What is the security in being married?

[Gracelet]

I always read about it on here, people saying that they want the security of marriage - but what is that?

For me, the security is in knowing that if we split up there is due process to be followed in dividing our assets fairly. If one of us dies the other doesn’t have to worry about losing their home (there’s a long thread on this currently). We’d get each other’s pensions/death in service benefits. We’re automatically considered next of kin for healthcare etc - no worries about being able to make decisions for each other, funeral arrangements etc. (Not a cheerful thought but important.)

And just generally being socially accepted as a unit is quite comforting and reassuring.

They could mean it as being in a long term, committed relationship cemented by law. They could also mean the legal protection. If you're married you should be entitled to assets such as part of the house and pension.

It's the security of financial stuff and being each others next of kin basically.

Not paying IHT or CGT if you inherit/are given money by your spouse. If die intestate spouse can deal with and inherit estate (up to a limit). Plus what precious posters have said.

It reminds me of the Hes just not that into you film.

If someone doesn’t want to marry me then they aren’t someone I want to live with/have kids with/share money with.

The legal side of it is very important too.
Inheritance tax. Pensions etc

@Gracelet , this is a decent summary: https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2018/06/martin-lewisis-there-any-point-in-being-married-/

I know someone whose unmarried partner died last year. She's now having to sell the home they bought together, and where they brought up their daughter together, to pay the inheritance tax. If they had been married she would have inherited his share tax-free.

Well it depends on your circumstances. If you have more money/assets than your partner, it may not be to your advantage to marry.

But often what happens is that the woman, if unmarried, moves in with the man. She often contributes to the mortgage but her name isn’t on it. Therefore she is paying off her partner’s debt yet has no claim on the house.

She then has children, and loses income when on maternity leave and beyond because she goes part time or becomes a stay at home mum. Pension contributions reduce or stop. Meanwhile the partner carries on working as usual.

Then the relationship breaks down, and all of a sudden the woman has no home, no claim on the house (despite paying towards it and allowing her partner to continue working by looking after his children). She has no access or right to savings or investments or pensions in his name.

Whereas if they’d been married, she would legally have a claim on the house, savings, pension, usually starting with an assumed 50/50 split.

Oh and yes, in the case of death - if married, then all assets automatically transfer to the spouse usually unless stated otherwise. Whereas an unmarried partner has no claim unless stated in a will.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

Knowing that if you split, assets must be shared.

for women who have larger assets or who earn more, they get to mitigate the risk of pregnancy and childbirth. These can greatly impact earning potential if things go awry. It has also been shown that even for higher earners, women who have children tend to see income stagnation once they become mothers. Marriage means that if they are hit hard economically by parenthood, they don’t take that hit solo.

it also signifies that you are willing to form the legal and economic contract. That simple act of wanting to be business partners has meaning in a relationship.

It’s more important where there is an existing disparity in wealth/circumstance eg he owns a house and you live in it and pay towards the mortgage, upkeep, decorating, maintaining, extending etc, paying bills and living as a partner. But if you split then you may not be entitled to any money to help you get back on your feet.

This is most important where kids are involved and you’ve given up all or part of your career development to raise them. As a married mother you’d be entitled to benefit from your husbands assets, a share of the home, any savings, pensions etc as your contribution to the family is recognised in law. As an unmarried mum the only thing you are legally entitled to is child maintenance and too many deadbeat dads manage to wriggle out of paying that so you end up with literally nothing.

I would never have kids with a man before marriage. You’re too vulnerable. It’s nothing to do with values or traditions or romance. It’s all about laying the foundations for stability and protection.

If not married the children are first in line if my husband (or me) dies.
Being married we can continue life if one of us dies.
I have a childhood friend. She lost her boyfriend very sudden. Not married. She had to sell the family home and car to sort the daughter's inheritance which went into a closed bank account.
We shared pension 50/50 if we split. We have one economy. We have been married +25 years and married before we settled for a family.

one way to make it really explicit is to consider is that even if you have two high income people, if you have a child with a disability or any kind of special needs, one parent is probably going to need to scale back work. It’s almost inevitable. It might not always be the woman. Whichever parent takes on that role is taking a risk, even if they still work part-time. doing it without being married and the guarantee of a share of the house and any pension would be insane.

I think there is a relationship security too. Making a vow in front of both families and friends is a big deal. We all know there is a way out of marriage but it's something to be taken a bit more seriously when there are vows. I think people are more accepting of bad patches and better to in laws when they are married as opposed to boyfriend girlfriend.

We had a very small wedding. I never thought about our wows as something which should prove commitment to other than the two of us. Hmm. I'll think about that point.

Death.
I was widowed young and I have lots of widowed friends now due to the charity Widowed and Young (way). You wouldn’t believe the horror stories we have where couples weren’t married and one died.
If you have children, make sure you’re married.

The Security of marriage is about doubling your chances of financial stability long-term. The brass tacks of marriage is to tie two people's financial futures together. Either both rich or both poor but working as a team. If both partners are fully employed and working for good money maybe it doesn't add much, but if misfortune strikes and one is struck down by redundancy or long term illness then the partnership is there to keep them going until they can get back up. In the absence of such misfortune the biggest benefit is if one partner is going to risk their future earning potential by taking a few years out of the workplace to raise children. Doing that without a safety net is dangerous but the marriage contract is an assurance that the partner who takes that risk will share in the prosperity of the other partner so it's less of a risk.

Life can sometimes feel like precariously balancing on one leg on a somewhat unstable pile of things that are supposed to be supportive but sometimes aren't. With a marriage (or civil partnership if you prefer) you have two of you with your metaphorical piles of support leaning against eachother and with one foot on each. Not guaranteed to be definitely stable, but more stable than the solo option.

What so many others have said.

When a couple has kids, realistically the woman will drop her hours or even stop working to care for them. If the marriage breaks down, she gets part of her husband's pension and assets to reflect that, by caring for her children, she also cared for his children for him. It's about making sure that mothers don't get fucked over by divorce.

And also yes, to prevent widows and widowers from having to sell their homes that they live in to afford to pay inheritance tax.

If either of your assets are over the Inheritance Tax threshold it matters. No IHT if you inherit from your spouse.

Shared finances, next of kin, committed to forever relationship….all the good stuff

Financial.

Somebody I used to work with wasn't married to her partner. He tragically was killed in a car crash and she could not access any of his money to pay the bills afterwards, she was in a right mess.

If you’ve read plenty of threads about it on here you’ll know why and when it matters. It’s all on here every day of the week.

The security for me mainly comes from financial security. Our assets will be shared if we ever split up, I would be able to stay in our home with our children if the worst happened and DH died, I would be entitled to his pension and other savings and not have to pay inheritance tax etc. And vice versa for DH if anything ever happened to me. There are huge legal advantages to marriage.

Also, the security from knowing that DH wanted to marry me. He wanted to enter into that legal contract together, and to stand in front of all of our friends and family and make our vows. That does mean something. I would never have had children with DH without being married first, the risk is just too great. We all know that relationships often fail but the commitment of marriage and the legal implications of it mean that I at least have as much chance of stability for my children that I can.

My husbands uncle was with his partner for 25 years but they never got married. He had a daughter from his previous marriage. They had a house with no mortgage, a few cars, a campervan etc. He had a huge pension. He died unexpectedly last year without a will, and because they weren't married it meant everything has gone to his daughter. She's legally not entitled to any of it and has had to move out of the house. If they'd been married she would be in a completely different position

Mainly beneficial if you have children together and one person contributed in non financial ways.

Eg If you gave up your career to raise the kids and your spouse fucks off and leaves you after 20 years, you get half their pension.

If youre married then the house etc are marital assets even if your contribution has been child and domestic related rather than financial and you are entitled to (as a starting point) half. Unmarried and not on the paperwork? You're fucked.

Marriage isn't the right choice for everyone but if you are going to be financially worse off as an individual because of what works best for you as a family when your relationship is good and everything's fine, then it's important to have the legal rights if it all goes tits up.

Also, inheritance tax etc

The simplicity of one contract covering a wide variety of things.

I don't think there's anything romantic about marriage. It's a legally binding contract that says if i take a financial hit for what we have agreed is best for us as a family unit and then it goes tits up... you don't get to walk away with everything.