Should non-traditional partnerships be given the same benefits as romantic relationships? In this story, the "couple" in question are legally married platonic life partners which, tbh, is pretty f*cking cool. But the woman's brother, who is getting married, disagrees and is opposed to their "illegal" partnership. The two have another sister who is on the side of her sister and sister's partner—and now she wants to skip the wedding in solidarity.

What a mess! Luckily, the website Reddit provides a forum where complete strangers can advise us on how to best handle the complicated nightmares that can arise when dealing with our next-of-kin. The woman posted her story on Reddit's "Am I The A**hole?" forum, asking for advice on how to handle this messy situation.

The woman explains that her sister, Beth, has lived with her friend John for 15 years. They are legally married for the benefits but are technically "platonic life partners."

My sister Beth has lived with her friend John for the past fifteen years. They are platonic life partners, they both own their house, share finances, and are planning retirement together. They got legally married a few years ago because they wanted all the rights and benefits of being next of kin. They literally just signed the paperwork and that was it. They don't wear rings or call each other husband and wife.

The two began their non-traditional partnership after going through a traumatic event gave them both PTSD. So they moved in together for emotional support.

The backstory for how they ended up living together is that Beth and John suffered a very traumatic experience that gave them both PTSD. They originally moved in together temporarily for emotional support, and also because Beth had a temporary disability and needed help. They decided that they liked being together and seem to have a good life. Not everyone needs a traditional marriage. Maybe things would have been different if the traumatic event hadn't happened, but that's irrelevant. Beth is happy now, and that's what matters.

Their brother, Ben, dislikes John and doesn't approve of their situation. He believes they're "co-dependent" and that the marriage is "illegal."

My brother Ben started to dislike John after Beth decided to stay with him. Ben is convinced that John has a hold over Beth and stopped her from dating other people. I don't think there's any evidence of that, Beth and John have been friends for almost 30 years and there's never been any sign that John is manipulative. Beth has a job, other friends, and does plenty on her own, so I don't agree when Ben says they are co-dependent. Ben also thinks that their marriage is illegal, which it's not. Fortunately, Ben usually keeps his feelings quiet, since he knows he's outnumbered.

Now Ben is getting married and refuses to invite John since he is "just a friend" of Beth's and their marriage is "fake."

Ben is getting married, and he and his fiancee said that they were only inviting partners of people in serious relationships, not casual dates or random plus ones. That's fair, except that John isn't invited. Ben said that since John is "just a friend" and that their marriage is "fake" he wouldn't invite John.

The woman tried to convince Ben it was wrong to exclude John since he's always been invited to family events, and it makes Beth happy when he's around. Ben wouldn't back down.

I tried to convince Ben that it was wrong to exclude John. John has been invited to every family event since he and Beth started living together and it would be a slap in the face to decide he doesn't count. He said John and Beth's relationship was creepy, and I pointed out to him that we should be glad Beth is even alive, and that we shouldn't judge what makes her happy, since we can't imagine what Beth has been through. I reminded him that Beth and John's friend who initially survived the incident is dead from drug addiction, and that if John helped Beth be happy and avoid that, than we should be glad he's there. Ben accused me of being emotionally manipulative and wouldn't back down.

Now Beth won't go to the wedding since John's not invited, and her sister (the original poster) wants to ditch it too in solidarity, which means her husband and kids also wouldn't go.

Beth won't go to the wedding if John isn't invited, and I'm considering not going either because I feel like I should be supportive of her. My husband won't go if I don't want to, and I think my kids won't go without us.

Would I be wrong for not going, and my family likely not going either? I'd hate to miss a family wedding, but I also don't want to act like I'm okay with another family member being left out for no good reason.

So is the original poster in the wrong here? Obvi not.

Commenters all seem to agree that the brother is being the a**hole here, and that the sister has every right to boycott his wedding.

Many are pointing out that it's just plain weird and wrong for Ben to oppose Beth and John's relationship so vehemently, especially given that they have a shared traumatic history and clearly depend on one another.

ZeusMN85 writes:

This is a very weird hill for your brother to decide he wants to die on. If he wants to make a point about how he feels about Beth and John's relationship, this is not the right way to do it. If you and the rest of your family view John as a part of your family, and that by excluding him your brother is excluding a member of your family, then by all means boycott his wedding.

pcnauta agrees, writing:

"This is a very weird hill for your brother to decide he wants to die on."

Agreed.

And, sadly, there is really only one thing to do when someone does this...

...give him what he wants (i.e. to 'die' on that hill)

He is willing (and possibly wanting) to cut himself off from his entire family just because he has a bug up his butt about his sister's partner.

So accept his offer and cut him off.

And not just his wedding.

The whole family should go NC with him unless/until he apologizes.

Many commenters believe that John and Beth's relationship is valid even if it's not sexual or romantic.

cyanocittaetprocyon writes:

Its amazing that they've been together for the past 15 years, and your brother still only considers them "friends". John is as much a part of the family as any other spouse. If John isn't invited, this would seem like something worth boycotting a wedding for.

ThePointIsMoo writes:

Right? Sure they’re “friends” but they’re also legally married and have lived together for over a decade. Is the difference that they’re (presumably) not in a sexual relationship? What a weird/creepy distinction.

And KahurangiNZ writes:

Not to mention that a good relationship is far far more about the friendship than the sex. It's not all that uncommon to not be getting much or even any sex at all at that point (15 years together), depending on where life has taken them (kids, work etc). Heck, there are asexual/aromantic people who get married and live long happy lives together without EVER having that side of a relationship.

If OP's brother has genuine concerns that the friend/hubby is preventing her from forming other romantic/sexual relationships, he should be showing the family PROOF. Suspicions are not sufficient.

These are all really great and interesting points. Aren't most marriages pretty much platonic partnerships after a number of years, anyway? Beth and John are couple #goals.

Woman wants to ditch brother's wedding after he refused to invite sister's platonic life partner.