I don't really understand getting married

This.

As everyone has said, it's both a legal and social contract. If you don't want the legal protection it gives you, that's fine. But then, don't be one of those unmarried people who complain that they are not allowed to inherit from a partner, or have rights to their partner's pension, or have rights in relation to children, or allowed to make decisions about a partner's health and social care etc. If you don't make the commitment, then you don't get the protection.

We only got married as I felt it would give me more legal protection and felt vulnerable after the birth of my daughter (32 years ago now!)

We didn’t bother with rings which surprises some people that I still don’t have a wedding ring but I’m not into jewellery or symbolism.

@JasmineTea11

Sorry was my comment any reflection on those that choose to have a LTR or choose to get marry? I think you’re projecting.

So you’re actively setting yourselves up to pay inheritance tax unnecessarily @JasmineTea11? That’s the one benefit marriage confers that you can’t replicate. Oh, and I wouldn’t be entitled a survivor’s pension if we weren’t married. Two very practical, unromantic reasons for it.

So what you mean is that you don't understand the point of having a wedding, not marriage. The wedding is the party, the marriage is a legal contract that protects both parties and children. Having said that, I will only have one marriage. I don't see the point of doing it again (Im still married!) . I have my own home, I'm too old to have more children. I'm not going to hand their inheritance over to some other bloke and his family for nothing!

You're talking about a wedding. A marriage is a legal agreement which protects the lower earner if they make sacrifices to have children.

Solgrass you sound very patronising.

I'm 50 and I don't see the point of marriage. Been in a LTR nearly 20 years, got wills set up so we manage each others assets till they are passed to our kids. DP and I have our own homes, money and pensions.

You don't have to marry to have security for yourself and DC. There are other options nowadays.

We could go our separate ways today easily, but we don't, and that's the commitment. There's no need for a legal contract, necessarily.

The approach to marriage should therefore be pretty binary if you are a woman. SAHM: absolutely essential. Working: don’t touch with a barge pole.

This is also a daft take.

For one thing, you're conflating working with being the breadwinner. They're not the same thing. Lots of women work and earn less than their male partners, sometimes because of the impact of pregnancy and childbearing given that we live in a society where maternity discrimination is common.

You're also leaving out all the other areas where marriage affects your legal and financial position. A couple where the woman works might need to consider inheritance tax, for example.

Why did I want to get married? Act of commitment. And legal protection esp as an immigrant to my husband’s country.
Don’t confuse marriage with a wedding.

You're confusing weddings and being married. Getting married doesn't necessitate a wedding and is a smart thing to do for security reasons - in the right relationship of course.

If I were you OP, I'd have a read of the Relationship's board here on MN and then I think you would have a better understanding of the point of marriage. Especially if you are planning on having children and taking a step back in your career to raise them.

Marriage is increasingly a millstone around the neck financially for women and it rarely makes them happy.

@Thepeopleversuswork Can I ask how you know this please, as it sounds interesting? When you say "rarely" what sort of proportion are you talking about?

I got married because I wanted more security for myself and my children, and to make a commitment to my partner. I had a wedding because I wanted to celebrate making a new family with my family and my husband's family. They never get together, and that way they could all meet and have a great time together. It was very informal and we didn't spend 2 hours taking photos like some weddings I've been to, so we really got to spend time with our guests.

As others have said there are many reasons it does offer more legal protection to both people.
For children gives automatic rights to dads in the worst case
It makes someone an automatic next of kin.
Tax wise - tax relief if basic payer and 1 isn't earning above 12k.
Money wise things can be cheaper - insurance used to be if married.
Inheritance tax

From a personal perspective I'm married because I wanted to show that ultimate commitment. Before I met my husband I thought it was a expensive bit of paper and what's the point. That changed with him.

@OpusGiemuJavlo

However the contractual pooling of resources provides stability in several ways -
If one member of the partnership is going to focus on raising children for a few years their earnings potential will massively decrease. That's an incredibly risky thing to do as it could mean poverty for the rest of their life without the support of a partner who has not had their earnings potential damaged in this way.

This is correct and it works well if the breadwinner is the man. But the economics of it have changed in recent decades and the elephant in the room is that it only really works when it’s the woman who stops working.

Because a vanishingly few men are ever prepared to do a proper job of caring for children and the home. Men in general are terrible at this and resentful that they have to do it. (Yes NAMALT etc but in general).

So in practice if you have a working mother and a non working or less actively working father as is becoming more common, you almost invariably have a cocklodger situation. The fathers almost never do enough of the “wife work” to justify being “kept”. Marriage simply entrenches the financial protection of a man who is not “earning” it and undermines the woman’s assets. It’s a massive transfer of value from a working woman to a non working man. Given that the women are usually the ones who end up caring for children post divorce it’s also incredibly risky for the children.

In this situation marriage is a thoroughly dangerous idea: it’s a cocklodger’s charter.

The approach to marriage should therefore be pretty binary if you are a woman. SAHM: absolutely essential. Working: don’t touch with a barge pole.

I saw Sandi Toksvig talking about gay marriage.

She was talking about two men, I'll call them A and B. When they got together A's parents disowned him.

20 years later A was in hospital, coming to the end of his life. B contacted his parents.

The parents turned up at the hospital, had security remove B, refused permission to visit and also banned him from A's funeral.

They could do this because they were next of kin, not the person he had loved and lived with for decades.

But you have hit on something quite important here: Other than insurance for a SAHM there really is very little point to marriage nowadays.

This is a daft take.

Marriage is a legal contract, and it puts both parties in a different position in relation to both each other and the state than unmarried cohabitation does. There are lots of ways this makes a difference. You can't possibly say there's little point in any of them without knowledge of a particular couple's circumstances and priorities.

Other than insurance for a SAHM there really is very little point to marriage nowadays.

There's still a massive social perception that marriage is a higher form of commitment. If an unmarried couple with children announce they are separating, you will still see plenty of people shrug and note that they never actually got married.

Among some middle & upper classes divorce is still quite frowned upon. DH works with a lot of minor landed types and a huge number of them are married but unofficially separated, but they don't divorce.

For us it was about being married, not getting married. Which is why we buggered off and did it in a registry office with two randoms pulled in as witnesses.

It’s a legal contract that provides protection to the spouse who sacrifices their earning potential / gives up work to do all the domestic labour.

For some it’ll be tradition, the right thing to do, only thing that signals proper commitment and it’s a religious ceremony.

Marriage isn’t something I am bothered about but I absolutely understand why a couple would want to.

It's a legal contract that protects both parties. Over the marriage, assets are built up. Houses and cars and businesses can be bought and developed. If the marriage ends the marital assets are split up 'fairly' between the parties involved. If you live with your partner and split up it isn't as simple. If the house is in your name you can often keep it and they have to move out and start again. If the car is in your name you can keep it. If the business is on your name you can keep it. If the savings are in your name you can keep them. People can be left with nothing.
It also protects in case of death. If your partner dies and the house is in their name the house goes to their next of kin unless they have made a will stating otherwise. If decisions about their medical care are required at the end of their life, their next of kin will be consulted, not their unmarried partner. There are countless other implications of not being married that can be mitigated against with the right legal preparations or you can just get married and get all the legal protections automatically with your 'just a piece of paper'.
It's also a statement to each other that you both intend to make a life together.

That's a very simplistic view. Women have to have career breaks to have children in the first place. With increasing childcare costs, women then often are the ones who take the job that fits round the family, rather than build the career. So not the same opportunities to 'protect themselves financially"
Also I suggest that anyone who doesn't understand the impact after death googles Sandi Toksvig talking about gay marriage. The same situation applies to heterosexual marriage too.