To want to get married?(57 Posts)
My DP and I have been together for just over 10yrs, he treats my DD as his own and we have 3 sons together. We have our ups and downs but as yet, no sign of us calling it a day and we are in the main happy together I think. In the early stages of our relationship, we talked about marriage, seemed a given that we would do it..along came the kids and it has been put on the back burner.
I am 35 this year and, half jokingly suggested we set a date..be married before I am 40. I am now half crying at the response..which was basically a massive fob off along the lines of 'well, something to think about, lots of money etc etc'. I responded with 'all I am saying is that we either want to get married or we don't, so if its the former then we can at least look at the feasibility of it'. I was not expecting the silence and cut off of conversation that followed.
My DP is a straightforward man, if he wanted to marry me then he would have said so. AIBU to be quietly devastated? Where does it leave me when my partner of a decade doesn't want to commit to being with me forever. I am so so sad.
I am distracted from my sadness by conclusionjumpers forcing of her DH.....are we talking bound, gagged and the vows said BeetleJuice style (please say so, that would be AWESOME)
Maybe not quite that dramatic, Queen but he really didn't want a wedding. He said he was prepared to go to see a lawyer to have docs drawn up to put me in the exact same position as being married, but did not want to be all conventional and get married (like he was che guevara riding across the plains or something ). Anyway I whipped up a nice wedding in a couple of weeks with a reception at our house and in the end he trotted to the registry office like a total puppy with me in the morning, stopping only at Argos to buy a ring
Gosh second thread like this I've read today.
I can sympathise to an extent, lots of wedding talk at the beginning 6 years on nothing. If it's what's important to you than you need to explain it to him.
Things have changed for me I've decided I don't want to marry into his family so would say no should he ask. But it still doesn't stop me being sad at no beautiful dress or engagement ring.
Call me old fashioned but he saw fit and was happy to have 3 sons with you. Wonder why is he balking at the whole marriage thing. Does he not see you as marriage material? (rhetorical question).
You deserve that nice ring and fancy dress. Hope you can have The Chat with him.
I know I am old fart but in my day people got married THEN had the kids. Don't know why any woman would have 3 kids with a man who could marry her but chooses not to.
Has this not come up before, 10 years and 3 kids is a long time?
As you have said it could just be a small affair. I would have thought it would be easier to get married than have a solicitor draw up documents to put you in the same legal position.
My granny says marriage is the price men pay for sex, and sex is the price women pay for marriage.
She's getting on a bit though and probably doesn't realise times have changed.
In the old days, he would have married you first but now you have a struggle on your hands to get him up the aisle.
You're entitled to want to get married, but you'll need a better argument than wanting "commitment" if you're to change his mind, if he's had 3 kids with you which is far more commitment and infinitely less reversible than a marriage could ever be.
It will almost definitely be easier to get married than acquire the other legal protections with a solicitor, yes.
I think you are entitled to get married, particularly if you share assets. Why should you not have legal protection in life? Although clearly having children with someone is a commitment, it's not necessarily a commitment to the relationship.
Thank you all for the constructive comments. Glares being shot in the direction of the person who essentially called me a fool for having children out of wedlock. ..by all means tell me how to undo that fact and get it 'right'.
I will be having the conversation at the weekend, will report back for anyone that is interested
I did read a piece that said statistically, people who marry after cohabiting longer than two years are more likely to split up. This is because one party is pressurising the other party and it is generally a fix or cure for something that is wrong in the relationship.
10,000 posters will now come and give anecdotal evidence to the contrary. But I said statistically.
In the old days, he would have married you first but now you have a struggle on your hands to get him up the aisle
Again and again, I repeat my nans mantra "he wont buy the cow if he's getting the milk for free". I never understand women who plan families with a man who won't commit and marry them in the first place. It leaves the woman very vulnerable.
I can't believe people think that having children means he's committed to you. Where's any evidence that that is true?
In fact men are more likely to see women and children as a "package" meaning if he leaves you he'll leave them as well. At least he'll be expected to provide for them (unlike he'll have to do for you)
Some people do have valid ethical objections to marriage. That's fair enough (I know of two or three couples who have been together for 30/40 years without marrying; they're all left-wing hippy types who object to the institution of marriage; all are happy together and legally protected etc).
However that doesn'[t seem to be the case here. It could be that the man doesn't realise about the legal implications and/or is reluctant to go through the palaver of a wedding. But unfortunately it could also be that he still feels, at the back of his mind, even after 10 years and three children, that the OP 'will do for now' and he wants to keep his options that tiny bit open in case Keira Knightly or whoever suddenly finds herself single and in the same pub as him.
Just want to spell out at this point that it's impossible to get all the legal protections offered by marriage without getting married. It's been touched on earlier in the thread but not sure if it's been made entirely clear. There are some things, such as the IHT exemption for spouses, that you either get married and acquire or you do without.
OP I can't emphasise enough- it doesn't have to be marriage, but if it isn't a trip to the registry office it has to be a trip to the solicitor. I can give more information on the legal protections if you like, and I'm a solicitor, but that's no substitute for advice that's been properly tailored to your circumstances.
I forced Dh to marry me
How exactly? Does that mean your marriage is invalid as it was done via duress? ;)
OP show him this and tell him marriage is for the children's sake.
I think the most valid point made on this thread is to differentiate between whether he objects to the wedding, or the legal aspects of a marriage. There is a vast difference between objecting to a wedding day and the legal contract of a marriage.
As a general rule, The Alpha Parent is best left out of sensible discussions...
You said you 'half jokingly suggested' ?
It doesn't sound like you were half joking - It is serious and obviously matters to you.
If your DH is a 'straight forward' man then I should think his response was more to do with cost and wondering how marriage would change anything?
You really do need to be clear about how you feel because men cannot guess!
Tell him you would like to get married. If he is vague,..ask him why and ask him also what has changed since he seemed keen in the past.
You do have to think about how you will feel about the future if he says he doesn't want to get married. Him saying no does not necessarily mean he does not love you - but its a question you need to ask if he does refuse!
Chunderella What's wrong with the TAP article I linked to?
Well first of all, the fact that it's written by TAP. I haven't yet worked out whether she's a troll or a twat, but she's one of the two. She either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the difference between correlation and causation, and thinks that people who point out the distinction are committing a logical fallacy. Which is simply factually incorrect. Her credibility is zero.
This particular article is quite vintage TAP in that it's an extremely selective rendering of the literature. A bibliography salad, some people call it. And some of its ingredients aren't even up to date! She has taken what is a very complex area of research, and dumbed it down to support her own preconceived notions. She 's very poor at understanding which issues might be down to social factors. And even when she does acknowledge the possibility of confounding factors (as she does here with DV in marriage and underreporting) she breezily claims that the particular piece of research controls for them, without acknowledging the views of those in the field who consider it to be impossible to adequately control for. This is why it wouldn't be a good idea to show this article to anyone whom you're trying to make a point to- it's very easy to pull to shreds.
So to get back on topic, if OP does want to make the argument that marriage is better for children, she's better focusing on their own individual situations and how it would benefit their DC. For example, the possibility of widowed parents pension, which they won't get if unmarried.
thinks that people who point out the distinction are committing a logical fallacy.
I think you must be referring to her recent Mommy Wars article - which never mentioned fallacies, it spoke of 'tricks'. It sounds like you're confused.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.