To ask genuinely, why people don't get married?

[Lookandlearn]

if they are in a committed, permanent relationship and have children? It's a genuine question and I am happy to be ignored if it's too mosey, but gives an airing to side issues from another thread on here.

flowerpotmummy, it's great that you hold marriage in such high regard. I do too, but it isn't for me. I would be really interested to know the level of your regard for unmarried relationships. What do you think of them? I don't think your marriage is superior or inferior to my relationship, just different. But what do you think?

To be honest, I find it really sad when women find more security in marraige than they did when they were not married to the same man. I could not marry someone unless I felt that marraige didn't actually make an iota of difference to our relationship or how we feel about our relationship. So what if he has had other girlfriends but only one wife? Isnt it more about the content and meaning of the relationship than title? He could make you his wife and treat you no differently or not as well as those pevious girlfriends. I find it so saddening that people will define who they are by their marraige and a title it gives them.

Assuming that people who are not married are waiting to be asked is rediculous. Each to their own. I don't have much interest in being married not because no one has asked (I have been asked three times, my current relationship being the third) but because I see no need for it outside of legality. If I am completely certain of the person I have chosen to spend the rest of my life with, shouldn't I be more trusting of my choice and of what we have together to not need a certificate to prove something? A desire for marraige for the extra sense of security it brings show's an unconcious fear of an instability in your relationship or that you do not deep down trust your partner to work at it without obligation.

I do not judge those who want to get married too harshly because as women, from infancy we are told that it is supposed to be the most important episode of our lives. But I do think it disheartening, especially when women will judge other women who are not married as if it is because they are being rejected from spousal bliss.

If you are religious fair enough, but otherwise, there is not really an actual need is there?

Jogon I found this statement really perplexing: "that " tiny bit of security" can be a lifeline."

I truly am not trying to pick at what you have said, but can you explain what that security is a lifeline to?

imo make your own "security"
dont just marry it or abdicate your security to someone else via mariage

Yes, the perils of phones and fat fingers strike married and unmarried alike :)

Thanks for explaining that. If it's not too pushy, would you think one couple was superior out of a married one and an unmarried one who both got on equally happily and lovingly? (Superior is a terrible word, but I hope you know what I mean).

I have no problem at all with marriage and have never tried to convince anyone that marriage is A Bad Thing. Which is one of the reasons why I find it so irritating when married people insist on asserting that marriage is better for whatever reason. it's what you wanted for your family. That doesn't make it better per se. What is even more irritating is the implication by some people that I must be hiding some deep desire for marriage. And before anyone trots out the old "if you are secure in your choices, why would you care?" argument, you can be entirely secure and confident and still find it throughly annoying to be told you aren't actually what you say you are.

No word can imply permanence more than any other. A marriage can end in divorce just as a partnership can end in separation. They are just words and different approaches to life.

I don't really understand the "why not?" argument. It's not like we opted out of marriage at great effort to ourselves. We just didn't do it. My partner knows I am in it for the long haul. I don't need to make that declaration to the rest of the world. The rest of the world aren't privy to every little detail of our relationship after all. Again, it is horses for courses. If those things are important to you, go right ahead and enjoy, but they can be important to you and still unimportant to someone else.

"If you want to be together forever, mean the vows" - Flowerpot I do think you have the best intention but you don't really get it do you...

I don't really care if people are married or not. I also think the commitment thing is a MASSIVE red herring -of course people can be committed without marriage!
BUT...
I think people need to be aware that unless they go out of their way to make wills, take out joint mortgages and generally get all the legal stuff out of way, they will not be seen as a legal couple by the state and therefore not entitled to maintenance etc in event of break up.

I think this is actually correct because I would hate to live in a country where people were married by default by dint of living together. It's not up to the state to decide for the couple if they are in a legal relationship, it's up to the couple to make their own arrangements.
Although I do think that if people are going to make their own arrangements legally, it would probably be easier to be married.
When all is said and done, I think it is absolutely fine for people to live together as long as they don't expect to have any rights in relation to their partner other than those they have formalised themselves.
I've no time for those who refuse marriage and then moan about lack of legal rights. They really get on my wick; after all, when all is said and done, marriage is designed to get the legal aspects of a relationship sorted.

I agree, wamster, and was really horrified at that chap the other day (retired judge, maybe?) saying cohabiting couples should be treated as though married, because some cohabitees don't realise they don't have the same rights as married people. In that case, surely the answer is to make certain that everyone knows clearly the rights and responsibilities they would gain/lose in either scenario (ie married or unmarried) so that they are making an informed choice for themselves.

This is a really interesting thread and whilst I'm married and happy to be I'm glad that it is a choice we have and that couples are free to not be married.

I am totally baffled one thing though - why would many prefer a hetero civil partnership rather than a marriage?

We were married in a civil ceremony because we are atheists and a church wedding wouldn't mean anything to me personally. As far as I am concerned I am in a civil partnership, it isn't anything to do with any church.

Also, I get that the term 'marriage' used to mean something very different to a modern marriage re: treatment of women and so people feel negative about the 'institution' of marriage, but I don't feel in any institution or 'club'. I didn't promise to love, honour and obey, I didn't even promise to love him until death do us part. We did the quickest version and only said:

'I know of no legal reason why I BuggyBabe, may not be joined in marriage to you, DH'
And answered 'Will you, BuggyBabe, take DH to be your wedded husband?' with 'I will'.

I don't understand why a civil partnership would be any different for a hetero couple - is it just that you don't like the words marriage and wife because of what they used to denote? Its only the words that are different aren't they?

I am horrified at it too, PatientGriselda, surely the whole point of marriage is to secure certain rights? The judge had it completely wrong, his proposals (if they come into being) will only add misery to people's lives. Who's going to now try out a relationship by living together if they will be financially stung by it?
At what point does a relationship became a serious one? Stupid idea. Better to let couples explicitly declare commitment via marriage.

I'm afraid the 'piece of paper' argument is pure nonsense.
Legally, it is not. Oh yes emotionally it may mean little but legally it most certainly does.

BuggyBabe I don't get it either, surely at heart marriage is just a legal contract and everything else is subjective and in people's heads?
So what is the point of having a civil marriage for heterosexual people and a civil partnership for heterosexual people? It's pointless. BOTH will objectively mean exactly the same thing as both will give exactly same legal rights.
What a waste of time. It's not as if people have to change their names upon marriage or even call themselves 'Mrs'.

It would have been better to call civil partnerships for homosexual people 'marriage' and been done with it.

I think a civil partnership ceremony for a straight couple would be slightly different from a wedding ceremony, BuggyBabe. For one thing it is still the case in this country that a marriage takes place between a man and a woman, so it is something that you can only do if you are in a straight couple. Someone upthread said they didn't want to collude in society's oppression of those who fall outside this - I wouldn't express it quite as strongly myself but it's certainly a valid point of view that I have time for.

And it would be such bad law as well! People wouldn't know clearly what their situation was until it was put to the test - eg at what point they might be considered in a particular sort of relationship by the state, whether living together as flatmates, or flatmates who have sex once, or living together and loving each other but without having sex. Surely the only way to be certain is if there has been a specific declaration that that is the way the couple would like to be treated (for example the sort of declaration you get in a marriage ceremony).

OH and I genuinely genuinely are in agreement that we should not get married because neither of us want to ? although no one ever believes us when they challenge us about ?when we?re going to get married?. Irritatingly, they all think that I must be lying when I say that I don?t want to get married - they don?t think this about OH thought ? presumably because I?m a girl and therefore must spent every waking moment dreaming about walking up the aisle.

There?s no one big overriding reason why we don?t want to get married. There are lots of small reasons which on their own probably wouldn?t dissuade us from getting married, but their cumulative effect is enough to put us off. These are:

1. Neither of us are religious, so we don?t have this factor encouraging us that it?s the right thing to do;

1. Both of us hate being the centre of attention ? just hate it. The thought of everyone watching me just makes me cringes;

1. We just don?t want to spend the money on a wedding. I am very uncomfortable with the thought of spending money on something that I don?t really want. I know that you don?t have to spend thousands, but you do have to spend something ? even if it?s just £100. I have so much to spend money on at the moment, so wouldn?t even want to spend that little.

1. I cannot bear the thought of being the centre of family/friends-based politics which inevitably crop up in connection with weddings. I do not know a single one of my friends who haven?t become very upset at some point of their wedding planning as a result of politics and I have had first-hand experience of it with my sister?s wedding a couple of years ago. Getting embroiled in this sort of thing is of no interest to me at all.

1. Neither of us feels the need to be married to be committed. We have a lovely relationship and that?s that. After 10 years together we?re as sure as we can be that we?re ?The Ones?.

What saddens me is the fact that if we have children, we both feel that the law (or the lack of law) will force us to get married. As cohabitees we have pretty much have no rights and have agreed that marriage is the only way to ensure that the person who sacrifices their income to focus on childcare (most likely me, given OH?s slight workaholism!) will have protection. If we do have to do this, we will simply head down to the registry office with a couple of witnesses in tow and say the vows ? no pomp, no circumstance, just a marriage certificate.

Phew, essay over. Sorry that was so long!

With regards to all the finance and security side of the argument, you are suggesting that people get married to mend/avoid the problems that the institution of marriage has created.

Marriage created the idea of a woman being financially dependent on a man. First it created the idea of wife as property, the rule of thumb, people as chattels. Then. it created the idea of joint bank accounts, mortgages, merging finances, having the woman give up work, and because of marriage the laws surrounding certain benefits, inheritances etc were set up.

Marriage is what made women vulnerable in the first place, trapping them in to a marriage, denying them control over the finances, without the laws to protect them.

Without the conventions of marriage historically, there would not be the automatic assumption of merging finances and spousal interdependence. Each financial step would be taken individually with advice, just as it would be in a business partnership, for example, in which there is no such social convention and history. And that would be mutually beneficial in nearly every case. At the very least, each person would be informed as to the risks and benefits of each financial decision transferring money or power to another person.

Citing marriage as a sensible step to avoid 'having to do all that' is ridiculous. SAHP and dependent spouses are in that position because they have surrendered financial viability and independence in return for a promise that they will be taken care of - marriage vows - and the merging of lives and assets that takes place upon marriage. Yet marriage vows can be broken in the blink of an eye without signing any legal paper.

Unmarried partners have to take individual steps in order to merge their lives and assets, steps upon which they generally have to seek advice, legal or otherwise, giving them more information about the risks, not less.

Vulnerable people out there are vulnerable regardless of their marital status.

I am a SAHP. But I am not financially dependent on my partner. I have a seperate bank account, a seperate savings account, a joint mortgage, joint parental responsibility, joint wills, joint bills, guardianship, LPAs, pensions, and life insurances. We are not rich enough for CGT and IHT and would struggle to acheive those thresholds individually in the next 50 years.

I would be far more vulnerable married and figuring that would sort it all out.

comixminx - The oppression in this case consisting of using different words to desribe exactly the same thing?

Marriage=civil parntnership=a legal contract connected to inheritance, etc.

Personally, whenever I look at my engagement ring I feel all warm and fuzzy. That's personal to me. But there ain't no way I'd put my career on the back burner to raise DCs without first marrying the man who was proposing to get me knocked up.

Lots of the non-marriage people on this thread say they've sorted all the paperwork and have covered wills, property etc. Fair enough, whatever works for you. But there are people out there - less so on this thread, but they're out there - who believe that 'common-law husband/wife' means something, and that marriage is just an obsolete cultural institution, with few or no legal ramifications.

There's an informative list of the differences here - some are less than I thought, some are more, but it does make a significant difference, especially in terms of inheritance tax, property rights, maintenance after separation, immigration and parental responsibility (also, whoever said that unmarried fathers automatically get parental responsibility is wrong - see here ).

If people don't want to get married because they're atheists or whatever, and would rather get a solicitor to draw up custom contracts, fair play. But if people aren't getting hitched because they think all the differences between married and unmarried couples have been ironed out of UK law, they're in for a nasty surprise.

MsScarlettInTheLibrary - How does getting married prevent you having financial viability and independence?

Scarlett

You say you're not financially dependent, but if you're a SAHP where do you currently get the money to put in your individual bank accounts?

If you don't work and you split up, as a wife, the judge would likely rule that your ex had to pay you spousal maintenance. As a partner, the judge wouldn't say anything because he'd have nothing to comment on. Therefore, it's usually financially in the interests of SAHP's (especially long term SAHP's) to be married, whether they're men or women. There are exceptions, such as if the SAHP was independently very wealthy, but from your post you say that that's not the case.

MsScarletInTheLibrary,
It's not marriage that has created the idea of a woman being financially dependent on a man and the rest; it is human biology.

That is, women give birth and tend to look after the children while men provide financially.
Now I am for the idea that woman should not have to do any pair-bonding and should be free to be single and not live with a man at all, but as long as this pair-bonding exists and women live with men and have their babies then I think she may as well be married to him.

The day-to-day reality for most cohabiting women is that they do precisely the same stuff as married women without the legal protection. The only reason NOT for them to marry is if they don't need any of these legal rights. I'm glad to say that I know a lot of women who are in this position.

I did not marry young because I did not feel comfortable doing a deal with the State...solicitors and all that jazz.

Its odd now, with so many partnerships there will be no official record.
So researchers will be up a gum tree. (No fret)

Imps I am not in any way trying to persuade you to get married but your reasons are mostly about not wanting a wedding rather than not having a marriage if you see what I mean by the difference. Here are what I think on the same points:

1. Neither of us are religious No, we aren't either, at all. Our marriage isn't anything to do with the church, its a legal status that gives us rights regarding inheritance, property, immigration rights and maintenance

1. Both of us hate being the centre of attention Us too, got around that by not inviting anyone!

1. We just don?t want to spend the money on a wedding. We spent about £80 and then an extra £30 for a nice pub lunch

1. I cannot bear the thought of being the centre of family/friends-based politics which inevitably crop up in connection with weddings. Us either, so just didn't do it, no one invited, some people not even told - none of their business!!

1. Neither of us feels the need to be married to be committed. Neither do we, it isn't being married that commits me, its my love for DH. Our legal marriage does give us rights though, its nothing to do with being 'the one' or not