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.

I thought mother's education level was the most reliable indicator of social mobility and academic outcome?

I think there is a misconception on this thread amongst those who have chosen to get married that women who are cohabiting are all uneducated and unaware and would get married if the man allowed it. I don't deny that there are women like this - the ones who believe "common law wife" is actually a thing, and they are incredibly vulnerable in that state.

But as this thread has shown, there is also a contingent of women like me who are unmarried by choice and know what they are doing. I have 2 degrees, own my house with my partner, we have mutual wills, pensions and life insurance. We are putting 4 children through private school entirely unaided. They are in no way disadvantaged by us being unmarried, quite the opposite in fact.

Yes, the people who hate it most tend to be those who value their right to live with a partner without having a marriage contract imposed on them after a certain point. These people are by definition unmarried. How dreadful of them to not want to lose rights they hold dear because of other people's choices.

Well, I agree, but not everybody has to live life by my rules. So they are free to do things on their own timeline.

I also agree that it's not JUST unmarried mothers that lead to disadvantaged children. It's more complex than that.

Oversimplifying that though, the reasons children of unmarried mothers are disproportionately disadvantaged long term is due to things like inequality in terms of gender pay gap, non enforcement of child maintenance, economic status of parents etc

The reasons why people are against conferring equivalent to married rights on cohabiting couples are numerous, personally I think it would be incredibly difficult to define and enforce (how are the dates ascertained & proven? How do you protect people from being defrauded by people who claim to have been in a cohabiting couple who weren't? What about people - and there's a few on this thread - who don't want to put their own assets at risk?)

Also given the many who already don't understand the differences between being married and cohabiting and who believe the many myths surrounding this I think it highly likely there would be just as many who wouldn't understand that by living with someone X amount of time or whatever is used to define a legal cohabiting relationship meant they were conferring rights on their partner which allowed them to claim a portion of assets accrued.

With marriage as a clearly defined, active decision both parties cannot deny that they agreed on X date to enter into the legal relationship.

Again - seen many times on the relationships board, people don't always move in together in an active, decisive way. The infamous mn cocklodger would benefit greatly from such a change in law and they tend to move in by stealth.

BertrandRussell when I've been on threads discussing this possible change to the law it's mostly been cohabitees in a later in life ltr with children from the earlier relationship wanting to protect their children's inheritances/uni funds that are most vocally against the idea.

People shouldn't have a legal union enforced upon them.

Multivac - depends on how you define commitment. If the law defined it as lifelong and permanent we wouldn't have divorce at all.

Calpop - there are women on this thread who most definitely fall under the category of unwillingly unmarried, or who seem quite obviously unaware of their vulnerability. There are also women who think they're covered by various other legal and financial contracts they've put in place - which is an improvement but can never completely replicate the protections of marriage, and there's some women who are genuinely better off not marrying as they're better off than their partner (though where does that leave the partner?)

Better education and information is clearly needed.

But I don't think forcing people into a de facto marriage, possibly against their will or knowledge, is the answer.

I thought mother's education level was the most reliable indicator of social mobility and academic outcome?

It is one indicator. The other major one is income/poverty. Poverty usurps just about everything.

We are putting 4 children through private school entirely unaided. They are in no way disadvantaged by us being unmarried, quite the opposite in fact

Can you put 4 children through private school entirely unaided? If your partner disappears, clears out the savings, demands to come off the mortgage and goes self employed to avoid paying child maintenance, will your children still be able to stay in their private school?

Being married doesn't necessarily mean that a husband can't clear out the savings, demand to come off the mortgage and go self employed to avoid paying child maintenance, but it gives a level of legal protection that doesn't exist. One of those would be getting a court Order to contribute to school fees. Another would be a global maintenance order on a high earner that ensures maintenance is paid (one way or another).

It's not about assuming a low level of education. It's about understanding that people who leave relationships don't do it in a kind and pleasant way (quite the opposite) and that all the insurance and wills in the world won't pay out if your partner runs off with his secretary who wants him to forget his obligations in her favour.

Multivac - depends on how you define commitment. If the law defined it as lifelong and permanent we wouldn't have divorce at all.

Are you suggesting it should? And if not, I really don't see what point you are trying to make.

"It's not about assuming a low level of education. It's about understanding that people who leave relationships don't do it in a kind and pleasant way (quite the opposite) and that all the insurance and wills in the world won't pay out if your partner runs off with his secretary who wants him to forget his obligations in her favour." Very well put and a very common scenario that occurs.

"Are you suggesting it should? And if not, I really don't see what point you are trying to make." Not at all. I was addressing those who were saying marriage is no guarantee of lifelong commitment - which none of us supporting marriage ever claimed, almost the opposite, that it's precisely because you can't guarantee a person will remain committed to you or even your children that the protections are needed.

So push getting qualifications, jobs and a means to support yourself instead of relying on somebody else.

Also quit with the children with unmarried parents scaremongering. Incorrect and quite unpleasant.

Yes education and employment and financial independence is important but it's not possible for everyone.

How is it scaremongering to give people the facts on where cohabiting mothers currently stand especially if they aren't financially independent?

Not at all. I was addressing those who were saying marriage is no guarantee of lifelong commitment - which none of us supporting marriage ever claimed, almost the opposite

This isn't true. All the rhetoric about 'if he were really committed, he'd marry you' - and indeed, the precise phrasing of the OP - pitches this as an 'if you aren't married, you aren't committed' debate, rather than a 'do you realise that, whether married or not, you need to protect yourself' one.

I refuse to take lessons in ‘protecting myself’ by posters who cite a reason for marriage as being access to benefits that were removed over two years ago, believe that next of kin has a legal definition, think that a spouse automatically inherits despite wills saying otherwise and are agog and disbelieving that a partner can be a beneficiary of a pension. Being informed cuts both ways.