is she being unreasonable about marriage?

[spillyobeans]

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?

In our situation, both my DH and I felt that we wanted each other and our kids to have the protections of marriage. I was vastly the higher earner before marriage. Following kids and my progressive disability worsening, now he is. Perhaps it will change again, if my creative efforts take off (fingers crossed :) ) Doesn't matter to us, it's all joint earnings.

Either way, we wanted our family unit to be protected - if one of us dies, the other gets everything and does everything possible to maintain our kids lives. If one of us is badly injured/ill, the other can make the medical decisions. If we break up (which neither of us plans to do, of course) then there will have to be a proper financial settlement that looks after our kids. All of that was important to us.

I would question the character of someone (male or female) who chooses to have children jointly with another person and doesn't want the children AND that person to be fully protected.

Agree OP. Also agree that a relationship is one thing, marriage is a relationship with a contract. Both very good in their way. At what point do you choose to enter into a contract? Up to the individuals concerned. And it should NEVER be confused with a wedding.

Hate this assumption that women are poorer, weaker, etc.

We are not married, been together six years, lived together two, in our forties, dp divorced one child, me never married no kids.
He doesn't want to get married, I do.
We know another couple in a similar situation though she has a child, she wants to get married, he doesn't.
So, its really not that uncommon.

I have got all the legal stuff tight - cohabitation agreement, agreement on assets if we split, house as tenants in common, wills, nominated on each others pensions, we are both well under the inheritance tax threshold, joint account held properly in both names, he has life insurance to pay out his outstanding maintenance if he dies. Power of attorney for health is next.
So, you can cover off the legal aspects (it's a real ballache though) and, given all that, I can't see that being married will make a legal difference really.
We're both financially independent of each other too and could live on our remaining incomes after funding the joint account.
I don't nag him about it, but it did come up recently and I think he's coming round to it. But he does change his mind about stuff - he didn't want a washing up bowl but once I'd got it he could see the benefit

SquigglyLine please don't assume that my children are not legally and financially protected because I am not married. That is both insulting and ill informed.

All the things that you have mentioned we have in place. Sometimes they are better protected if the parents are not married - it depends on so many factors. really - it does.

I earned more than my husband before we got married. Then we decided to have children, and that my career got torpedoed (combination of horrendous pregnancy, awful employers and a few other things). Had we decided that one of us would be a SAHP after the baby got here - as a lot of couples do! - it'd probably have been me, as the one who'd already lost my job, and my longer-term career prospects would have taken even more of a hit.

It's not about women being weaker or marriages being unequal. It's about the future being unpredictable. Marriage can be a way to put protections in place against a lot of unpleasant consequences nobody sees coming.

It is true that marriage puts protection in place - but one man's protection is another man's shackles.

Marriage is a "Kit" if you like - and bundles up the key things, (box-set, starter pack - ). There are other options - the "bespoke" option or the "pick and mix" selection.

There is no doubt that marriage works for many people but for others, for various reasons, it might not be the best way to do things.

No-one can predict the future but we all do the best we can.

Orangevase- exactly, you cant assume that if you are not married then you havnt thought about finances/protection of any kids/any matters - a relationship (whether mariage or partnership) depends on the characteristics of those involved - if you are the sort of person to think about a secure future etc then you will probably put things into place whether its a partnership or a mariage, and vice versa - if you are the sort of person to 'follow loves young dream' () and not think about all the legal stuff then i doubt you would be getting married for 'security' anyway!

Btw i honestly dont think he is right or she is wrong either way, im debating for and against points where i see flaws in your argument. For example, as i mentioned, i am married - but i definitely didnt enter the marriage because i was a lower earner looking for financial stability - i could and would support myself and kids happily if we were to seperate, and so could dh.

Nobody is saying everyone has to get married.

OP's question was whether or not her friend, who does want to get married for whatever reason, was being unreasonable.

She isn't being unreasonable to want that from a long-term relationship. She might be being unreasonable to keep hoping it'll happen when her partner doesn't want to, though.

I don't think he owes her marriage, but he does owe her a better explanation for why he doesn't want it than "it wouldn't make any difference", since if it really wouldn't make any difference to him then it'd be no skin off his back to pop down to the registry office.

I have a very equal marriage and make slightly more than dh. However being married has huge benefits for both of us. Both of us have gone through serious, unpredicted illnesses and having these protections already in place was comforting. Getting married does change things, you'd have to be pretty ignorant not to realise all that. Marriage may or may not work for individuals or couples. But it pretty clearly makes a difference. And not just for the lower earner.

Pterodactyl!- true, maybe he does have a reason but not letting on!

sigh - i would say someone would be ignorant/naive if they were saying that, having never been married before.

Me and dh both said that for us, nothings changed from being partners to being married. We have been married for 5 years, have gone through serious illness/hospitalisation on both sides, moved house 4 times, changed career a couple of times each amongst other 'life events' that are challenging for any couple.

spilly - I wasn't writing about building a marriage 'on equal footings', great and wonderful though that might be. The law treats married women - and men - and their children - differently from unmarried ones. That is the 'fact' and IMHO it is 'naive' to ignore it.

It is also a fact that, on average, women's wages are lower than men's. Around 19% difference* in 2014, but that lumps together a complex picture. Women's work patterns are different from men's; gender gap pay is greater in the private sector and less (but increasing) in the public sector etc etc etc.

• "The [gender] gap for all employees (full-time and part-time) was the lowest on record at 19.1%" www.equalpayportal.co.uk/statistics/

I think that anyone - male or female - should carefully consider the legal implications of being married or being unmarried, especially if they plan to have children. Then they can choose which option they prefer from a position of knowledge, not ignorance.

Neither of them are BU to feel as they do about marriage. It's fine to really want to do it, or really not. However, he is BU to think it won't make a difference, and she is NBU to want this settled before they have kids. On the subject of not knowing who'll take time out due to DC, I think that point has been laboured (no pun intended) slightly too far. It's true that most of the leave is now transferable and we shouldn't assume she'll take all or even most of it. However, she is highly likely to need at least a couple of weeks before and after the birth at the absolute minimum, and stands a reasonable chance of needing a lot more if she gets unlucky with pregnancy or birth related issues. This is not true of him. You really only need to throw in a few weeks of really honking SPD and a complicated birth to put the kybosh on any ideas of him taking most of it. So while he might be able to have children whilst taking no leave and losing no money at all, but this is almost certainly not the case for her. Bear in mind that being self-employed, even just a few weeks out can have a significantly detrimental impact on your business.

Melonfool, you can't 'cover off the legal aspects'. An individual couple might, as you seem to have, been able to put in place alternative protections for most of the things that matter to them, but that isn't the same thing. In your case, if either of you unilaterally altered your will and then died, you couldn't challenge it as easily as you could if you were married. I'm not saying this will happen or that you should be concerned btw, just mentioning it so people are aware that even the impressively extensive list of protections you have in place (fair play btw, you are very organised!) doesn't put you in the same position as marriage would.

You may get treated, by law, differently, however that doesnt equate to 'better' or 'worse' for everyone. Also, mentioned before, if you were so inclined, there are few issues that you couldnt put protections in place for if your not married, its just 'more effort'.

Ok, you say/take the statistic of womens wages on average being less than mens - do you know how this particular statistic was collected: what type of jobs were the results taken from, were they weighed against the same type of male counter part in the same feild etc. Also there is lots of other factors that you cannot account for - such as choice - some people may choose their own hours etc.

Once again, an assumption of ignorance when faced with the future that involves children.

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

The marriage might be but the divorce may well not be.
You don't have to look very far on hear to find stories from women who thought they were in a happy marriage who's husbands then fucked off with the secretary without a backward glance.
If that happens when you're not married, especially with kids involved where you're the one who have up your career to care for them, then you could well get fucked over completely. Yes, you can protect yourself in other ways but how many people have every base covered in this regard?

here whose

In our case we haven't left all our money to each other anyway, there's no reason to. His goes to his son, mine goes to my relatives. My primary concern was making sure my money didn't go to his ex so in fact I need a will more if we are married than not!

The link I gave discusses in detail how the stats were collected. It's based on a vast amount of very careful research; links to that are included. Have you looked at it?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply suggesting that men and women (equally) look at the legal facts and then use that information, along with their own emotions/feelings/preferences before making one of the very biggest and most responsible decisions of their lives. The OP does not say that her friend or her friend's partner has done that - if they have done, then that's great.

I have been with DP for 30 years in total, there was a break pre DC when we both lived abroad in different countries.

As you would expect over that length of time we HAVE been through serious illness, redundancy, death of parents, dealing with a SN child, near bankruptcy at one point. We have dealt with it as any couple does - as best we can. We have a supportive extended family and friends.

Being married would have made no diffrence to us. (And we would have been financially worse off due to our specific circumstances)

As to OP's question - no neither is being U - they both want different things and should talk it through.

You asked OP if the woman in question was unreasonable to want to get married, quite clearly she is not, there are a number of excellent reasons to get married as noted on the thread.

He isn't unreasonable either if he really doesn't want to ever get married.

However it's not a good idea let this kind of issue roll on without resolution though, and it's a good idea to be honest with each other up front about future intentions.

It's their business however and no one else's.

Regarding your point about equal marriages. My DH and I have a very equal marriage.

When we bought our first house I put in a substantial deposit while he had no savings. He earned more than me in those days.

He had a serious illness, being his 'next of kin' could potentially been very important (I do know of partners whose in laws barred them from the hospital room)

We agreed that I would be a SAHM and so he was the sole earner for years.

I'm back at work and now earn a comparable salary to my DH but my job pays lump sum bonuses where as his doesn't.

We have always split everything completely evenly and considered all money as 'our money'.

He also participates in a fairly high risk hobby.

I adore my husband but there are a number of big decisions that we have made jointly in our relationship that I would not have made if we weren't married.

An 'equal marriage' doesn't mean continuously financially equal. Marriage gives a number of protections to us both.

The words of the marriage vows are there for a reason 'for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health' As much as we'd like to think that the 'worse, poorer and sickness' parts wouldn't ever apply to us, it's the protection for those parts that are important.

Actually melonfool makes a good point. If a couple marry and have not made a will the entire estate goes to the surviving spouse on death - irrespective of whether there are any children.

A good friend lost his father's inheritance when his father died and it ALL went to his mother and when she remarried, which she did within a few years, and then died, IT ALL went to her new husband. He then left it ALL to his daughters.

My friend knew that his dad would never have wanted that, not in million years - but there was no option.

Very good post Eigg

Thanks Orange

I think melonfool is very rare to have actually put measures in place. Most people don't. Death, accident and disease are things which happen to other people. They don't put the Powers of Attorney, wills etc in place. There is always more time. Disaster isn't due to happen this week.

The problem is that it does happen. Without notice.

1. Women under 30 earn more than men in the UK.
2. 60% of graduates are female in the UK.
3. More and more couples are sharing leave when a baby comes or not taking long off and going back full time.
4. If you think you might well earn a lot more than your other half (I earned 10x what he did and I am nothing special ) then don't marry, just live together otherwise he'll fleece you on divorce because English law hugely favours the lower earner. So in a sense if you want to protect your children don't marry if you happen to earn more than your man as most women under 30 do in the UK.

So let us not all be sexist about it.