Father of my children does not want to marry me!

[Jessil91]

So my BF of almost ten years who I live with and have two lovely children with does not believe in marriage. This wasn’t made clear to me til a few a days ago when we were for talking about it ( I just kind of assumed we would get married at some point given circumstances). I’ve never been a massive marriage advocate per se but I can’t help but feel really depressed and down about it, like he doesn’t want me or take our relationship seriously. I know that may sound silly since we have children together but I can’t help how I feel. There’s this feeling of rejection, like the man I love doesn’t love me enough to marry me. I communicated this with him and he turned round and said that his not believing in marriage is not personal and that he felt a little offended because I seemed more bothered about marriage then just being with him. But that’s not the case, I just believe in marriage and what it stands for and I want to legalise our relationship. I must add that he’s a great Dad and we have a healthy relationship otherwise.

Am I being stupid??? Any advice would be greatly appreciated !!

I don't want to get married, my dp doesn't think i love him any less, he respects my personal opinion and beliefs about marriage. We've got a mortgage, kids etc, if that doesn't show commitment a piece of paper won't do so either.

Hmmm, I think it’s clear that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the relationship if this never came up in conversation before now. I’m so sorry but I’d start planning your exit.

I have to respectfully disagree with your insinuation that marriage is a piece of paper. I can buy a property with a friend or with the government. Marriage is about committing yourself to someone for the good and the bad and declaring that commitment to family, friends, to the state and God if that’s your belief. It’s insulting those of us who do honour and respect marriage for you to dismiss it as a piece of paper.

We've got a mortgage, kids etc, if that doesn't show commitment a piece of paper won't do so either

Your mortgage is a commitment to the bank. Your children are a commitment in themselves, but not to each other.

A marriage is a commitment to each other, till death do us part and whatever else. Ok so you can get a divorce, but the marriage is a commitment to each other, a financial one, a legal one. Its not just a piece of paper, because if it so many people wouldn't get married, and unmarried couples would have the same rights as married ones.

Even if you're the most unromantic least sentimental person in the world, the financial / legal part of a marriage is important and not just for the lowest earner I don't think. For both parties, and the children involved if any.

@Jessil91

Your last post worries me slightly as it mirrors the start of what happened to my sister.

Her OH "didn't believe in marriage", "just a piece of paper", "people having a jolly at their expense" etc, but when she said she wasn't prepared to have a second child (which he very much wanted them to start trying to conceive) until they were married, he then relented and said if it was that important to her then they would get married.

She booked the Registry Office fairly sharpish as her biological clock was ticking loudly and he baulked saying if they were getting married they would do it properly so she cancelled the R.O. He then procrastinated hugely over wedding dates/plans and eventually decided that not only was marriage not for him, neither were my sister and their daughter.

Is there any chance that the "doing it properly" is a play for more time on your OH's part ?

Yes, just a bit of paper but it comes with some serious legal rights attached to it.

I think many people confused the marriage with the wedding.

Marriage is a legal contract, mainly pertaining to the couple's finances, so that things are clear if they split up. You may believe that it's not necessary, but it's a legal contract like any other. Not believing in it, in my view, is akin to not believing in employment contracts. You may choose to avoid them (I do: I'm a freelancer), but it's a bit silly to deny that they may be useful for some people.

The wedding is a different matter - it's a family and social ceremony.

In any case, yes, I think it's incredibly stupid to have children without having a marriage contract in place. Sorry, OP.

Of course it's not just a piece of paper if it gives you and your dc rights over all your partner's assets before and during marriage and half of his pension!

Which is precisely why there are men and women who earn more or have more than their partners don't want to share it!

I don't think many people here are saying that it's nothing but a slip of paper - just that it's nothing more than a slip of paper to some people.

My friends and family know how committed we are so we don't feel we need to declare it to the world (except for one prick brother in law who once "joked" I shouldn't be allowed in a couple photo as we weren't married - despite the fact we'd been together twice as long as some of the other couples we are having a baby together - made my blood boil. I'm not getting married to prove anything to that prick).

Legal implications are not yet applicable either.

many of the Spanish speaking countries are deeply patriarchal and woman's rights are shockingly poor. They never have had women take their husband's last names (ie, never have been allowed to).

Vast overgeneralisation there.

But in any case,

(a) in many places women can take their husband's surnames - they just don't lose their own: e.g. Maria López marries Pedro Sánchez and chooses to become María López de Sánchez, indicating that she's married to someone called Sánchez (this is seen as extremely pretentious and/or reactionary in most countries, though);

(b) in Spanish-speaking countries your surnames reflect your two families of origin: paternal and maternal. You are meant to share your surnames with your full siblings, not with your parents or your spouse.

And in many Spanish-speaking countries you are allowed to choose the order of your surnames, so that your mother's surname comes first.

Thanks for updating OP I'm glad you're secure financially.

I think for you it's not about the wedding or the bit of paper it's more the commitment. Yes a long time together, a home and kids together do count as commitment but some people just want a marriage as a sign of that and there's nothing wrong with that if that's how you feel.

Can you compromise at all? Like have the quiet registry office ceremony with only close family but then have a bigger party where you invite everyone else?

"Marriage is about committing yourself to someone for the good and the bad and declaring that commitment to family, friends, to the state and God if that’s your belief. It’s insulting those of us who do honour and respect marriage for you to dismiss it as a piece of paper."

It's just my own personal opinion, no need to feel insulted. I'm not insulted by the incorrect assumptions about commitment etc. Were able to do all that (apart from the god bit because I don't believe in god) and sort the legalities out that are relevant to us without being married.

I think it would be better if it was clearer the difference between the two and what is possible to protect outside and inside marriage. The Citizen's Advice Bureau have a pretty good simple division of living together vs marriage though I don't think it covers everything. Personally, I agree that people should have the choice for legal recognition rather than de facto legal changes.

With the name issue, I think part of it is social acceptability on changing names needing to fit particular reasons. Some of it is sexist within many cultures, some of it is other issues like whether we owe our parents to keep our names or if sons owe it to their fathers to do so. Having changed my entire name from what was on my birth certificate, I've been lucky to not have many issues socially, but I know others who were put on a lot of pressure from the family and friends and at work to either not do so or to have to explain themselves. Legally, the UK makes it easier though it can be harder in some situations like with immigration or multiple citizenships, though that's become just as hard whether by marriage, deed poll, or statutory declaration (neither override what name is on even an expired passport and being personally stuck between the US embassy and the UK Home Office because neither will accept it for official documentation until the other does which is a pain in the ass I haven't managed to get around yet and seems unlikely until I get UK citizenship at this point). With legal and social changes, maybe people changing their names will become, if not easier, as easy as doing it with marriage so that women don't feel that that is the best or only route to do so in an acceptable way.

Admit I get unreasonably annoyed when the kids always seem to have the fathers surname seems they pick the “traditions” that suit them

It is when you have a SAHM p/t worker unmarried situation which is the most vulnerable.

Where the partner who does everything for free on in kind or voluntarily : housekeeps, childminds, gardens, shops, provides sex, cleans etc at the expense of earning a proper income or pension and those who have depleted or have no savings or no home in their name: these are the partners who will be financially screwed over if they are unmarried and the relationship ended. Especially if they have children.

There is no more unequal or powerless a situation than when a woman is dependent on her partner for a roof over her head for herself and her DC when she has no means of earning much or provides all her work voluntarily where he profits from all that by earning huge amounts unhindered by the school run/ child illnesses etc.

Whether or not you are a feminist you owe it to yourself and any DC you have to be aware of your rights.

So get him down that aisle then. Pronto.

It is when you have a SAHM p/t worker unmarried situation which is the most vulnerable.

^^
Yup. You contribue less in pension, lose seniority etc at work and are probably likely to be overlooked for promotion at work.

You're part time : so

Jessil91
As someone who married in a registry office 47 years ago and still very happy with the same man, I'd like to take issue with your partner's view that a registry office ceremony isn't a "proper wedding".

and sort the legalities out that are relevant to us without being married

so you have got legal documents to cover what will happen to your house / children / any other financial commitments if you split up or one of you dies?

you have absolutely water tight wills?

you have somehow legally declared you are each others next of kin and in the event of someone having to make a decision to switch your life support off they cannot be overruled by your actual next of kin ie parents, siblings, your children when they're old enough?

you have sorted out getting each other pensions in the event of a death?

I find that hard to believe and if you actually have done all this, I assume it cost you a damn site more, and took you far, far longer than it would have to simply sign a register.

This really isn't rocket science.

Financially dependent on your partner and have kids (more importantly- WILL be dependent AFTER kids ) Then you would be an imbecile not to marry.

Have your own assets/income and don't WANT to share your assets and can look after your children with no drop in income with or without your partner . Only marry if you really want to. There is nothing in it for you except the public statement. (nothing wrong with this) .

Those saying Marriage is some misogynistic patriarchal conspiracy are talking bollocks. (Probably because they've never been asked). Marriage is what you want to make it. Take his name, don't take his name, have a thousand guests to a fancy wedding or treat it like a contract signing. Entirely your choice . Spend £100k on a blow out or £115 all in mid week special it's up to you .

Anecdotes about how you have been shacked up with your bloke for 50 yrs and never had any problem.. are really not helpful as we don't know your financial situation ... and still daft as you are giving a huge chunk of your partners inheritance to the treasury. Not sure about you but they get enough of my hard earned already without handing it over again just because I was stupid enough not to go to the town hall for half an hour and tell some woman who I'll never meet again - that the person I have lived with for 50yrs is my partner . Who I love. - Beyond barking mad .

Really not interested in being convinced I need to marry dp, was just letting op know that it might not be about the commitment thing.

But yes, have sorted the things we need to that are important to us.

Sorry for the derail op!

Completely agree HowardSpring. Girls should be taught from school how to make THEMSELVES financially independent, if they aspire to be a SAHM, build up a financial cushion themselves that allows them to take a few years off work. Relinquishing responsibility for your financial health to a man is about the most unfeminist thing a woman can do. We can’t demand equality but still think men have to keep us. I think divorces should adopt the default position of both parties walking away with exactly what they brought in. If the higher earner brought in the house and all the earnings, they should keep it. Don’t like it? Make an effort to financially take care of yourself.

YY catontherun, it can be a bit of a red flag when they don't want to get married because there's no point, but if they do then it has to be a massive affair. OP, personally I would take him at his word about the children's names and tell him you're changing them to yours. His reaction to that will be quite telling, I think.

I don't really see the problem if your both happy, he's a good dad and good partner, nothing will change if you get married. I was with my partner for 24 year's before he died, none of us ever spoke of marriage, id make sure you looked after financially incase anything happen's, morgage, insurance and pension's, we both had each other as beneficiary's, there were no problem's.

meandmetoo not trying to convince you, just pointing out to you, and everyone else on the thread that theres A LOT of legal work to get the same protection as marriage.

and even then theres nothing a legal document can do about inheritance tax... and whatever tax thing it is where you can give your tax free allowance to you...