Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not see the point in getting married...

240 replies

TongueTwister · 29/12/2011 20:27

Can you convince me? Been with oh 5 years, fully intend to stick with him. We have a gorgeous 2 year old and hoping for another this year. Anyone got any good reasons to get married?

OP posts:
OriginalJamie · 30/12/2011 16:43

sorry, forgot to say, that being married is very important to me, emotionally as well.

Dozer · 30/12/2011 16:43

If the OP is financially better off than her DP perhaps some of the benefits of marriage might not apply!

There used to be a good "Which" guide to cohabiting that explained the issues and ways of dealing with the legal stuff.

nulgirl · 30/12/2011 16:47

I think the posts saying that marriage protects financially you only apply if you are the lower earner. If you have more money/ assets then it is in your best interest to stay single but sort out next of kin etc.

In retrospect it would have been much better for me to not get married as I am looking at giving (my possibly soon to be ex) dh a big payoff even though he has fucked off back to his home country leaving me with the kids, bills etc. the house is solely in my name and I will really resent having to increase my mortgage to give him money to fritter away on crap.

olgaga · 30/12/2011 16:53

CJ, you are only jointly liable for debts to which you were joint signatories. So for example, a spouse who goes off and signs up for credit cards on their own is liable for their own debts.

If you are married you can get an order (a "Mesher" or "Martin" order) which postpones the sale until the children are 18, or out of full time education.

It may be that there was a time when you would be "better off being penniless" but nowadays you'll find it hard to get council housing, however needy you are.

everydayisabluesday · 30/12/2011 17:18

Marriage has a clear cultural meaning in this country (why else would there by a difference between marriage and civil partnerships). This cultural meaning includes a history of women as property. This is still clearly present in traditional ceremonies when the father gives away his daughter. I am not a possession and refuse to participate in any ceremony built on this legacy.

Whilst it can be a quicker way through legal issues, it is more difficult to undo if that is what needs to happen. If I want to change my will I can tomorrow. If I wanted a divorce, I would have to wait.

To me not having a piece of paper binding us togther means we are freely choosing to be a partnership. We stay through love, not legal a nicety. If you need a piece of paper to prove your relationship is valid, you are in trouble in my book.

alistron1 · 30/12/2011 17:29

I've been with DP for 18 years and we have 4 kids. We aren't married. 'It's doesn't really mean anything to either of us - both our parents have divorced and I think that colours our perception.

mayorquimby · 30/12/2011 17:31

I fully agree with others who point out you can form other contracts and arrangements for death/pensions etc. or other circumstances, and once again completely agree with them when they point out that marriage is not right for anyone. Particularly if you don't want to incurr liability for another or you simply don't want them to have a vested interest in your assets.
However I think (in a very broad sense) in general people who are in long term non-marital relationships do not tend to form these other contracts, and for that reason marriage is an easier way to establish legal ties and responsibilities so does have a point from a very practical P.O.V. for many.

this is quite scary also:
Many people (61%, according to a recent survey*) mistakenly believe that simply living together can give you the same rights as marriage. They believe that 'common-law marriage' is a recognised legal status. They are wrong.

amazing the kind of misinformation which many take to be fact, especially with regards to legal matters.

luvviemum · 30/12/2011 17:55

Marriage is so much more than a piece of paper and statistics show that couples who just live together are far more likely to split up.

For me personally, marriage has provided me with a stable basis to raise my kids and a feeling of great security. If my husband hadn't wanted to marry me or come out with the line about it being a "piece of paper" - I'd have kicked him into touch.
Of course there are no guarantees but as a previous poster wrote, without marriage, you can end up in a right mess if things go wrong and there are kids involved etc. Please make sure you at least make a legal agreement - whatever you do, you'll need a piece of paper so why not get married? If you don't want to then maybe he aint the right person - IMHO.

exoticfruits · 30/12/2011 19:08

To me not having a piece of paper binding us togther means we are freely choosing to be a partnership. We stay through love, not legal a nicety. If you need a piece of paper to prove your relationship is valid, you are in trouble in my book.

I think that this entirely misses the point.

heartofthesun · 30/12/2011 19:10

It seems obvious that cohabiting couples are more likely to split up than married people. Cohabitation covers all sorts of relationship arrangements-from the transitory, casual type to the 'in it for life' arrangements.
With marriage, the intention is to stay together for life (even if this is not what always happens!).
If, say, only 30% of cohabiting couples see it as a lifetime commitment where 90% of married people see it as being a lifetime commitment (some people know full well on the day that it won't last) then, if intention is related to if a couple stay together or not, it explains why marriages are more likely to last.
If, however, a cohabiting union is identical to a married union bar the marriage certificate, I see no reason why it has a different chance of survival.

exoticfruits · 30/12/2011 19:10

This cultural meaning includes a history of women as property. This is still clearly present in traditional ceremonies when the father gives away his daughter. I am not a possession and refuse to participate in any ceremony built on this legacy

This is just as silly IMO. I am not a possession. My father gave me away, it was lovely for both of us-neither of us read outdated rubbish into it.

heartofthesun · 30/12/2011 19:13

I also think it is nonsense to suggest that people stay together through 'legal nicety'. Sorry, but that is rubbish. There is no stigma to divorce these days (thank goodness) and the only people who stay together on the basis of legality are those with a lot of money to lose.

exoticfruits · 30/12/2011 19:23

I don't think that some people have read the whole thread with links-they have read OP and jumped to their comment-they are probably one of the 61% who haven't a clue what rights they have/or don't have as a cohabiting couple!

They will be OK unless they have a tragic happening with death, injury, illness etc and then they will find out-too late. I would suggest they read the entire thread.

Original poster
TongueTwister · 30/12/2011 19:24

I don't think you are neccesarily less likely to split up if married. It depends on the couple. We both feel that having children together is the biggest commitment you can make to each other. However, if he did want to leave me, I wouldn't want him to stay just because we are married and he would lose money or something. We are together because we choose to be and because we want to bring our family up together.

OP posts:
WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoes · 30/12/2011 19:24

Well, marriage nowadays is an equal partnership, I would say refusing to do it because of the way it used to be is cutting off your nose to spite your face as in general it offers women greater protection in law than the unmarried state. No one has to be given away in a modern wedding ceremony, just as no one has to change their name.

I don't need the piece of paper to prove my relationship is valid, I know it is, but the piece of paper shows the rest of the world unambiguously that that is the intention.

Original poster
TongueTwister · 30/12/2011 19:25

The thread is long so don't blame them, but agree, this thread has reminded me how important it is to get the legalities straight.

OP posts:
Original poster
TongueTwister · 30/12/2011 19:27

I think marriage mainly protects the more vulnerable partner. Neither of us are financially vulnerable dap to me it doesn't apply I'm our situation. I don't care what others think, we know our level of commitment to one another.

OP posts:
exoticfruits · 30/12/2011 19:30

I was given away, which is tradition,(and was nothing to do with being property) but to say that you can't get married because of it is very silly. You can pop to the registry office with no one but DP-passers by can witness. Even if you go for the whole works you don't have to change your name.

It really isn't so much about separating-it is more death and critical illness and people just don't come into much contact with it these days. You learn by experience and people would be sensible to listen.

Original poster
TongueTwister · 30/12/2011 19:32

Agree exotic and thanks for your advice, much appreciated.

OP posts:
Original poster
TongueTwister · 30/12/2011 19:33

Plus, his mum and brother need his financial help more than myself and his son, so that is fine with me.

OP posts:
exoticfruits · 30/12/2011 19:41

There is really only one point and that is if you don't want to get married (it is personal choice to be respected) then you should be quite clear where you stand, if not for you, for your DCs.
It is worth spending a bit of time finding out. When I was young I went around thinking 'these things don't happen to me'- but they do.
There are all sorts of odd quirks, until last week I had no idea that in a second marriage I got my first husband's inheritance allowance. (I was a widow for those who haven't read it all).
You do at least need to be made next of kin, otherwise your DP can be on a life support machine and his parents could block you from any decisions.
It is vital to make your wills.

Wamster · 30/12/2011 19:45

I actually do think that cohabitees are more likely to break up than the married: because cohabitations tend to include very casual set-ups where marriage is a serious undertaking.
But as far as individual couples are concerned, if a cohabiting couple is very committed to the relationship in the same way as a deeply committed married couple, I think that they are both likely to survive

exoticfruits · 30/12/2011 19:49

I was a widow with a baby and no wills and no life insurance. Luckily for me, and DS, I was married and had DHs pension otherwise I would have been in a complete financial mess.
You can arrange things without being married but you do have to look into it and sort it. We had been arranging life insurance at the time he was killed ,but the intention is no good if you haven't signed the dotted line and paid any premiums!

Original poster
TongueTwister · 30/12/2011 19:54

I'm sorry for your loss, exotic.

OP posts:
marriedinwhite · 30/12/2011 20:13

Anyone joining this thread need only read Exoticfruit's posts to work out why marriage OR a formal legal agreement is essential, especially where children are concerned.