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.

So have we Bertrand.

"I didn't realise that people talking about the use and history of the word bastard was offensive. "

This is what I was replying to.

Pp = previous poster, not you.

"A career is a job you have for a long period of time and can progress in. "

No, a career is not just one job. It could be a series of jobs, but it implies progression and also a certain amount of personal satisfaction. I don't think progressing in itself is enough.

"I’ve had minimum wage jobs and still progressed."

Lucky you. Lots of very basic jobs don't include any progression or pay rises.

"You can have a shit job but still be working towards your career. "

I suppose you can if you have a career, but you cal also just have jobs.

" I fail to see how 2 married people within this 50% without a career are any security to each other just by being married."

Well, one might have a career and the other not. Or one might have times when they can't work for whatever reason. Being able to pool their resources and a division of assets in the event of a divorce provides more security.

I agree in principle with @BertrandRussell on the surname issue.

What would happen in the event of an unmarried couple being unable to agree on a surname for the child? Or even a married couple where the woman keeps her own surname?

Does the baby take the mother’s surname by default?

Just responding to the “you aren’t committed and will split up if you’re not married” loons.

YABVU. It is your opinion however, one size doesn’t fit all.

Only if there are assets to be pooled or assets that provide security when pooled. Less and less people can afford to buy property and you say 50% of the population don’t have careers.

Bit of a gamble to rely on marriage for your security if you ask me.

Dp and I have been together for 22 years and have a dd who is 19.
We both always worked and I own significantly more in the way of assets than he does.
Why exactly should we have got married OP? What would be the point?

I struggle to understand all the rules behind it so maybe other people do. My fiance is in a ton of debt, wont I be "taking it on board" if i marry him?

I can support myself so no need for marriage to a rich guy (and marriage to a poor one would do me no good).

You seem to be criticising women who have children outside of marriage. Why? What difference does it make to you? Is it just intolerance?

For the avoidance of doubt there is no legal difference between children born inside or outside marriage.

There are as many fools who think marriage is ‘protection’ as fools who think that common-law-wife has a legal meaning. Check your legal status fits your circumstances. There is not much that can’t be tied up outside of marriage; pension beneficiaries, inheritance, house ownership. Widows benefits will likely change soon as a legal challenge has been made and quite right too - a child deprived of a parent is a child deprived of a parent irrespective of marital status. Inheritance tax may be worth thinking about for some who are older or richer.

I’m glad to have read many posts on here that echo what I believe - the best protection is maintaining your career and independence. That’s the message that needs to get through.

@BertrandRussell So- how is giving a child her father’s name a feminist decision?

It isn't. Neither is it anti-feminist. I would suggest the fact that I had full control over my daughter's name is entirely due to feminism and one of the things I am so grateful for. 40 years ago, I would have been sent to a convent in this country for having a child out of wedlock. Now I can have a child without having to marry and I can chose her name. I can choose not to saddle her with my name that I hate and give her my DP's name (he who describes himself as a feminist and is the most wonderful role model I could think of).

If we had disagreed over who's surname she had, it would have been up to me as her mother to make the decision and my partner would have had zero power in the matter. I had all of the power in this situation and I chose with full awareness what that choice meant. If I'd wanted to name her something completely absurd and leave him off the birthcert entirely, I had the power to do so. I chose her name based on how I felt on the matter. How is that an anti-feminist choice?

We are all illegitimate bastards in my household 😂 even the cat. I don't care about being a bastard myself, I think it's funny and anachronistic.

My dd and the cat both have my surname too.

I have no problem with folk getting married if they want to, SIL has been married 4 times and isn't even 40 yet. All my divorced friends are very jealous of my not ever being married. Dd intends to have a wedding and party etc but without the legal bit of marriage, like Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.

Dp and I do not need the state or the church to ratify or sanction our relationship.

OP I assume you are a divorce lawyer or someone with a vested interest in marriage and/or divorce?

" If I'd wanted to name her something completely absurd and leave him off the birthcert entirely"

I think a father can bring a court case to have himself listed on the birth certificate.

I’m confused, can a family member contest decisions for hospital treatment (eg life support) if they don’t agree with what the unmarried partner decides?
(In England)

“anyone who intends to have children, or who stops taking steps to avoid having children should try as hard as they can to ensure that those children will have a stable family. Marriage is a public commitment to try to do that. It may not work out; but at least everyone sets out with the intention to try.
Anyone who has children without seeking that commitment from the other parent is negligent.”

Emotional security and stability is extremely important yes. But it flies in the face of evidence that that necessarily has to be provided by a married couple. It is obvious that a single parent and an unmarried couple can provide stability and security. To declare that it has to be marriage or negligent is judgmental, narrow minded, inattentive or all three.

Yes Fission. Think about it logically; if something happened and decisions had to be made quickly and his mum turned up and said that's just the girlfriend, they were never really serious, we want to do the opposite, you'll have more bother than just saying I'm his wife. It mightn't be impossible to have your choice implemented, but it'd be more time and effort.

I think children living in an unhappy marriage or even a strained marriage are going to be far more damaged than a child living with a single parent or between two parents who have moved on and calmly sharing custody.

I have never seen the benefit of children stuck in a dysfunctional relationship household which marriage will never stop happening.

Fission doctors make the decisions re life support not untrained family members. Was certainly the case when machines were switched off with my parent. I don’t recall doctors ever coming in to check on our opinions re their attempts to save life in ICU. They are the experts, they get on and do the best they can for the patient.

Thank you Stripping, that’s reassuring to know.

And when I was in ICU my dp was named as next of kin. He dealt with everything when my parents were there. They never deferred to my parents. To be honest ICU is so busy loved ones are just spare parts anyway.The hospital next of kin myth is debunked on every one of these threads.

Agree. No marriage - no children.

Too many women giving men sway over them by going along with 'it's just a piece of paper', and giving reasons why it's all ok and marriage is so old-fashioned.

Men know who they want to marry and who they don't.

A friend of mine, 29 years and 4 DCs later, was dumped by her man. He's seeing another woman and 1 year down the line they're engaged to be married.

Friend says at a time when DCs were grown, life was easier, she was looking forward to holidays, more time with her DP. I suppose he was looking forward to a free-er life too. Just not with her.

They weren't married so no legal protections for her. She moved into his house. So he can fuck off into the sunset and a whole new life whilst she has to uproot and find elsewhere to go.

Same with a work colleague, 2 children still at primary school and her DP loves her, but is not IN love, according to him🙄. Lo and behold, another woman on the scene and they are having an engagement party in June...!

I don't care what convoluted explanations are come up with - Women have babies, men don't. That in itself says it's for a woman to ensure she's financially protected to best extent in case relationship ever breaks down. Instead of going along with what men want but trying to pretend differently.

Aren't there a couple of threads on the go at the moment as per, where years down the line OP wants to marry but her DP doesn't...? Shacking up and presuming 10 years later the man will definitely want to get married = a fools paradise of betting on potential instead of actuality/sunken costs

Stripping the velvet - next of kin has no legal definition in the UK. It’s a myth perpetuated by many on Mumsnet. Drs act in the best interest of the patient. I was in last a&e week with DM and drs spoke only to me even though my DF was there. I’m not next of kin but my DF was nodding off and none too good himself so the dr clearly thought I was the most capable person to speak to.

I have no moral issue with people having children without being married.

But I think unless the woman is extremely financially secure its foolish to do so.

And a good job is NOT financially secure, that can very easily disappear (redundancy, business goes bust, woman's circumstances change making her unable to keep the job...) I'm talking a good amount of assets/savings behind you that your partner has no claim on. Very few women, very few people are in this position.

It's very foolish to have children with someone without being married when you're not financially secure.

You also have to consider the possibility of your partner becoming critically ill (and possibly needing full time care) or dying (possibly intestate which can leave a legally unrecognised partner in a real fucking mess!) it is absolutely NOT just about the possibility of a a split.

Completely RIDICULOUS to have children without getting married, without money behind you, without a secure home, reduce your hours or become a sahm and leave yourself AND your kids COMPLETELY vulnerable.

It's NOT about romance, it's NOT about morals, it's NOT about religion, it's NOT about greed...

It's about protecting yourself AND your kids legally and financially.

THAT is the "point" of marriage.

In cultural/historical terms love & marriage have only VERY recently been anything to do with marriage.

And in the event of a split, critical illness, disability or death emotions have no legal or financial bearing on how you AND the kids will be treated.

There's an awful lot of misconceptions about marriage and "common law marriage" (which actually doesn't exist in uk) on here and in the uk population generally.

I really do think there should be a public info campaign advising people of this and possibly with "cautionary tales" from people who've been left extremely vulnerable as a result of falsely thinking they were covered in various situations.

t's a big reason WHY the lgb community have fought so hard for gay marriage.

I nursed a few gay men with AIDS in the 90's, (& heard from others doing the same) the way their partners were treated not only by families but by "the system" was appalling. Partly down to the prejudice against HIV/AIDS patients but also old fashioned homophobia.

I have many gay friends inc activists who were behind the push for gay marriages- vladimirs they absolutely WERE doing so for legal and financial protection as well as other reasons. I've heard many examples of and even witnessed first hand gay people prior to their relationships being recognised legally losing children, homes, property, savings, pets, inheritances (wills challenged and overturned), being barred from visiting dying partners, barred from the funerals! You really don't seem to be someone with much experience of the community or the barriers they've faced - and are still facing in some instances.