I don't really understand getting married

1. Its a legal contract, there are protections and rights in the UK associated with marriage, including inheritance implications.

1. Socially, its a public commitment to the permanence of a relationship, for better or worse, in the absence of other ties like shared mortgages or children. Its very telling when someone is reluctant to enter into it. Totally understand people who don't want a big wedding, but to go and get married in a registry office is not an expensive thing.

Marriage effectively creates a contract between two people to share all financial resources. Prior to some relatively recent law changes this was achieved by making the woman effectively the "property" of the man and women couldn't do anything like open a bank account or take out a loan, which has thankfully changed.

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.
Life includes various disasters which can strike anyone - redundancy, bereavement, cancer etc. Locking into a partnership that is committed to being together "for better or for worse" means you face these as a team and are therefore stronger.

Marriage is valuable because the "in love" part of any relationship will always fade after years of comfortable familiarity and when life hands you the most difficult challenges you are unlikely to still be "in love". People are fallible. Things fall apart. Sometimes the fact that you know you made a legal commitment is the only thing you can hold onto. Sometimes even that isn't enough and divorce happens but at least when it does happen the commitment to share resources still holds and the assets of the partnership are divided fairly between the two people.

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

There’s also the small matter that if you have reasonable assets marriage means a significant saving in inheritance tax.

It's such a shame they never invented some kind of engine to search the Internet with when you're looking for information isn't it?

We got married 44 years ago 5 months after meeting purely because we were madly in love and wanted to be together (we didn't want to live together).

We had a very small wedding which cost practically nothing as we had no money. We wanted to just go to the register office with our parents and siblings and then go for a meal but got pushed into having a reception by DH's mum. We didn't particularly want any presents although the ones we got were much appreciated.

We got married because we loved each other and want to spend the rest of our lives together. The legal and practical aspects never even crossed our minds.

44 years on and we are still very much in love and very happy

I understand it's important if you're older, as death benefits are quite different for married people and single. Inheritance tax is not payable by legal spouses.

If we talk about it purely in practical terms. It’s give you legal protection, for the one who gives up / reduces work etc when children are had. There is no protection when not married. One person could save a million, the other would not be entitled to a penny if they split. Married, they would be.

Well that summed it up nicely......you did make me smile Zafira 😂

The point is that it provides protection for anyone who takes time out of work to raise children if the parents later separate.

If you are married and get divorced, assets (property, pensions, other money/investments) are legally owned by both parties and the SAH contribution will be recognised in any settlement.

If you aren't married and separate, the parent who stayed at home and didn't earn and contribute to their pension would be entitled to child support and a share of joint property such as the house, but no compensation for lack of career or pension.

You say you don't understand getting married but it seems to be the event of having a wedding that you have issue with. They're two separate things.

Thus - plus religion for me, DH not religious.

No way would I have had a child without the legal protection of marriage.

As others have said it’s a legal contract which governs the distribution of assets within a partnership. If you don’t work or plan to stop working for a period of time while you raise children marriage is extremely important as it limits the extent to which you can be shafted financially if your partner runs off with a younger partner etc.

But you have hit on something quite important here: Other than insurance for a SAHM there really is very little point to marriage nowadays. And in fact if you have your own money you should avoid it like the plague. Marriage is increasingly a millstone around the neck financially for women and it rarely makes them happy.

Its an outdated and largely obsolete institution in my view and if more women looked after themselves financially we wouldn’t need it at all.

Compare the legalities of marriage, civil partnership, or nothing (no such thing as common-law partner in law in much of the UK) and decide for yourself what you think the point is.

It doesn't specifically protect women. Had I been married, it would have been to my detriment when we broke up, my ex would have had the protection.

It's a part of human culture for milennia

It's a firm commitment to one other person

It demonstrates that commitment to your community

There's a whole heap of legal stuff that goes with it, without which I was not prepared to even think about having a child.

It's gives me certain rights if my husband were to become ill, or pass away ( otherwise his daughter who won't speak to him has those rights) it means I own half the house and assets as his wife and I love being his wife. Mrs especially when travelling together feels nice.
We didn't have a huge party either it wasn't about the day but about the rest of our lives

There's the legal and the social.

Both legally and socially, there is no doubt that DH and I are each other's partner, next of kin etc.

Socially, our marriage is the foundation on which our family is built, the family in which our children are being raised.

Legally we are committed to each other, and that gives both obligation and protection.

Legally, I wouldn't be without the security of marriage.

Socially I wouldn't be without the commitment of marriage, and our wedding (small enough to be MN-approved, but it was a destination wedding which obviously makes me a terrible person) was part of the social side of that - committing in front of our loved ones and then celebrating with them.

I agree your OP is very naive, perhaps intentionally so.

I think you are thinking of a wedding. Do you actually not understand the concept of marriage? Here is an explanation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

It was important to me so that if one of us dies, the other doesn't need to sell our family home to pay inheritance tax. That alone gives more stability for DS. We already planned to stay together forever, and share finances, so those parts weren't even a question. Aa the higher earner who is supported by DH doing more pick-ups etc, I believe that agreeing to share is fair. The wedding was something our families wanted, and contributed towards, so that was nice.

If you don't have someone who you see as a partner for all your life, and you don't need financial protection for your children, then it is pointless, yes.

A wedding and marriage are not the same. Marriage is about a legal commitment which offers protection typically to the women, and particularly if the women chooses to reduce her own income because of being a parent. I wouldn’t have kids unless married. We did have a typical wedding, it was lovely to have all our friends and family together, particularly just after Covid. But we’d already been together 10 years and we knew being married was so much more than the 1 day

TBH I felt like this when I was in my 20s. Then got married at 30 not really understanding the contractual side of it. As it turns out the contract is not at all beneficial to me as both the sole earner and the mother, but fortunately it hasn’t been an issue.

I do feel that when you apply for the license it should be spelled out in legal terms.

All sorts of reasons, from legal to lovey dovey. I was with my partner 12 years before we got married, we didn't necessarily believe we had to but our families are from opposite ends of the country so wanted to get them together once in our life, and I got a really good deal of essentially being able to use my workplace free as a venue (and it's a historical palace😂) We splurged on the food and drink but other things werent hugely pricey as wed rarher soend monry on travelling etc.
I kept my last name and we thought nothing could make us feel closer after an extremely happy 12 years, but to our surprise we did! Even found ourselves tearing up during the vows, and it was such a fun day, everyone had a great time so its one of those lovely anchors in time and life for the family.

For me it was a symbol that I felt differently about DH from any other man. I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him and believed we stood a good chance of doing that.

Contractually, I understand it protects women better than just living together. A friend gave up a high flying career to raise two DC, one SEN. Her husband's career rocketed, and now he's left. She gets half his very generous pension. Not sure if it would be that straightforward if they'd not married.

OP - do you mean having a wedding rather than getting married?

My husband and I eloped, with two Mumsnet witnesses and our children present. I didn't want to spend thousands on one day.

But marriage, with its legal protections was and is important to me.

You’re confusing marriage with weddings.