"What the person means is they can't afford the wedding they want" which is NOT the same as can't afford to get married
Personally I see a huge difference in how older generations of men support & treat the mothers of their children - whether they're still together or not. My uncles, father and grandfathers would NEVER even consider not being in their kids lives and paying to support them. 3 of my uncles are separated from mothers of their children, they all remained very much involved in their kids lives, weren't Disney dads and paid decent child support WITHOUT anyone having to make them!
Men aged under 50 that I know (in real life and from various threads here and stuff on social media and in news) generally seem to do all they can to AVOID being decent dads and usually need to be made to do the basics - like seeing them once a bloody fortnight and paying maintenance.
"Making sure that you're not financially screwed if you split up is sensible but that doesn't have to be marriage." But marriage is the only way to have a real chance of avoiding this. Anything else and your partner can change the arrangements without your input.
"Surely it's not too difficult to understand that there might be better things to spend the money on at this particular time?" Actually exactly what I and others saying marriage IS important ESPECIALLY when children are likely to be or become involved is that marriage IS a more important thing to spend money on.
What is better to spend money on than something that confers financial and legal security on a mother/potential mother BEFORE they are in a very vulnerable position?
"What needs to happen is that this stuff should be taught in schools" it is in Scotland. Not sure if universally but certainly dd was taught it under a fantastic subject we have here called "modern studies" - a subject which also teaches how our country is run in terms of politics and legislation generally. (Personally I think it should be uk wide but suspect the govt doesn't want people knowing their rights)
"If only kind and perfect married people had kids the population would be tiny" Rubbish! People had bigger families actually in the past WITHIN marriage. There were children born outside marriage but it was rare. I'm from a catholic background - HUGE families born in marriage.
And what protection are you going to/have you provided your children born outside marriage? It's not just about the couple it's about ensuring the children are well cared for.
"to be protected by laws which ape those of marriage." Which removes choice, is a nightmare to legislate for and determine...
At what point would a cohabiting couple be recognised? What proof would be required? How would the govt define when that relationship is considered legally ended? What's to stop fraudulent claims?
"There is TOO much power in men's hands regarding this issue. All a man has to do is say "NO" to marriage and if they already have kids that leaves the woman nowhere." Bull! Women have the choice to use contraception, not have sex with him, have an abortion if they do fall pregnant accidentally. It is a CHOICE to have children and in what circumstances.
"I know you can get married on the cheap, but it's still money that could be better used elsewhere, rather than on a bit of paper that will change nothing." Except it DOES change a LOT. Where do you stand legally and financially if your partner were to become critically ill or die?
Ithinkmycatisevil - given you think you'd be required to change your name (you're not) I wonder what other misconceptions you have about marriage.
"We've agreed that if we did ever split, I would stay in the house until youngest is 18 and then we'd sell it and split the equity." You have absolutely no guarantee that he would stick to this if you did split. Even if you have it in writing. And it's not just a split that could leave you and your children vulnerable.
"I fail to see how marriage could protect me? I work full time and could support myself if needs be." What if you and/or your child were to become sick/disabled?
HennyPenny that poster has been poorly advised and even when getting good advice now is not utilising the avenues available to her for redress because she 'hates confrontation' sorry but her discomfort with confrontation is less important than her kids need to be fed, housed etc. She DOES have several things she could do to address the issues she's having but is CHOOSING not to.
"The solution is not marriage, it's to protect your earning potential by not giving up work." Not everyone has that choice. If the woman becomes sick/disabled and unable to work or if any of the children do and need full time care (I've observed when the kids are sick/disabled it's even more likely that mum will become the sahp. Any mners with disabled kids requiring full time care might be able to provide stats on this?) then they're again extremely vulnerable if not married.
"Suddenly, when the relationship has broken down, the OP is SHOCKED that despite having assumed that DP would do the right thing- he’s actually realised that he can pay the CSA minimum and carry on his life with literally no other disruption." Exactly! Numerous threads like this, even threads by op's angry that the state won't step in on their behalf because they assumed the state would because "common law marriage"
"Really worried about the people who think it's 'only a piece of paper.' Are people REALLY that naive??" Yes unfortunately.
"They get a share of the assets, but often not enough to live comfortably." That's STILL better than nothing!
I'm divorced, I received a small settlement, I will get a portion of his pension at a certain point, it made it MUCH easier to make the initial claim for child maintenance, it made it much easier to claim benefits and other support (divorcing means you can easily provide papers to prove the relationship is over), my ex was army it also meant I got financial and practical support from army and affiliated organisations that I wouldn't have if we weren't married. Enough help that I didn't have to pay removals costs, was provided furnishings for our new home (items that are standard in quarters so many armed forces families don't buy their own). I'd have been utterly screwed if I'd not been married!
I've a few friends who split from cohabiting partners and they found it much harder to pursue ex for maintenance, to claim benefits, they got not a penny in settlement, they won't receive anything with regard to any pensions...
It's incredibly naive to think that unless there are major assets to consider you don't need the protections.
"the time the contract is important is not when things are going well but when they go wrong." Exactly!
The poster that keeps saying "it will make no difference to my life" - it may not now, do you have any idea what position you and your children will be in if your partner leaves, becomes critically ill or dies?
Whatswithtodaytoday - the situation you described is when the sick person is able to communicate who they want informed of and asked about their care. There are many situations where the patient cannot communicate this and the hospital and staff have no way of knowing - since you can't prove it - that this would be their wish if they were conscious.
I know of an unmarried couple where the guy took a stroke while on holiday in the uk. The woman had no way of proving they even knew each other. As a result his estranged brother was the one asked about whether to proceed with a high risk treatment option which the brother refused (his partner would have agreed) the man died and it was a complete nightmare for his partner making arrangements to have him returned home for the funeral etc it was a mess. That was 3 years ago. She is still dealing with the ramifications and costs.
"Marriage is no guarantee of protection, you only need to read the Relationships board on here to see that." Actually if you read it properly you'll see the differences between what a woman who was Married is able to achieve with the right use of that fact compared to those who weren't married.
It's a particularly stark difference when it's not a split but a bereavement.
"You can name anyone as your next of kin, I am DPs and he is mine and that is on our hospital records.
We are also the beneficiaries of each other's life insurance." Either of which can be revoked unilaterally and without that person telling the partner. I've seen it happen. I've even seen people discover upon a partners death that they were still legally married to a previous spouse and that's meant life assurance, death in service etc has gone to the LEGALLY RECOGNISED SPOUSE.
"It's also not very nice to say, but there is still (rightly or wrongly) a social currency to marriage" totally agree. My sister never married her kids father and she is "'miss" and different name to her kids and she's had some really shitty attitudes from certain people/organisations. I've remained "Mrs married name" which is same as dds name and I have noticed I get slightly better treatment as a divorcee. It SHOULDN'T happen but it does.
Aimily - sorry but all those things you think you've put in place instead of marriage can be revoked by him at any time he chooses without even telling you. PLEASE protect yourself as much as you possibly can WITH that info in mind. Give very serious consideration to how you register the child's birth and what surname you give them - these decisions have consequences. It very much sounds like he's stringing you along to be honest. If it's so unimportant to him why won't he do it because it's important to you? It speaks to his care for you AND your child.
"I can get a divorce and forget the person existed and move on with my life.
Cant do that with a child" millions of men do EXACTLY that to their kids. I know a few women who have too.
It's not as simple as "if he loved you he would marry you" I think it's deeper than that. It's if he loves you he WON'T want you to be vulnerable in the event of split/illness/death.
we're not married and I see no reason to be. Before people start saying it protects women financially - I am the wage earner on six figures Said on a thread FULL of damn good reasons why! Where will you be if your company goes bust? If you become too sick or disabled to work? If any of your children become sick/disabled and need full time care? Especially if this happens after you split from your partner? If your partner becomes sick/disabled enough to need full time care? Or dies? Would you leave your bereaved children to stay in your 6 figure job? And if you do what will you live on?
Regarding wills - it's not just intestacy, families can and do succeed in challenging wills where assets are left to a cohabiting partner - again I've seen it happen. You're particularly vulnerable if you have a "volatile" relationship where the family can show there's doubt as to whether you were even together when the person died.
NewYearBollocks - except it DOES affect others in the wider community, in terms of those who haven't protected themselves could and do then need more support from the community and the state.
It complicates matters for healthcare and other organisations especially with a bereavement, there then needs to be a lot more time spent sorting certain things out. With inheritances it means court time used up in reaching agreements...
Time and money spent by others in dealing with the fact that people didn't bother to properly inform themselves and administrate their lives.
"In my Will I have stated that if I die then he can stay in the house until he dies,or he can move if he wants to. So he won't end up homeless." Unless your family inc any children from your first marriage succeed in challenging that will.
"Dp and I do not need the state or the church to ratify or sanction our relationship." Again I ask do you genuinely know where you stand if you, your partner or child/ren become critically ill/disabled? Where do you stand if he dies?
"If it's just a piece of paper why the fuck are so many men opposed to marriage, or don't believe in it?" I'm of the firm belief it's precisely BECAUSE they know their then wife WOULD have a claim on their assets.
"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)" it's been a while since I've dealt with England Nhs but I believe so. Even more problematic if the patient is mentally ill enough to possibly need sectioning - that's a while other can of worms!
Spend some time in a very male environment (especially if they don't know you're there) and you will hear exactly such things said "I'm not getting screwed over if we split" "why would I marry her I get all I want now and it costs me nothing" "ex partners can do nothing ex wives rip you right off. Do NOT marry her" plus advice given on all the excuses to give.
Here's what it usually boils down to:
The man is happy for the woman to make herself financially and legally vulnerable by having children, even becoming sahm BUT he's not willing to make himself in ANY WAY vulnerable.
"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." Actually most research shows that being in a cohabiting family is the least secure arrangement for children, even less secure than being in a single parent family.