Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 10 11 12

Original poster

To not get the whole getting married thing

293 replies

Snoozebox · 27/08/2015 11:22

I know I am ignorant about the legal benefit side of things. I need advising!

Seriously, what are the advantages of getting married as opposed to just living with a partner?

I find the whole furore over the actual wedding ceremony just bizarre. I can't get my head around making a public celebration over a relationship which is mostly private. I don't get why we even need marriage in our modern society. I thought living together is commitment enough

AIBU? Someone explain to me why marriage is special, please!

OP posts:

SouthAmericanCuisine · 31/08/2015 10:30

Yes, russell - that applies to British travellers to Mexico now.

But if you read about the social and political history of Mexico, you'll see that travel by unmarried women, even between villages, was restricted by Mexican law until as recently as 2011.
So, an unmarried women travelling out of the country would have been subject to those legal restrictions. These have since been relaxed, but there are still social pressures on unmarried women in terms of travel within and out of Mexico, and undoubtedly, unmarried women from overseas will be subject to social, if not legal, judgement by the individuals working for the immigration and law enforcement services, which may lead to them taking advantage and putting pressure on women travelling with or without children.

We take an awful lot for granted in the UK.

And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that anyone should get married if they intend to travel to Mexico. I am responding to your incredulity that unmarried women are subject to travel restrictions.

thehypocritesoaf · 31/08/2015 10:49

Poor divorced or widowed women- they must be really up shit creek!

Moopy, plenty of married mothers don't have the same name as their kids- plenty of unmarried mothers do.

BertrandRussell · 31/08/2015 11:18

Interesting that, once the obvious practical/financial issues have been discussed ,so many of the other reasons given in favour of marriage are to do with appeasing misoynist views and laws.

GnomeDePlume · 31/08/2015 11:47

SouthAmericanCuisine, sorry, I should have said getting married rather than marriage. I do know that the traditions are part of a church wedding. I just find that the old traditions are interesting. They arent about the church part of the wedding but the legalities of the wedding.

Actually there is a prescribed form of words which must be used in a civil wedding ceremony. The couple can add whatever they like to the formal words but the prescribed words must be used.

The point about all the rules is that without following the rules about notice, vows, witnesses etc then a legal marriage hasnt taken place.

MrsLupo · 31/08/2015 18:00

I would have thought if your married immigration would not question mothers as names are the same?

I think I've just fallen down a wormhole.

BabyGanoush · 31/08/2015 18:07

I would have thought if your married immigration would not question mothers as names are the same?

Not if you are from a country that puts your maiden name on the passport whether you are married or not...

Ifiwasabadger · 31/08/2015 18:24

•I would have thought if your married immigration would not question mothers as names are the same?•

erm.....or maybe you don't change to your married name...i never did and many cultures don't...

Regularhiding · 31/08/2015 18:34

mehit you missed my point completely.

the person with fewer assets needs protection in the event of a split, so the story goes.

That's precisely the reason their partner ( the one with the assets ) might not want to get married.(losing assets in the event of a split)

So "protecting yourself in the event of a split " is a one sided reason to get married, and a reason NOT to marry for the other person

livingzuid · 31/08/2015 19:05

Not wanting to derail but the travelling thing does my head in. The onus is almost always on the woman. At least in the Netherlands it is for both parents who have to prove custody as well as the fact they are parents. Whereas the UK from my experience has just demanded that the names in the passport be the same which is hardly going to stop a child being abducted.

So no, marriage makes no difference but the system is completely patriarchal, to the detriment of women more often than not. Even here, who is travelling with the children more often than not? Women, particularly if they are young. I confess I have no idea what would be better but it doesn't seem that effective as it stands.

I second the vote for Vegas by the way. We would have done that if we had the money

livingzuid · 31/08/2015 19:07

I should add, we married for legal reasons. Which, given the upcoming EU referendum make some hope that in the case of an exit I have some chance of being able to stay (DH is Dutch as is DD) .

Mehitabel6 · 31/08/2015 19:39

I didn't' miss the point. A person should avoid having children with a partner who has assets and has no intention of sharing them.

BertrandRussell · 31/08/2015 20:06

"A person should avoid having children with a partner who has assets and has no intention of sharing them"

This. Absolutely. If a person doesn't want to marry you because they don't want to share everything with you then run for the hills!

Regularhiding · 31/08/2015 21:46

sharing assets is ok fine and good when together but to state as a reason for marriage to share assets in the event of a split is not a selling point for the asset rich person !

JeffreyNeedsAHobby · 31/08/2015 22:18

Regular maybe it's more about waiting for someone who has similar assets to you?

Mehitabel6 · 31/08/2015 22:27

If OP is very rich, has a great career, owns property, and has superb pension provision then of course she doesn't need the protection of marriage for her children. However I think that very few people have that. I didn't think that was OP's question.
(I suspect that even if she had all those things it would be financially advantageous to marry in terms of investment and tax.)

SouthAmericanCuisine · 01/09/2015 07:06

If a person doesn't want to marry you because they don't want to share everything with you then run for the hills!

Does that apply equally to second (or subsequent) relationships, where one (or both) parties have financial responsibilities towards a former spouse and/or DCs?

It's far more complex, surely?

BertrandRussell · 01/09/2015 08:46

"Does that apply equally to second (or subsequent) relationships, where one (or both) parties have financial responsibilities towards a former spouse and/or

But marriage or not isn't relevant here, is it?

SouthAmericanCuisine · 01/09/2015 09:03

Why do you mean, russell?

I was asking if you would "run for the hills" if a partner was reluctant to get married because it would disadvantage their DCs from a previous relationship/marriage?

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 10 11 12