To think that if you are committed enough to decide to have children....

[Oakenbeach]

....you should also be committed enough to each other to get married (assuming that you don’t have any objections to marriage in principle), and that it makes no sense at all for couples to plan to have children (and I stress ‘plan’) before deciding whether to get married.

Ugh people are so judgmental about this on here. I’m not married, two DC, no real desire to get married, yet not vehemently opposed to it either. I find it a slightly archaic institution which puts me off and financially I have nothing to gain from being married. I’ve looked into this extensively to see if it would offer up any benefits but in my case it wouldn’t and it would be a messy disaster to get out of so I’m happy to stay as we are for now. Might to it one day, might not.

" I'd actually like those rights to be available without an expectation of romance, too - for example, sisters or friends who have always lived together and supported one another could make financial provision for each other

I so totally agree with this! I thought I was the only person on the planet who thought this."

I think anyone can have PACS, the French equivalent.

I think, even if there was no financial benefit for either of us in life, I’d still get married if I thought either of us might die soon (sorry, horrible thought) and might be liable for IHT or might benefit from widow’s / widower’s pension etc.

We were set on get married before having children, but that's just something we wanted to do ourselves. I certainly don't think you need to be married to make that commitment of having children, you do need to have serious conversations about what you would do if many of the worst situations like illness or death happen before having kids,married or not.
The tax allowance is going to come in handy though and although we need to sort POA out and our wills, I know at least if something bad happens being married makes thinks easier from that stand point. (My dad died without a will and my parents weren't married so I got everything despite being 9 at the time which is something I think unmarried parents should be aware of even if they don't have lots of assets).

I just don't understandf why any two people would have kids without commiting to staying together for the key first 18 years of their lives. That means marriage

But it IS our business!!! When your relationship breaks up, as most unmarried relationships do, more often than not WE get to pick up the financial burden. Not to mention that your kids also get to suffer the consequences.

Fuck me there’s some sanctimonious, narrow minded idiots on this site. The same fools will probably end up divorced - before their children are 18 - and whoever will pay for them then?!

“I just don't understandf why any two people would have kids without commiting to staying together for the key first 18 years of their lives. That means marriage”

My post wasn’t about financial safeguards per se, though that’s a good reason for marriage, it was about commitment....

If you are committed enough to plan to have children together, you should be committed enough to get married, and if you don’t believe in marriage then you should be as committed to each other as you’d expect a married couple to be. I don’t see why that’s contentious.

And there’s no legal for a marriage to mean the woman takes her husbands name, none at all... it’s merely tradition (and one based in misogyny, which I wouldn’t repeat if I married again - which I don’t intend to as am happily married!)

What actually needs to happen is for unmarried women and men who are the main carers for the children they share with the person they live with as partners, to be protected by laws which ape those of marriage.

So, de facto forced marriage, then?

Surely, that just detracts from the rights of people who DO choose to marry just as much as those who choose NOT to marry.

Choose to marry or don't choose to marry - but you can't seriously expect to have the protections/freedoms of both and the commitments/drawbacks of neither.

Both my parents have married and divorced three times, to different people. My DP was married for nearly 30 years to his ex wife and I was in an abusive marriage for 2 and half years. When we met, we both felt strongly that marriage was not for us. We have a son and have been together 8 years and we haven't changed our minds about marriage. It's not everyone's idea of perfect. Our son means everything to us and it makes no difference to him and it never will. I don't judge people who do get married. It's just not us.

I just don't understandf why any two people would have kids without commiting to staying together for the key first 18 years of their lives. That means marriage

I really don't understand, if the OP's query is about 'commitment', and people think that unmarried people aren't 'committed'.... why all the 'omigod how stupid are you not to get married?' arguments have to do with the marvellous protections marriage affords post separation?

28 years and two children into our relationship, by the way. And they have his surname, but it was by no means an 'automatic' decision. It was a gift, never yet regretted.

Why does it matter to you what other people do?

You can't expect the law to acknowledge couples who just live together unmarried. They either make the commitment or don't.

What we should be encouraging is to ensure both parents remain in work so are financially able to provide if the relationship breaks down. No relationship is guaranteed and children will continue to need financing.

I'd actually like those rights to be available without an expectation of romance, too - for example, sisters or friends who have always lived together and supported one another could make financial provision for each other

I so totally agree with this! I thought I was the only person on the planet who thought this.

That's at least three of us, then. Why should tax and other privileges be denied to those who don't want/can't form a romantic relationship with another person? It doesn't preclude them from loving and caring fondly for a friend or family member, just because their relationship isn't a sexual one.

I recall reading about a couple of elderly sisters (in Wiltshire, IIRC) who had never married and still lived together at their childhood family home, which had since massively increased in market value (to them, it was just their home for life, though). They were terrified that, when one of them died, the other would be forced out of her home.

Had they been unrelated friends, they could have lied and had a simple marriage at the registry office (although one of them would have also had to have been male when they first reached an age to be seriously concerned about it), but as loving, devoted sisters, this wasn't open to them.

Neither of them had children, so I doubt they would have objected strongly to a massive tax liability and the sale of the house after they had both died, but what a horrible shadow for them to have to live under.

I think it’s tragic that so many women rely on a wedding for financial protection.9 times of 10 you’re shafted if you don’t have your own money,property and career post split up. Fat lot of good half a house and maintenance on low/ average earnings if you’re lucky will be. As a previous poster said own career and money is better planning and marriage may not be in your best interest.

I also think it incredibly sad that some women think marriage shows commitment. It really doesn’t. That line of thinking is delusional.

And why should you be committed to marriage if you have children op?

I know people aren't going to like this, but I would not like my DCs to be 'bastards'. What really boils my piss are women who give their DCs the surname of the bloke

My bastard child will probably be less judgemental than your legitimate children if that is your attitude. Oh and I gave my daughter her father's name because he is a decent, loving man and my own name is a daily reminder of my own father who abused me for years. If I thought people genuinely thought of me as you do, I would pity them for having such a narrow view of the world.

I feel very patronised when people ask me when DP and I are getting married. I am financially independent and saw firsthand the long drawn out battle my DM had to finalise her divorce with my father and she ended up no better off as the house was in her name anyway. I'll be telling my daughter to not have children until she can maintain financial independence while she raises them. Marriage doesn't come into that.

I don't judge people for their decisions around this, it's deeply personal. Different strokes for different folks.

Oh and I gave my daughter her father's name because he is a decent, loving man and my own name is a daily reminder of my own father who abused me for years

I get this, but at the same time, I wonder why so many men still give their children their name when it is their father's (rather than the mother of their child's) when he has abused them for years.

“I'd actually like those rights to be available without an expectation of romance, too - for example, sisters or friends who have always lived together and supported one another could make financial provision for each other”

I agree. And for families such as those where lesbian couples have involved a loved, close friend as a bio dad and he stays involved with the child.

A passport is also just a few pieces of paper. I don't travel abroad any more for various reasons (not saying that would definitely never change), so I haven't applied for one since my last one expired many years ago. I understand that the law doesn't recognise my ability to do what I otherwise could, if I did have one. All fine.

A driving licence is just a piece of paper (well, a card now). My freedom to drive is hugely important to me, so as soon as I was able to, I did the necessary to get one and now gladly reap the legal benefits of it. All fine.

Similarly, a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper which confers legal privileges, makes legal assumptions and demands certain legal commitments. If you want that, which I did, you need to do what it takes to get one. If you don't want or care about that, you should/need do nothing. All fine.

Just don't expect the government to be mind-readers as to your wishes and intentions and to allow you to pick 'n' mix the desirable parts of both (or even magically 'know' which parts a person would have liked, after their death) whilst reserving the right to eschew the less desirable elements of both.

In the same way, you can choose to commit to paying a year's expensive insurance premiums or you can make alternative decisions as to how to spend your own money - both options are valid; but what you can't then do is first approach an insurance company after your house has burnt to the ground and then seek to get them to pay to rebuild it for you.

I'm aware that a passport and driving licence are 'passive' agreements, in that you can just leave them in a drawer and ignore them if you don't want to use them, whereas a marriage certificate - because it necessarily involves two people's rights and privileges - is an active agreement; but nobody is forced to stay married for life if they later change their mind. You're perfectly at liberty to marry, have an unacrimonious divorce and still live together 'as married' for the rest of your lives, if you so wish.

“my own name is a daily reminder of my own father who abused me for years.”

Why haven’t you changed it?

my own name is a daily reminder of my own father who abused me for years

Why not change it?

I get this, but at the same time, I wonder why so many men still give their children their name when it is their father's (rather than the mother of their child's) when he has abused them for years

Some people must be able to separate the two. I couldn't. There's certainly some men who couldn't either. My brother has no children yet but he has strongly considered changing his surname as he doesn't want to give our father the satisfaction of keeping the family name going (he was always obsessed with this).

(Sorry for going off topic)

I’ve reported the bastards post.

My ‘bastard’childrwn have my partners name because it’s nicer. And having been together 30 years unmarried they’ve had parents together longer than most marrieds I know.

How much the state pays post break up is surely down to household income. Also I’ve heard smug marrieds bang on continuously re how you’re better off benefitswise post break up/ death if married so us unmarrieds are actually saving you money!!!

my own name is a daily reminder of my own father who abused me for years

I don't know about the UK but in Ireland it is a massive pain to do so unless you are changing to married name. Even then it's a pain. All my degrees are in my name and professionally I'm know by my name. I've made peace with it for myself but there was no way I was passing it to my baby

"Fat lot of good half a house and maintenance on low/ average earnings if you’re lucky will be."

It's better than nothing isn't it.
As far as I understand it, a cohabitee with no children has fewer rights than a lodger and can be chucked out from one day to the next.