Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

is she being unreasonable about marriage?

187 replies

spillyobeans · 16/06/2015 13:05

Dont fully know where i stand on this but:

Mutual friends of me and dh have been together for 8 years, they live together, share financial responcability etc and have no kids. She keeps saying she wants a ring/to be asked to be married etc where he is adament he doesnt want to but obviously wants to stay together.

I think she is getting quite down about it, but is she being unreasonable to keep pushing him?

Im married to dh and it was a nice thing we both wanted - didnt need, as personally for us nothing 'changed' but just something we wanted to do.

So whos if any is unreasonable? Confused

OP posts:
fancyanotherfez · 16/06/2015 16:27

Marriage doesn't change things day to day, you just get on with it. It doesn't matter when you are loves young dream. It's just a piece of paper. It does matter if things go wrong. And the point of about gay marriage thing is that it clearly is important to have those rights, otherwise those that didn't have them wouldn't care enough about having them to bother fighting for them

Original poster
spillyobeans · 16/06/2015 16:29

I dont think im being naive, its obviously not rocket science that kids=more financial strain/responsibilitys. Thats a given.

My point is - they are both self employed and either one could take time off as and when - not necessarily her, thats just an assumption on your part.

So if they are both self employed, both rely on clients, they could just work it around who has clients when - and either one could cut back accordingly for child care etc

OP posts:
Original poster
spillyobeans · 16/06/2015 16:34

Yes marriage is more beneficial for the lower earner - but if you are both bringing in pretty much the same amount, share the bills, could share childcare/responsibilitys then realistically how much would it change?

OP posts:
PtolemysNeedle · 16/06/2015 16:34

I think she's being unreasonable to push for it if she knows it's something he doesn't want. I see marriage as a big commitment, and therefore not something anyone should do if they don't want it or believe in it.

She needs to decide if she will be happy to stay in the relationship without marriage, and if she decides that it's a deal breaker if they don't get married then her boyfriend has the option of changing his mind or letting her go.

No one should put pressure on other people to do things they don't want to do, all they can do is decide their own position.

NameChange30 · 16/06/2015 16:37

He is wrong to say that marriage doesn't change anything. However you feel about it, there are legal and financial implications. For example, inheritance (boring but important). If a married partner dies without a will, all their assets (property, money, etc) will go their spouse. Whether there is a will or not, the surviving spouse won't have to pay any tax on the inheritance. If an unmarried partner dies without a will, their assets go to the closest surviving relative - parent, sibling, etc - and the partner gets nothing. If they make a will and leave anything to the partner, inheritance tax will be payable.
Also, if the couple has children under 18 and the mother dies, a father who is married to the mother automatically becomes the guardian of the children. An unmarried father does not (there could be a legal fight with the grandparents or aunt/uncle, for example). Unfair IMO but it's the law.

Original poster
spillyobeans · 16/06/2015 16:41

Anotheremma- i didnt realise that about unmarried couples/father would not automatically be the guardian? Well that is crazy!

OP posts:
HmmAnOxfordComma · 16/06/2015 16:49

Very naive to say nothing changes , OP.

There are lots and lots of implications of not being married , such as not being able to make health decisions for each other if one is incapacitated . The legal next of kin would be a parent or sibling , not the partner. In fact there's no such thing as partner, really . If you're not married , you're just boyfriend and girlfriend . (Obviously you can get health powers of attorney made , but these are expensive and most people wouldn't think of it.)

And lots more ...

florascotia · 16/06/2015 16:49

OP the financial benefits of marriage are not only about balancing work and earning power with childcare. They cover property, inheritance, some tax, pensions, etc ... Have a look at this:
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

worridmum · 16/06/2015 16:59

marraige is primaily benifits the lower earner person with less assists (hence why the general advice on here is marry the bloke if hes a high earner/ assist rich but aviod marraige at all costs if the female has the most assists /higher earner as he would be entitled to possible more than 50% if they split even if she has the children full time if she earns more / more assists)

FragileBrittleStar · 16/06/2015 17:01

if an unmarried father is on the birth certificate/has parental reposnsibility he would automatically get the children I think.
Most of the financial considerations/legal issues can be resolved foir unmarried couples - the only one I think is an issue is inheritance tax.
I think being unmarried gives you more flexibility than being married per se - which could be more/less advantageous depending on what you want.
As an unmarried mother - but the high earner etc- I am better off not being married financially as the law makes no assumptions about my assets being our assets etc.
i never had any huge desire to get married- its not a statement i feel the need to make and my approach tends to be unless there is a reason to do something i would just continue with the status quo

scarlets · 16/06/2015 17:09

I think that the notion of "common law" spouses is one of the biggest misconceptions out there.

Some people have deeply-held ideological opposition to marriage, which is to be respected. Others just want to rent rather than buy. It's the latter that are problematic.

PterodactylTeaParty · 16/06/2015 17:14

Beingnself-employed might work out really well for them in terms of childcare responsibilities, but it also might mean that her career takes much more of a hit than his - if she's ill during pregnancy to a degree that affects the amount of work she can do, if clients decide to drop her once they learn she's pregnant (does happen), if she takes a while to recover after the birth, and that's just in the early days. And just because they can theoretically split the care 50/50 doesn't mean they'll decide that's what's best for their family once children come along. Lots of couples end up deciding to have one partner take a step back from their career to concentrate on childrearing, and it's usually the one who got pregnant and gave birth.

Not saying that's what she's thinking of, but I would not at all blame her if she didn't want to take that gamble without legal recognition of their relationship. I wouldn't.

LotusLight · 16/06/2015 17:17

There are some assumptions earlier that women don't earn much! I earned 10x my children's father. We aren't all call centre workers on part time hours these days.I have always worked full time. My ex got a huge divorce settlement from me. I and many other women can be massively financially better off if we don't marry.

florascotia · 16/06/2015 17:22

Congratulations on earning lots, Lotus, but you are - alas - in the minority. However, the differential legal status of marriage also relates to the death of spouse/partner and to inheritance as well as to divorce. The OP's friend really does need look at the whole legal picture and see how it might apply to her, rather than just relying on individual examples, however impressive.

TommySlimfigure · 16/06/2015 17:35

How did you get somebody to pay you so much Lotus? I would love to earn ten times anybody at all else's wage. It is a rare thing to be able to say you've achieved.

It's not very good for women in general though, to say, no, they're fine, let's not change any thing. When you've floated to the top let's say. If you're intelligent as well as successful you'll understand that statistically not everybody can be in your league.

TommySlimfigure · 16/06/2015 17:41

Actually, don't answer that! because it doesn't make any difference. I know that high earning women exist, but that doesn't mean that it's the norm, or that it's easy to achieve.

Momagain1 · 16/06/2015 17:47

Most of the financial considerations/legal issues can be resolved foir unmarried couples - the only one I think is an issue is inheritance tax.

They CAN be resolved, but the couple must go to the effort of figuring out what those differences are, and hiring a solicitor to draw up an agreeable contract which mirrors marriage rights, or customises their preferences, and draws up appropriate wills. And they both have to actually sign the contracts and their own wills. Everything would bear looking at again after any major changes, like having children, purchasing a home or one of them winning the lottery or recieving a notable inheritance, and at retirement, in order to include or exclude those things in the same way as marital rights, or a customised way. In a way, this might be better, as it requires the couple to pay close attention to their joint finances and goals in a way married couples often dont.

But does anyone know an unmarried couple that does much more than maybe writing up wills?

If you are willing to accept the defaults of marital rights, going to the registry office and getting married is the easiest way to sort your future financial and property intentions toward the other.

Is he really against being married, or is he just not interested in being one of the lead performers at a ceremonial wedding? I know someone who simply couldnt bear the thought of that, and but when the wanting to be married partner whinged she would be satisfied with a registry office and minimum witnesses marriage, he agreed to go that very day. And they did.

Duckdeamon · 16/06/2015 17:49

Lotus is a great example of a high earner, but the sad reality is that in general men earn more and this accelerates when women take career breaks and / or go part time after DC.

In this scenario unless they can afford and sort out great childcare or share this so that both can work equally it's much more likely that the woman will be the one to lose future earnings.

A vague "whoever is busy / has more clients can work more" isn't enough. It is far more likely that this will be the man.

Duckdeamon · 16/06/2015 17:51

I've seen a similar situation with (married) friends who planned to share childcare. A year on he is working and earning more than before and she's doing the bulk of childcare and hardly working at all having lost clients after taking just a few months off (physical recovery and some postnatal health problems) and them agreeing it'd make sense for her to take more of a break.

fancyanotherfez · 16/06/2015 17:52

Why is it an issue, op whether she wants to get married for the party or for legal protection? Do you think she is wrong for him and she wants to waltz off with all his money? If it's a big deal for her but not for him, he should marry her or let her go. At least she knows his wishes before they had kids

OrangeVase · 16/06/2015 18:03

It is not always the woman who is better off being married - it largely depends on who is the most finacially better off. Many here are assuming it is the woman and that the man is being a dick for denying her this protection.

Friend of mine - v well off and in financial services but nonetheless committed christian and determined to be married - taken to the cleaners by her "lovely" but poor DH. Half of all she had including her house.

Marriage is an agreement, a contract; if you don't want to agree to all the terms - don't do it. Doesn't mean anyone is a "have your cake" type or being selfish.

FWIW I am not married. - Chose not to. (2 DCs - realise I am "unprotected" but so is he.)

lotsofcheese · 16/06/2015 18:06

Ok, so he's mid-20's & they've been together 8 years. They met very young.

Sounds like he's not ready, and/or they just need a conclusion one way or the other.

OrangeVase · 16/06/2015 18:09

sorry x-posted with many.

Original poster
spillyobeans · 16/06/2015 18:19

Love these 'facts and figures' of women being the lesser earners 9/10 of the time Hmm. Whos being naive?

And the 'fact' that she would most likely be the one to take a break from her career - er only more likely if she wanted it to be so.

I dont think some of the comments here are doing women in general any favours. I dont think its a 'women are worse off if unmarried' - its whoever earns the most, and then theres the assumption that whoever earns the most is essentialially 'keeping' the other one Hmm

Maybe very 'naive' of me - but maybe, just maybe, some marriages are built on equal footings?

OP posts:
Duckdeamon · 16/06/2015 18:29

You seem very keen to take the man's part and for his DP to be the unreasonable one OP!

We can't know what would happen to their future earnings and careers should they have DC without being married, but and perhaps it's somethinh the woman concerned has considered and decided she doesn't want to risk it. Or perhaps she's given all that no thought at all and wants marriage for whatever other reasons.

I think lotsofcheese has probably nailed this. Perhaps it's crunch time for their relationship.