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.

There’s always numerous posters who come on these threads and exclaim that they don’t need to be married as they are high earners with property in their sole name, their own pension and they earn more than their DP.

That’s great, but let’s be real, that’s not the case for the majority of women who have had kids within a long term relationship.

It’s the women on the relationship board that feel the difference between being married and not when things go tits up. The posters who have been with their DP for years, live in his house (which she’s helped paid to maintain), had two kids (with his surname), she’s given up work or gone very part time. DP has meanwhile continued working, got a promotion or two and carried on building up a decent pension. Bonus points if the OP changed her name by deedpoll “so she has the same name as the kids”.

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.

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.

What legal rights do wives have that partners don't?

That's what I would base my decision on.

Medical decisions
Inheritance if partner dies intestate
Funeral decisions
Financial obviously

What else?

Here are some other important pieces of paper (other than the civil partnership) that can provide the same kinds of protections as a marriage certificate

www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2017/05/does-the-common-law-next-of-kin-exist/

Added to keeping one's own financial independence and making sure that he sacrifices as much for the children as women have traditionally done this could be a better choice for many.

It is important that these threads occur on MN again and again. Although even on here there are people who haven't rtft, but at least the information is here.

Of course people can choose for themselves, but making an educated, informed choice is surely better than otherwise?

Why are posts that inform sneered at? Why would a woman do that to other women?

It is a fact that for some, the piece of paper won't change a single thing. Why can't people understand that concept? Very strange.

Like Spartacus said, it's as if marriage is something that we must do, and were thick if we dont.

Really worried about the people who think it's 'only a piece of paper.' Are people REALLY that naive??

@Ithinkmycatisevil

Well there you go, you were misinformed. It is of course for both, however many gay couples had ZERO RIGHTS when their partner passed. One lady said how she wasn't allowed to be in the room with her partner when she was ill and receiving treatments, and how she had to stand outside the hospital room hearing her partner crying and couldn't do a thing.

Then, there is the other female couple who was not allowed to be recognised as spouse on the death certificate.

Or the gay couple where one partner died and the homophobic parents who had ostracised the couple for many years came in, blocked the partner from deciding medical treatments or even being involved in the funeral arrangements.

Lastly, the gay couple who were overseas and one had an accident and died, and he wasn't allowed to be named next of kin, even with consulate assistance.

It seems there is a lot you weren't aware of....

It is a fact that for some, the piece of paper won't change a single thing. Why can't people understand that concept? Very strange.

I don't understand the concept. Maybe you could explain. I guess I'm strange

I imagine some might be Golden. Not all

It is a fact that for some, the piece of paper won't change a single thing

Well it will. Maybe not emotionally, but legally, yes. Whether it’s worth doing it though is ultimately down to the couple.

*It’s the women on the relationship board that feel the difference between being married and not when things go tits up. The posters who have been with their DP for years, live in his house (which she’s helped paid to maintain), had two kids (with his surname), she’s given up work or gone very part time. DP has meanwhile continued working, got a promotion or two and carried on building up a decent pension. Bonus points if the OP changed her name by deedpoll “so she has the same name as the kids”.

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*

But a quick peruse of the relationships board will show that married women are not that much better off. They get a share of the assets, but often not enough to live comfortably.

In the situation above there are also other ways of financial and other protection that a marriage certificate - including making damn sure that her name is on the house deeds.

Most of all giving up her financial security whether married or not is the worst thing she can do.

@VladmirsPoutine Oh yes they were!!! Read my posts. They were fighting for the legal protections that marriage offers.

I think better advice would be to tell woman not to be financially dependent on men in general.

I think better advice would be to tell woman not to be financially dependent on men in general

I agree. The thread will move on without consideration of this though. It always does.

“I agree with you but we aren't allowed to say that because it offends people.”

And yet there’s you-saying it!

No problem, we have all the protections that marriage offers that are important to us at this point in our lives as a couple without having to get married. So it is accurate to say that marriage won't change a single thing for us.

Hth.

There are several threads on this at the moment - and it is dreadful to see the level of ignorance still. (Although good to see more people who know what they are talking about)

Marriage is a legal contract that binds the parties and encompasses a set of rights and responsibilities.

Weddings have nothing to do with it and nor does love. It is mainly about money and property. It is not always in the woman's interests to be married and certainly not in womens' interests to proliferate the myth that we all need the protection of a man.

I am financially independent. I have two kids. I would be worse off if I married their father, (pre and post a split).

Educate yourselves and your kids FFS

I think better advice would be to tell woman not to be financially dependent on men in general.

1. It's not just about finances

1. It works both ways

It's all very well saying the way to protect yourself is not to give up work but what if your child is disabled or has a long term illness? That assumption is likely to go to pot then. In any situation, business or otherwise, the time the contract is important is not when things are going well but when they go wrong.

Whenever I or my partner have been in hospital we been asked to name our next of kin (each other). In fact when I recently had a baby I double checked whether my partner would be able to make decisions about my care if I were unable to, or if my mum needed to be available. The consultant looked very confused and said of course my partner would be asked.

I don't know where these hospitals are that ban people from visiting their sick partners, but they're but around here.

I think there is a vast difference between being a SAHM with no stake in the property and no joint will, pension, insurance etc - which is daft unless you're independently wealthy - and being a woman with a career, own bank account with savings, and wills, pensions and insurance sorted. Marriage is no guarantee of protection, you only need to read the Relationships board on here to see that.

I regret giving up my career to look after my kids, I returned to work after 9 years earning 65% of what I used to earn. I will financially struggle without my husband, marriage will bring some kind of financial security for me if we divorce. My £200 marriage cost is definitely spent in my situation.

Great post Howard!

Gay people were fighting for lots of rights. Before CP existed, they were without mechanisms to legally protect their partners against eg inheritance tax, and there were cases where pension benefits were denied. For some, that was the main or only reason they fought. It was also more common for unmarried partners to be excluded from medical care decisions etc back then. Remember it's nearly 20 years since the law was passed and it wasn't like now where unmarried partners are almost always included.

Then later, after CP was introduced so there was at least some protection, it became a fight for equality under the law, equal recognition and religious rights too. CP has to be secular, so religious gay couples were denied even the option of a ceremony that's both religious and legal.

It is a fact that for some, the piece of paper won't change a single thing. Why can't people understand that concept?

It didn't change a thing for me.

I only married because we were ready to have children and I was putting my career on hold and reducing my financial independence. I also wanted to be legal next of kin and legal spouse.

But nothing materially changed. It's just a legal safety net. I wouldn't actually want it to change anything, that's not what it's for.

Luna - many of these thigns can be sorted out by choosing a partner to have PoA. The holder of my PoA can make all my medical and financial decisions should I be unable to.