Is Marriage Necessary?

I recently watched a debate unfold and both sides made valid points based on what they each valued, but I couldn’t help but draw a conclusion about “Love and Marriage,” that peaked my curiosity. Here’s my conclusion:  I think most couples don’t argue about love; They argue about what love means in real life.

We all know long-term relationships that seem to work and both parties are happy. But, what happens when, after years together, those same two people realize they want two different things?

One person says, “Marriage matters to me” and the other says, “We already have everything that matters.” Now, love isn’t the question anymore, instead, the definition of love is.

So, where the heck do they go from there?!

Two People, Two Meanings

For one person, marriage is not just a ceremony. It’s being chosen publicly, legally, and intentionally. It’s the difference between “we’re together” and “this is my family.”

For the other, love feels complete without paperwork. Commitment is already there. Loyalty is already there. The relationship is already functioning, so from their perspective, what exactly is marriage adding?

Now one person is speaking emotionally, and the other is speaking practically.

And if you’re wondering, I don’t actually believe that either person is wrong (maybe wrong for each other if they can’t get on common ground), but they are not talking about the same thing. 

We’ll get to that, just follow me for a moment.

To Understand the Present, You Have to Look Back 

History is often the key we need to plug in so we can recognize patterns and better understand the present.  In the past, marriage meant something different depending on the lens you’re looking at it with.

For example, marriage between enslaved people was not legally recognized. Families could be separated at any moment. Partners could be sold. Children could be taken. And yet, enslaved people still “married” anyway. Maybe because it was one of the few things the system could not fully take from them.

In that context, marriage became an act or resistance, declaration of dignity, a way to create family in a system designed to destroy it and a spiritual covenant that didn’t require legal or global recognition.

Later, after slavery, legal marriage became something to claim. Not something to question.

It meant finally being recognized. Protected. Counted.

What Marriage Used to Be (And Why It Happened Faster)

If you look at traditional Western structures, marriage also served a different purpose.

Think Bridgerton (if you’ve seen it)…Marriage didn’t used to be this long, drawn-out question. Not because people loved harder, but because the system required it.

Historically, marriage was economic survival, property and inheritance structure, social legitimacy, sometimes protection, especially for women and children.

Women had very limited options for working & supporting themselves. Even if they wanted to leave & were accepting of the social consequence, surviving after a divorce meant becoming a second-class citizen.

Divorce was highly frowned upon and could alienate you from society. In 1969, California became the first U.S. state to permit no-fault divorce.

At this point, I think the answer to “What Changed” is obvious.  Today, people can live together, share finances, raise children, build a life all without getting married. Of course, now marriage feels optional.

Just because something feels optional emotionally doesn’t mean it’s optional structurally.

What Marriage Actually Is

Marriage is three things happening at once:

1. Emotional meaning - A declaration. A choice. A sense of being “fully chosen.”

2. Social recognition - Family, community, and culture now treat the relationship differently.

3. Legal structure – The most underestimated.

Marriage is a contract. It creates rights, protections, and obligations without you having to negotiate each one individually.

What Marriage Is…For Women

Unfortunately, women often carry the weight of this conversation differently. Not just emotionally, but socially and structurally.

You’ve heard the sayings: “Why buy the milk when you’re getting the cow for free?” or how about the strong assumption that, “If he wanted to, he would,” or my favorite ridiculous and nosey question, “You’ve been with him this long and still not married?”

One partner may see marriage as unnecessary, the other, often the woman, is navigating the social judgment, questions and assumptions about her value, assumptions about her standards (usually that they are low), and pressure about time, fertility, and long-term security.

The reality is that women are more likely to pause or sacrifice career growth in long-term relationships, take on more unpaid labor, and become primary caregivers.  So when marriage is brought up, it is not always about a title. Sometimes it is about protection for what is already being invested.

So… Who’s Right?

What looks like a disagreement about marriage is really a disagreement about meaning, intention, and trust. The person who says “we don’t need marriage” is not wrong.

You can absolutely have deep love, loyalty, commitment, and a shared life without ever getting married.

The person who says “marriage matters” is not wrong either because they are not just asking for love; They are asking for security, recognition, permanence, alignment between words and structure.

Sometimes, they are asking a deeper question: “If we already have everything… why not take the step that reflects that?”

For those of you with the argument that “Publicly, means you just want a show”

When someone says:

• “You just want a title”

• “You want validation from other people”

• “It doesn’t mean security, people get divorced all the time”

They’re not just disagreeing. They’re redefining your desire in a way that minimizes it, to now its “an illusion.” 

We are all aware that divorce is available and marriage doesn’t “guarantee” anything because people still leave.  However, what you’re missing is that marriage may not guarantee behavior, but it creates consequences, structure, and further accountability.

Marriage is not about a guarantee, it’s about entering into something designed to last and the intention it requires to exit.  For the most part, it changes how people approach conflict, sacrifice, and commitment.

Wanting others to know or see you as married isn’t just about recognition or “external validation from others,” it’s how the world and society treats your relationship.  Whether you think it should be that way or not is irrelevant, the fact is, the world and society does in fact treat your relationship differently.  Specifically, in hospitals, courts, finances, emergencies, etc. 

I’m sure there are plenty of people who can verify the unfortunate experience, that without marriage, you can be everything to someone, but legally treated like you’re nothing. 

The real issue here is that recognition is not just about attention, it’s about being acknowledged for who you are in a persons life when it counts.

The Real Issue Isn’t Marriage

It’s alignment. What they may actually be saying is, “It doesn’t hold meaning for me the way it does for you.” Instead of saying that directly, one person reduces the meaning of the other person. Then, it starts to feel dismissive, not just different.

Marriage becomes a problem when one person sees it as essential, and the other sees it as unnecessary. Over time, it starts to feel like one person is asking for “too much,” and the other is withholding something “small.”

Yet, neither of those interpretations are actually accurate.

The Question That Actually Needs to Be Answered

Not “Should we get married?” But…“What does this relationship need to feel complete for both of us?”

Because if the answer is different, you’re not arguing about a wedding. You’re negotiating the foundation of your future.

Legal Reality Check (No Matter What You Choose)

I would be remiss as a lawyer if I didn’t call out this very real issue.  Whether you choose marriage or not, this is where people get caught off guard. You don’t really understand the difference between marriage and “just being together”…Until something goes wrong, or something goes right, but requires proof.

If You Are Married

You automatically have rights like:

• Inheritance (even without a will, in many cases)

• Medical decision-making authority

• Access to benefits (insurance, retirement, Social Security)

• Property division protections if things end

Marriage fills in legal gaps without you having to think about them.

If You Are Not Married

If you choose a committed relationship without marriage, you should seriously consider putting structure in place like the following:

1. Cohabitation Agreement
Who owns what? What happens if you break up?

2. Will or Trust
Without this, your partner may receive nothing.

3. Power of Attorney (Financial & Medical)
Otherwise, your partner may not be able to make decisions for you.

4. Beneficiary Designations
Retirement accounts, life insurance, etc. these override everything.

5. Property Titling
How assets are owned matters more than how long you’ve been together.

The Bottom Line…Who’s Right?

Neither and both.  One person is saying “Love is enough for me,” and the other is saying “Love should be expressed in a specific way that creates security, alignment, and recognition.” Those are not the same definition of love.

Love is personal. Commitment is emotional. And protection is structural.

And a lot of people don’t realize the difference until they’re standing in a moment where it matters like no one in the doctor’s office is listening to you or even allows you to be in the room, or you’re not allowed to make funeral arrangements. The question is not who’s right, it’s whether the two definitions can coexist without resentment.

Love answers how you feel. Marriage answers how you are protected. And those are not the same questions, no matter how much people try to make them one.

No matter which side you agree with, it does beg the question: If it truly means nothing… why is it such a firm no?

Surely something that has no value shouldn’t create that much resistance.