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?

The problem with that approach Lotus is that while women, as a group, earn more in the under 30 age bracket, this stops quite soon afterwards. I can imagine what your response to this is going to be, but the things that make this happen are not all choices. You can't just decide you're going to choose to work full time until you go into labour and then go back a week or two later, and it won't make any difference. Well, you can, but you'll be highly reliant on the fates agreeing with you.

Just a small note on something mentioned upthread re wills. Where there is no will, the entire estate does not automatically go to a spouse. If the estate is over £250k (easy with current house prices) the spouse gets the first £250k and a fifty percent share in the rest, and the other fifty percent is split between the children and grandchildren.

Oh - sorry - I was wrong - I thought it always went to the spouse. Thanks for the info Damson

(am now wondering what actually happened in my friend's case).

Rules are ever so slightly different in Scotland and in Northern Ireland but not massively so. The only situation where a spouse gets the lot where there are children of the marriage still surviving is where the total estate is less than £250k.

I keep a spreadsheet of my net worth (not his, it's far less) and when it reaches the inheritance tax level he's going to be told we have to get married

Got a way to go yet.

Statistics show very, very reliably that relationship patterns alter, on average, after children arrive. Women who previously shared domestic chores and responsibilities start to shoulder more, and that never really alters from that point. They also take a career hit, whether they return to work or not, part time or not, because they generally are the ones to take time off if kids are ill, refuse to work late or weekends, and so on.

None of this applies to every couple, obviously. But it's a recognised problem in the society we inhabit, and it means women's career progression tends to slow after they have kids. If married, then their contributions to the family aren't ignored because those contributions aren't financial. If unmarried, then a SAHM of four kids, say, has no more claim on the home she has kept than a lodger would. Her labour for the family has no value at all. She isn't entitled to a share of any savings, any pension, or the home. All she is entitled to is child support.

I think anyone intending to be primary carer of children, who will be a lower earner, should marry, because the law won't recognise the work involved if you don't. If you don't want kids, then I don't think marriage is essential if the finances are all clearly demarcated (as in, don't pay for groceries and bills while he pays off the mortgage in his sole name, for example, and don't hand over a chunk of cash you can't later prove you paid so he can get a nice new kitchen and bathroom put in, either!).

There are two huge problems in this country with the existing law. Most people think there is "common law marriage" and the law protects lower earning parents in any split, when it doesn't. And most people who have kids outside marriage didn't actually make a considered decision to remain unmarried, anyway - they drifted into that family set-up and by the time they learned how vulnerable it made them, they're in the shit.

At least your friend is educated and aware enough to be having the argument in the first place. Though if she hasn't, she needs to highlight how vulnerable he could make her, if she did most of the childcare, and he then decided to sod off. Not to mention the fact that unmarried couples have no tax relief if the other dies, as married couples do.

Oh, and one in seven women are made redundant after maternity leave, half suffer some form of demotion, and a tenth end up replaced by their own cover. At least your self-employed friend has some control over that aspect. It's all well and good saying women have choices on how far they should let pregnancy and maternity affect their careers, but not all do. It's blaming women for an employment culture that punishes them for their fertility.

Glad someone else highlighted that spouses don't get everything, automatically, when someone dies. The actress Natasha McElhone was married to a surgeon who literally dropped dead one day on the doorstep in his early 40s - and she has said that his lack of a will caused huge problems, because half his assets were then in trust for their children. At one point it looked like she would have to sue them for money if she was going to keep the roof over their heads.

That's an exaggeration about the money in trust though. Firstly you don't sue the beneficiaries, you apply to the trustees (and sue them if they don't apply the correct law or you think their application is unreasonable/a misinterpretation). If the beneficiaries needed housing the trustees have myriad laws they can use to release funds. And if he had no will she would have been the trustees for her own children anyway.

But, trust law is a very complex topic. I think everyone who has more than 50p should have a will.

sleep those stats are very depressing

Melonfool, I'm sure you're right, and she says that in the end it wasn't what happened, but it does sound a nightmare for her, whatever the technicalities of equity (insert Jarndyce v Jarndyce joke here...).

And yeah, Emma, they are.

I am training to be a midwife and there is no doubt that certainly in the area where I work, the vast majority of women taken the bigger burden of parenting responsibility. My husband is very good and takes off when I ask him to, but the default is that I am the main carer - this is the case for most families that I know and those that I have worked with.

I do think it is very naive op to be so adamant that this couple will split childcare equally and that pregnancy would have an equal impact on their careers. It is well known that in most cases, that is not how it works out.

Mind you, for me that is an aside. We got married very young because we wanted to buy a house together and have children - for us the first logical step in this process was marriage. I was the higher earner until now but all money went in the same account so it was irrelevant. For many, marriage is a business arrangement, which I personally find a bit sad. However I am well aware that I may be being naive as I am still married to my first ever boyfriend who I met 18 years ago, so perhaps I am blinkered to the reality for some.

My generation (30 somethings) have been sold a pup about marriage. We thought it wasn't necessary, just a bit of paper etc. But now many of my female friends (inc me!) have had children and want marriage and are waiting for their partners to catch up. The women realise they are in a weaker position financially but the men don't see it that way, sadly. I think the common law wife myth has a lot to do with it. We are now in the position of looking like beggars of marriage and it takes all the romance out of it and I think that's sad. And I can't help feeling that it's just another way that men control our lives, even if they don't realise they are doing it. If you want to stay with someone for life, then it's respectful to ask them to marry you - especially if they want it!

Orange, you posted after me, so my post was not referring to you or making any assumptions about you. I said that DH and I got married because we wanted each other and our kids to have all the protection that marriage offers. I didn't say that it is impossible to put such protections in place without marriage (although I don't think it's possible to avoid the inheritance tax between non-married spouses, which is important to us).

But I did, in an earlier post, say that someone who doesn't see the point of marriage but is planning to have kids in a lifelong relationship with someone else SHOULD think about all these protections and what to do about them. You have, and that's great. An awful lot of people haven't. If the relationship is between someone who wants to get married and someone who doesn't, and the person who doesn't refuses to consider marriage OR putting such protections in place, then I personally would not want to be having kids with them (not that they're offering, obviously :) )

I keep a spreadsheet of my net worth (not his, it's far less) and when it reaches the inheritance tax level he's going to be told we have to get married

That is genuinely impressive.

It's not a male or female thing at all when children come along things are more complicated. Somebody has got to look after them and be their for them. If you are both high earners I assume you work long hours to do so. Unless you have very good grandparents you either need a nanny/good childcare or someone takes time away. Somebody is taking a financial hit somewhere.
Also life chucks curve balls. I have friends where the man wouldn't marry. He has got Alzheimer's disease. It was in his best interests to get married so my friend could deal with his stuff without huge hassle. He was the high earner who had been "fleeced" previously. They face huge challenges but at least legally things are more simple.

You can put all the legal agreements in place that you want, but as an unmarried couple, there is nothing to stop one person in the couple from changing those agreements without the knowledge or consent of their partner.

If I was rich or had dc from a previous relationship I would not marry because my priority would be to protect my assets. But I would never be a sahp without the legal protection of marriage.

OP, sounds to me like your friends bf wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants the benefits of kids and a family life but is unwilling to offer your friend any security in return. Very selfish imo.

As an aside, there are loads of people in ltr who say they don't believe in marriage, then they split and within 5 minutes one of them is married to someone else. What they meant was, they didn't want to marry their previous partner, not that they didn't want to get married full stop.

I'd say friends bf is keeping his options open and your friend has to spell it out yo him why marriage is important and if he still is unwilling, in her shoes I'd look for a man who wants to commit.

No, I don't think she is being unreasonable. I didn't get married for the white dress bridezilla stuff, I did it because it's the easiest way to secure your joint future legally. And I love my Dh of course!

My view on marriage has changed a lot over the last ten years. I used to be very anti it as an institution. My mind was changed by two things. Firstly, seeing several unmarried friends with kids get royally screwed by philandering spouses. Secondly, a devoted and very solid couple had the husband die unexpectedly. She lost the house as well.... There's a widespread belief that there is such a thing as a common law wife/husband but this is not true in england!

It's possible to get everything locked down legally so that you have equal protection if you split, or die, but it's not a simple process to do. This is why gay marriage has been fought for - it's not just about public declaration of love in a socially acceptable manner, it's about being able to be next of kin at a hospital bedside, amongst other important legal things. In my mind, there should be a sort of secular /civil marriage equivalent, giving similar legal protection. But there isn't, so getting hitched is the easiest way to do it.

So in my mind, she should ask why he's against marriage. If it's a philosophical objection, then she needs to ask him if he will go and get everything legally locked down. And if he won't do that, then she needs to think very hard about whether this is a man she trusts with her future.

"You can put all the legal agreements in place that you want, but as an unmarried couple, there is nothing to stop one person in the couple from changing those agreements without the knowledge or consent of their partner. "

Um, he can't "unsign" the cohabitation agreement. It's a signed contract, to get out of it he would have to negotiate with me. Same if I wanted to get out of it. If we split up he can't say "poo, I never meant to sign it" or "I've changed my mind" - that is the whole point of it.

He can't change the way the house is held legally from tenants in common (meaning we can each leave our share, which is actually 50% but could be any share, in our wills) to joint tenants without me knowing as we are both registered owners so he needs my permission:

www.gov.uk/joint-property-ownership/change-from-tenants-in-common-to-joint-tenants

Yes, he could write a new will, wills are [quite rightly] private, but so can a married person. That only affects a person who is expecting to inherit and then doesn't. I am not expecting to inherit.

He could cancel the life insurance I suppose but I would notice the payment wasn't going out of the joint account. Or maybe he could reassign it somewhere but, again, if that happened I am fairly sure there would be a very good case to be made for it to be reassigned to its original purpose, especially as it is paid from the joint account so I would have a say (and as it is assigned to his ex she would have to sue his estate, she couldn't sue me and if he had reassigned it to me I'd just give it to her anyway, I don't want it).

Equally he cannot change the joint account into his sole name without me knowing, banks don't do that.

Once we get power of attorney sorted out, yes, he could revoke it, as I could mine. But marriage doesn't give you 100% power of attorney over an individual's affairs anyway, you still need POA for financial matters that are not joint.

So, there are plenty of things in place to stop someone just revoking all the legal agreements if people can be bothered to work out what they need to do to get them right in the first place - which most people cannot.

In my case I have far more than him, so it was important to me to protect my share of the property and to make sure if we split up I don't lose out.

I personally think we should have pre-nups in this country and if we get married we will be having one. I am not rich by any means but he had no property equity as it went to his ex in the divorce [rightly] and I had a house with a very small mortgage I was on track to pay off by age 50. Although they are not formally recognised in the UK there is plenty of case law to rely on where they have been used as indicative of the expectations in place.
He has no interest in taking anything from me (I could pay off the mortgage now but he doesn't want me to as it would be 'unfair', for example) but I won't allow myself to be unprotected because in a split people change and are influenced by outside parties with a sudden interest in matters.

The whole story would be different if we were going to have children, which we are not, and I do understand our situation is outside the norm/average.
And I didn't put all this in place because I don't want to get married, I did it because we are not married.

Skiptonlass when you say spouse/husband, don't you mean partner? As I thought the whole point was that they weren't married?
" My mind was changed by two things. Firstly, seeing several unmarried friends with kids get royally screwed by philandering spouses. Secondly, a devoted and very solid couple had the husband die unexpectedly. She lost the house as well."

Also:
"there should be a sort of secular /civil marriage equivalent"
In England there are two ways to get married: in a church (religious) or by a registrar (secular), but the resulting marriage has the same legal rights.

Before same-sex marriage was legalised in the UK, gay couples could have a civil partnership (which I think is still an option?) and this provides the same rights as marriage.

"it's about being able to be next of kin at a hospital bedside"

There is no legal term of 'next of kin' and it's not necessarily automatically the person to whom you are married. You can choose anyone. Though of course most people do choose their legal spouse by inertia.

As far as I am concerned dp is my next of kin and no-one has any right to tell me or presume otherwise.

" In my mind, there should be a sort of secular /civil marriage equivalent, giving similar legal protection. "

Yes, there is, it's called a register office. How is that not a civil marriage? It's totally secular, you're actually not allowed to play any hymns or have religious readings.

www.lawandreligionuk.com/2013/07/05/religious-content-of-civil-marriage-ceremonies/#

Marriage for me 'felt' necessary after we had a child together - on purely pragmatic and practical grounds. I felt that legally our situation was more secure with a marriage contract and as we had no intention of leaving each other etc. then there was no reason not to get married. I asked dh to marry me, and we had a tiny civil ceremony only telling others after the ceremony.

If the partner doesn't want fuss and ceremony then that is the way to do it - quick, cheap and cheerful - no fuss.

If they don't want to marry under any circumstances then there may be a deeper philosophical difference that can only be resolved by the two people in the relationship - and not much anyone else can do.

I am very very pleased there is a massive difference between married and unmarried in law. Why should a man or a woman for that matter just because he happens to live here and provide sex etc get half of everything I have earned? Many many of us male and female will fight tooth and nail to ensure the legal difference remains between marriage and unmarried so we have an active choice about whether we want to expose half our assets to a partner. This also protects lots of women with chidlren who have been divorced and want protection against their next boyfriend getting their money and the stability of their children. It is not just a rule which protects men by any means.

Also the statistics on the thread just prove that feminism is right and if a man wants to suggest you have to do more at home or go part time say if it's so much fun you do it mate - here's the duster. Don't be a mug and kill yourself financially by giving up full time work. It also damages children too because you end up with not enough money for the children if you dont' work full time or take massively long maternity leaves. These are all active choices we make. The first time that new boyfriend suggests you cook because you're female you don't accept it. The time you're his house and there is any assumption women do cleaning you don't accept it and before you even get engaged you talk about issues like feminism, who does what at home and what kind of childcare you both find acceptable for children so you can flush out if he's a sexist pig who thinks a woman's place in the home cleaning or is happy you go out there and earn £100k+

Totally going off my own experience here but isn't part of the reason women shoulder childcare etc because the physical and emotional trauma of being pregnant, giving birth and breastfeeding renders them incapable of going back to work for the first few months - apart from anything else I didn't leave the house for the first 3m because I was bleeding (lochia) the whole time, sometimes heavily. No way could I have put on a suit and gone to meet clients.

I am also EBF my baby which means I have to be the main carer, and no I can't 'just pump' - my body doesn't respond to pumps.

It doesn't matter how equal you think you're relationship is (and ours was very equal) your bodies are not equal when it comes to babies and to pretend otherwise nearly always disadvantages the woman

Your* relationship

The law rightly gives women 6 weeks on 90% pay if they are employed (I was self employed so working the next day after the twins). That reflects most recovery time. It is no easier minding a 3 year old toddler and new baby as we had at one stage at home than it is sitting at a desk being treated like a God at work I can tell you. Obviously if you are at home with a new baby no older toddlers and servants yet is may be easier at home but that is not reality for most of us.

I expressed milk at work which was fine. Now the new law allows men and women to split a year's maternity leave if they can afford to live on SMP which most people in reasonable jobs cannot afford. Even then it's a bit of a poisoned chalice as in many jobs a year off is bad news in terms of keeping your clients even if you can afford to take the financial hit and even if you want to be the muggins at home in the relationship cordoned off into the domestic sphere whilst Mr Bug Bucks escapes the mess and screaming children at home because he has a penis and was lucky enough to marry a housewife type who thinks a woman's place is at home.