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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be upset dp doesn't want to marry me

502 replies

bellabella10 · 18/02/2014 08:38

As background we've been together for 5 years and have an 18 month old together. When we first moved in together about a year into the relationship we would talk, possibly jokingly, about getting married and having kids at some point in the future. Our baby was a surprise although we love him so much.

Whenever i have brought up the subject in the past two years (not often) he just changes the topic. Last week i approached it head on (I want to change my name anyway so we all have the same surname old school) he said he doesn't want to get married and doesn't know why. I will change my name by deed poll i suppose but it still upsets me.

I didn't even want a big do (although i get a tiny bit jealous when i see my friends getting married) and would be happy going to the registry office with only a few close friends and family.I have a feeling is because he had family abroad but they do come over and we could have a small ceremony in both countries.

OP posts:
TwittyMcTwitterson · 18/02/2014 22:10

And thank you, I feel I made an informed decision. It is mine to stay, it wasn't pushed. For me, marriage is not the be all and end all. Love is Shock

scottishmummy · 18/02/2014 22:10

he must nominate you has nok.you can't do it for him

TwittyMcTwitterson · 18/02/2014 22:11

Ykwim.

AnneEyhtMeyer · 18/02/2014 22:12

It wasn't an informed decision though, was it, Eveesmum? You didn't know the rights you were denying yourself.

scottishmummy · 18/02/2014 22:25

the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 jmkes significant hew procpvisipn for cohabitants.i c&p as opposed to narrative post

Scottish secure tenancy different provision to England re transfer tenancies. If a cohabiting partner was living in the house as his or her only principal home throughout the period of 6 months ending with the tenant's death he or she must get the tenancy. The tenancy can be succeeded to surviving cohabitant

Mental health care and treatment
Where a person has, or is perceived to have, a mental disorder they can appoint someone including an adult carer to represent them, this person is called a "named person". A nearest relative is appointed where there is no named person or adult carer available and they have the same rights as a "named person". A cohabitant who has lived with the person for at least 6 months or, if the person is in hospital, had been living with them for 6 months before the admission to hospital can be the nearest relative.

After the 2006 Act

The Scottish Parliament decided that the law should be updated to reflect the way families live today and that any rights that already existed for cohabiting couples but were restricted to opposite sex couples only should now be extended to include same sex couples. This has been done by the 2006 Act.

The 2006 Act also provides a set of basic rights for cohabitants whose relationship ends covering:

the sharing of household goods, bought during the time the couple lived together. This means that if you cannot agree about who owns any household goods, the law will assume that you both own it jointly and must share it or share what it is worth;
an equal share in money derived from an allowance made by one or other of the couple for household expenses and/or any property bought out of that money. It is important to understand that this does not apply to the house that the couple live in;
financial provision when, as a result of the decisions the couple made together during the relationship, one partner has been financially disadvantaged. This means, for example, if the couple decided that one partner would give up a career to look after their children, they can ask the court to look at the effect that decision had on that partner's ability to earn money after the relationship has ended;
an assumption that both parents will continue to share the cost of childcare if they had children together; and
a right to apply to the court for an award from the estate (property)
if their partner dies without leaving a will. Before this, if a cohabiting partner died without leaving a will the surviving partner was not entitled to anything from the deceased partner's estate. Sometimes this meant that they had to move out of the house they had lived in together. The surviving partner will now be able to ask the court to consider giving them something from the estate. If the deceased partner was still married at the time of death, the spouse will still be legally entitled to a share of the estate.
These are not the same as the responsibilities and rights that a couple have if they get married or register their civil partnership. Scottish Ministers wanted to protect adults and children when a relationship breaks down, but they also wanted to make sure they protected, as far as possible, the rights of adults to live free of any obligations towards partners if that is what they choose to do.

When someone asks the court to consider making them an award under these rules the sheriff will consider a number of things including:

how long the couple had lived together
what sort of relationship they had (this means was it like a marriage or a civil partnership)
what sort of arrangements they had made about money (for example, did they have a joint bank account and did they support one another).
This will help the sheriff decide whether the person making the application is entitled to get an award under these rules.

There are time limits for making applications to the court for these rights. The time limit is a year from the date the relationship breaks down or 6 months from the date of the death of the partner. If you think you might have a claim for these rights then you should not delay in seeking advice from a family lawyer.

scottishmummy · 18/02/2014 22:35

Under Family Law (Scotland) Act There is no minimum period for which the parties have to have lived together before the statutory system applies. The Law Commission favoured a minimum of two years.this recommendation wasn't enacted

MistressDeeCee · 18/02/2014 22:45

Agree with all Kristina said way upthread. I couldnt be with a man who wanted to shack up with me, wanted to have children with me, but didn't want to marry me. Wrong I may be, but Id think it was mainly because he didn't want to share financial responsibility with and for me, and had a feeling it would be easier to leave when ready. Marriage is never a guarantee that things will last and a man wont leave you, but behind the 'Im not marrying a woman' statement is normally very sexist 'reasoning'. Id also think he had commitment issues which is fine - but, not for me. There's a horrible phrase relating to women and marriage 'why buy the cow when you can milk it for free'...such an insulting phrase wasn't coined for no reason.

I also believe the vast majority of men who DONT want to marry a woman but DO want to do everything but, don't make this clear to the woman when things get serious, or before children. Which is why so many women find themselves at a disadvantage with the 'common-law wife' thing (for want of a better term). "

OP Im hoping if your man won't marry you then he does right by you & DC financially and emotionally.

scottishmummy · 18/02/2014 22:50

Not wrong to have a must be married before kids stance,I don't share the stance
Boils down to of marriage so significant don't cohabitate or get up nelly before marriage
And if you cohabitant ,do so with full knowledge it doesn't necessarily lead to marriage

Viviennemary · 19/02/2014 00:09

Living together these days is the norm. But a lot of younger people are saying no children till we are married. I think this is the sensible thing to do. But if both people in a relationship decide marriage is not for them that's fine. As long as women are aware of the financial implications of not being married. I think the difficulty starts when one person wants to get married and the other doesn't.

MistressDeeCee · 19/02/2014 01:44

Viviennemary that's so true. I have 2 teen daughters. I listen to they & their friends talking - both male and female - and they want to be married before they'll even consider children. I think theyre very sensible and it just goes to show there are many people who DO still respect marriage. I feel that's a good thing. Lets face it...not being married hasn't empowered women really, has it? Not if theyre living with men but still worrying about financial provision etc as well as a possible lack of commitment. There's a lot of angst out there. Marriage won't be the be all and end all for everybody, but I don't feel its the end of financial and emotional freedom its sometimes made out to be. It can be a loving, equal partnership but society being what it is, it seems nowadays we mainly hear horror stories. Some will say they wont commit to marriage then you watch them commit their all to a career, for example. Freedom is relative, depending upon how one views it.

Either way if one person wants to get married and the other doesn't then its a road to resentment setting in and that's never a good thing.

ItsNotATest · 19/02/2014 02:07

What a miserably depressing thread, it's like we still live in the 50s Sad

Somewhere along the line we have to ditch this assumption that women are forever destined to be financially dependent on a man. It's a terrible attitude to be passing down the generations.

There's no reason, fucking none, that parental leave and child care responsibilities can't be shared in order to allow both partners to retain the ability to be financially independent. That's what we should be encouraging women to do, not banging on about getting married just so someone else is financially responsible for them. Because when that goes wrong, it's a flippin disaster.

MistressDeeCee · 19/02/2014 02:26

Must say I don't know any married couples where the woman is financially dependent upon the man. Most people work nowadays whether at home, self-employed or out there full-time. Marriages can and are equal, anybody who doesn't share in most ways was mean-minded anyway and you don't have to be (and very probably shouldn't be) in a marriage or LTR to be that way.

TwittyMcTwitterson · 19/02/2014 06:18

Yes it was informed at the time. I had a leaflet that described all I was 'missing out' on

I still don't think I'm missing out financially. If the worst happens he's named me for his work payout, the house is equally ours. I work full time and have no dependance on him. I make my own money. I rely on him for love! Wink

scottishmummy · 19/02/2014 06:54

Yep,it's grim thread,ESP oh you deserve better platitudes.(better than unmarried obv)
the women secretly desire marriage...err no
The Get married for protection advice is grim...err make your own security
The get married for protection if you have kids.apparently it's the feminist thing to do for

Allofaflumble · 19/02/2014 07:29

Someone I know was unmarried to her partner with whom she had three kids. Out of the blue he met someone else who had three kids. He married her!

The fallout for the three kids left behind has been enormous and the mother now has a drink problem.

It may be old fashioned but I still see someone wanting to marry you as a sign of commitment. I left my last partner as he did not want to marry me and it still niggles. I hate the thought that I will hear one day he has married someone worthy in his eyes!

FiscalCliffRocksThisTown · 19/02/2014 07:32

The thing I don't understand: if to one partner marriage does not mean much, just a piece of paper etc, and to the other partner it means a lot, why not get married?

DH was desperate to get married, I would have been happy to just live together. I DID marry him, as it meant a lot to him, and I loved him and. Wanted to be with him, so the "piece of paper" was fine with me. Marriage was a big deal to him, and I had a take-it-or-leave it attitude. The logical thing, imo, was to get the darned piece of paper.

If your partner does not want to marry you because " it is just a piece of paper" he is being disingenuous. If it is just that, surely he could do you that small favour. But I say disingenuous as behind this statement may be thoughts like "i officially lose my freedom, I no longer own what I own, I don't want to share my money, I want to be able to just walk away if things are bad."

If something is not a big deal to you, surely that is a reason to DO it rather than not do it?

KristinaM · 19/02/2014 08:00

I don't think it's like the 1950s and a moral imperative to get marrieds nd stay married regardless.

I think it's like insurance. I have house insurance because I don't trust the lights / electrical appliances not to go on fire or the water pipes not to leak or the chimney not to fall through the roof in a storm.

I have life insurance because I don't trust myself not to die

I have legal contacts in place to ensure I get half the house , the business, our saving and pensions because I don't trust that love will last forever.

I hope our relationship will last .i hope our house never goes on fire or gets burgled. I hope I don't die when my kids are young. But I'm not trusting to luck on any of them, when I have the chance to put legal contracts and financial provisions in place for my kids.

Chunderella · 19/02/2014 08:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

motherinferior · 19/02/2014 08:56

I feel all sorts of things are being conflated on this thread. It is, to me, self-evident that joint assets, wills and separate savings are essential in any relationship, married or not. I take the point that if one partner has become economically dependent on the other, the present legal/financial protection afforded by marriage is probably worth taking up, however distasteful it may be it accept this interference and direction over one's personal life.

But my reluctance to be forced into an institution just because my partner has decided he quite fancies the idea is not, I feel, evidence that I am merely toying with his affections before a younger sleeker model comes along.

motherinferior · 19/02/2014 09:02

Mind you, I'm not exactly surrounded by younger sleeker offers. I don't get out much Grin

Chunderella · 19/02/2014 09:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

motherinferior · 19/02/2014 09:24

Yes, that one may blackmail me over the edge Grin

I do take a lot of the points. It's just when it gets all muddled up with commitment/love/permanence and the general history of marriage that it all becomes distasteful.

LittleBearPad · 19/02/2014 09:32

Marriage clearly isn't just a piece of paper. There is something sad about a man who will have children, expect his gf to care for them but won't marry said gf if she wants to get married. Fine if both parties don't want to marry and fully understand the risks in this decision but not if otherwise.

yummystepford · 19/02/2014 09:38

IMO if it is meaningless to him than he should t least do it to make you happy, it's not romantic but life isn't always as romantic as the Disney films, I'm in a similar situation my oh thinks that marriage is a religious thing as since he is not religious it has no bearing on his life. He did say he wouldn't refuse on this basis but it would be for her sake. I'm not really sure where that leaves me tbh!

Chunderella · 19/02/2014 09:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.