seansanders38028:

That's why I referred to her first wedding day, the one that resulted in a 2-month marriage. I don't think that guy got anything.

In any case while I generally agree with your point, it seems to take legal commitment as the sole type of commitment (in a way not too dissimilar from SusanM's too-casual dismissal of the importance of legal commitment, in favor of emotional commitment). We are talking in a general way about who is more "committed", which to me means we have to weigh the various kinds of commitment.

If everyone would be super-rigorous about terms, none of this would be any fun:

1. Marriage is a greater legal commitment. Cohabitation does under some circumstances create some legal commitments, but not at the level marriage does.

2. The fact of being married is not in itself absolute proof that the couple in question is strongly emotionally committed.

3. Some unmarried couples are more emotionally committed to each-other than some married couples.

4. Most, but not all, unmarried people who choose to get married do so as either a step-up in commitment level (definitely legal, but typically also emotional), or as a symbol of a step-up in commitment level.

5. some people who choose to get married do so for reasons other than emotional commitment (SusanM is a self-described example, as would be green card marriages).

6. the people described in 5 are inevitably stepping up their legal commitment level, so in that sense their "commitment" is on an overall/aggregate/average basis is increasing when they get married, even though their emotional commitment is not.

But that's not nearly as lively as broad-stroke assertions, is it?

In the specific case at hand, the LW is sensing something, and on balance I think she is probably right, and should figure out this relationship before buying the real estate.