seventeen years
I can identify at least three phases where somehow a new contract
for the relationship was derived. There was no formality to this...
it just seemed to happen. These new understandings which formed the 
underpinnings of the relationship went mostly unspoken. I expect more phases 
are coming where, if we remain a couple, new commitments based on new 
understandings will have to be made.

    		This is the process by which my marriage will last unto
    death. It may be similar to how many marriages endure over long
    periods of time.
		mac

    Mac-
    
    	You are very right!!
    
    Having been married for 6 years this year (time flies when you are
    having fun!), and also being one of the "kids" in this file, I would
    like to offer another view to balance Sandy's rather cynical viewpoint.
    
    The reasons for marraige are changing.  But there are still reasons. 
    They are just different that what they were 50 years ago.  When my
    granmother was married, it was about the only way a woman could begin
    her adult life, outside of her parents direct control and influence.
    Couple this with many other social and economic reasons, women and men
    married young (mid to late teens).  But times have changed, the world
    has changed, and women (or men for that matter) are free to be out
    there in the world, away from mom and dad, alone.  There has been a
    puch over the last 40 years to higher education (My grandad didn't
    actually know anyone who went to college out of his high school
    graduating class), and this usually calls for a 4 year moratoriam on
    marraige.  Also, as the first "blush" of teenage and early
    twentysomething passes, we each begin to see ourselves more clearly,
    and we learn to listen to both our heads and our hearts.  We learn to
    identify infatuation for what it is, and not mistake if for true love.
    All of these things combine for making the average age of marrieds
    older.  
    
    But the truth is, I attend about the same number of weddings a year as
    I always have.  The bride and groom may be older than the average was
    10 years ago (when I was declared old enough to go the a wedding), but
    the are still getting married.  
    
    The reasons for getting married are still love, companionship, a shared
    commitment to your joint future, and the knowledge that whatever comes
    along, you will not have to bear any burdens alone, and you will
    always have someone to share the joy with; etc.... THis doesn't mean that it
    always works out this way, but this is why most of us get married (I
    know very few people, even my granma's age, who said, 'Well, s/he's good
    looking, and good in the rack.  I'll marry her(im), even tho' I think
    s/he is a jerk'.
    
    The reasons for these relationships are as varied as there are people i
    the relationships.  
    
    Sue_6_years_and_going_strong!

I got married because being Rick's 'chattel' was a better deal than being Dad's.

I got married in 1974, 4 months shy of my twentieth birthday.  By some seriously
demented piece of legal logic [oxymoron?], I was considered growed up and
haired over enough to marry at 18 without parental consent, but not adult
enough to do anything else but vote.  [yes, I looked it up and got opinion
after opinion after opinion ... they all concurred.]

to quote la Marquise de Merteuil from Les Liaisons Dangeruese 'well, my dear ...
no matter how difficult a husband is, he's certainly a good deal better than
a mother ...'

Rick got married because he wanted me to stay put and had trouble understanding
that being married or not would have no effect upon my level of commitment. 
[that understanding came later]

So, 16 years ago I got married for my freedom, he got married for security.

Had the legal situation been different, we would not have married in 1974. 
Whether we would have married eventually is hard to say.  In 1974, I really
didn't get the point and I have no way of knowing if Rick would have ever
un-panicked enough to even try to understand mine.

  Annie

	Reading some of the more cynical offerings causes me to wonder...

	When things don't work out according to expectations they may become
	anomalies in our minds. Anomalies such as these create a great deal of
	physic tension...they require explanations...we must somehow reconcile
	the experience perhaps by creating a newer frame of reference. In some
	cases this means looking to the popular socio-political explanations
	of the day, many of which offer an abundance of cynicism; wrapping
	up our frustrations and angers neatly in very impressive rational
	architectures. When formed in our minds we often may mistake them
	for reality....we mistake the vessel for the wine so to speak.

	I only believe this because I've done it myself and I think I've
	observed the process in others.

	Perhaps I'm not quite right about this....


		mac

Well Sue, I've been married a little less than 5 yrs, and your reasons aren't
why I got married (I could have had all that without the legal stuff).

I got married for the presents. And the honeymoon. And because there didn't
seem to be any reason why not (except, of course, for taxes).
	Mez

    Yeah, Mez...but still.......... :-)
    
    There is still something symbolic to many of us in the formal, public
    commitment to each other.  This hasn't anything to do with the
    legalness of the union.  Two year ago I went to a friend of mines
    "wedding".  She and her lover had a lovely ceromony and reception at a
    restraunt.  The two of them weren't legally married, but they made the
    formal public commitment in the eyes of their friends and their God.
    (They couldn't be legally married, so they had everything but the legal
    license.).
    
    While I agree that you can get all the intangibles from a relationship
    outside of "marriage" (legal or not), I contend that the making of the
    covenant between two people is the important part.  If that were not
    so, then the question would be why bother to get married?  The tax
    savings are certainly offset by some of the hassles of married life.  

    Guess I'm just cynical, but I can't believe that relationships are
    forever.  I've worked hard to make myself self-sufficient and I know I
    can fend for myself.  When I'm attracted to someone it's always because
    I enjoy that person's company NOW.  Two years from now I could be a 
    very different person, who would be attracted to someone different, the 
    same with my partner.  I used to worry about dating someone, whether or
    not they'd make a good life partner.  I don't hold that criteria
    anymore, and I'm finding that in general, I'm much happier and I don't
    worry as much.
    
    I'm sure that my attitude will change as I get older, but for now I
    just want to live as much of life as I can.  I guess I'm an idealist
    but these things happen.
    
    Lisa

    It's always interesting to me, when discussing the whys of marriage,
    that historical context is somehow lost.
    
    Historically, and still in many of the world's cultures, marriage is an
    economic arrangement, not an emotional one.  If the couple is
    fortunate, they grow to love each other over time.  The *primary*
    beneficiaries of the economic arrangement are the children born to the
    union, the secondary beneficiaries are the parents.
    
    I don't believe that we generally realize what a *major* sociological
    change has occurred/is occurring as a result of reliable birth control. 
    I firmly believe that all of the economic strides which women have made
    have been contingent on the ability to choose when to have their
    children, without having to give up sex completely.  And it is the
    ability to be economically self-supporting, with some degree of
    reliability, which enable us to approach marriage as a romantic
    expression, rather than an economic one.
    
    Aliso

Yeah Sue, there is certainly something to be said for saying out loud "I plan
on sticking by you no matter what, and will work hard at our relationship".

Lisa - there's always divorce :-). 
	Mez

    Mez,
    
    I know that in a big way.....=)
    
    Lisa/ Whose parents are divorced, whose stepfather was divorced, whose
          grandfather is divorced, who's seen some wonderful marriage
          spats.  My father and grandfather absolutely refuse to get
          married again.
    

    It's funny how our early lives form these opinions and values.  Both
    Ken's parents and my parents are still married.  My grandparents and
    his all stayed married till death.  My aunt and uncle (Pat and Jerry)
    have been married for 30+ years.  My other aunt is unmarried, but both
    of the other uncles have married.  Dave and Colleen lived together for
    about 10 years, are in their early fourties, and just got married a few
    years ago.  In re-reading that, I just realized that noone in either of
    our familys have ever been divorced.  I think that must be some sort of
    record!!!!
    
    
    As I said, there is something tangible between people who make a public
    covenant.  Much the same way that we are "sworn" to tell the truth in a
    court of law, or when we undergo any type of confirmation ceremony at
    church.  It is a pact, spoke "out loud" and, in essense, we give our
    word that we will honor the covenant.  
    
    I have often wondered whether or not I would be capable of infidelity
    while I was still in my marraige.  My guess is that I would have to
    somehow break the covenant "publically" before I could do it.  What
    does this mean...I don't know!
    
    Personnally, I took a very informal (and unscientific) poll of my
    friends who are close to my age, and married.  Of all the reasons they
    gave for being married, financial security didn't get mentioned once. 
    And when they said security, I asked them to clarify.  The answers were
    more like emotional security/comfort ... I thought it was interesting.
    
    Sue

    RE: birth control
    
    I agree that this has had an enormous affect on the timing of marriage.
    When I was in high school/college, lots of people my age got married
    so as to be able to Do The Dirty Deed, whether because she didn't want
    to get Pregnant Out of Wedlock [*gasp*], because they didn't want to
    sneak around, [and you *did* have to sneak, in those days], or
    whatever.
    
    Meanwhile, over the years, the stigma of living together [Living in
    (*gasp*) Sin] has also decreased, so that while you may get flak about
    it from certain quarters, you wouldn't get fired, shunned socially,
    or whatever...
    
    I don't think marrying later is such a bad thing. Gives folks a chance
    to thing it over. Then again, I don't think NOT marrying is such a bad
    thing, whether you're single, or in a relationship.
    
    --DE
    

    While I feel that marrying later or earlier in life is a personal
    choice between the parties involved and only between them even if they
    seek out side advice, I personally am glad I got married at 21. The
    marriage only lasted 10.5 years and I will not under any circumstances
    consider remarrying. I'm glad my 2 children will be out of school while
    I'm still in my 40's. I wasn't even born until my father was 43 and he
    had a stroke at 52 and sort of vegged for 17 years. I did not get a
    strong father-figure while growing up and feel I missed out on
    something. It's taken me a lot of years to stop being a jerk, if I'm
    even all the way there yet. I kinda doubt it. I'm not about to screw it
    up by subjecting a potential life partner to emotional strain and pain
    while I'm still working on me. Maybe when I'm 89 I'll be set. Hey, that
    will be really later huh? :-)
    
    Phil

    hmmm, 
    
    reasons i have not married? in the past, i would have nervously laughed
    and have said i was grateful it hadn't worked out with my earlier
    partner(s) or i would be divorced by now. 
    
    but i have chosen a path that led me to the place i am now: i am in a
    seriously wonderful relationship without children in my future, my
    partner has been married and has grown children.  we are VERY happy as
    is.  i don't feel less-loved not being married.  
    
    i also understand that my partner was married a long while and is not
    anxious to do so again.  it will be interesting to see if we are still
    unmarried_buddies 30 years from now, but there's plenty of time to see
    how the hand plays out when you are not watching a clock.
    
    i would like to only marry once.