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.

Some really useful info on here - and thought provoking points.

WeTookVows - good point about titles
(I often used the words husband and wife and now use ex husband despite the lack of legal contract. It is just easier than my "partner who is also the father of my children and who has been with me in an exclusive sexual relationship for thirty years" )

"t's also not very nice to say, but there is still (rightly or wrongly) a social currency to marriage. The word "partner" can be ambiguous - round here, some people would use partner for a casual, live-apart boyfriend of a few months but it could also mean a lifelong significant other - while "husband" or "wife" are clear unambiguous terms."

Yea. There are still some absolute arseholes out there who think unmarrieds are a lesser person in society.

Yea. There are still some absolute arseholes out there who think unmarrieds are a lesser person in society

I agree - but I don't much care ... I just feel sorry for them. :)

Meandmetoo - also agree with that - and that is of course part of the problem.

And as for giving cohabitees the rights of married partners - NOWAY!!
I lived with a real cocklodger when I was young. My flat was near his work so he sort of moved in by stealth staying more and more often until it "wasn't worth" him keeping his place.

I was young and working and having fun but he was really a waste of space; lazy, unreliable, a drinker. He flattered me, he was sexy and charming and very good looking. Thank goodness he didn't acquire any rights to my flat or my income !!!!!

Same, hard to be really annoyed with someone who thinks like that. Probably the same sort of person who assumes someone who says 'partner' is gay, then apologises when corrected, as if it's an insult.

What a great thread!

Do make sure your baby is registered with your name aimily.

Meandmetoo do you really think it's that they think unmarried people are lesser people? I don't think it is, bar perhaps very religious types who might, I suppose, think someone who has sex outside of marriage is morally lacking.

I think it's more that people would judge the specific relationship as less significant. Split up with a partner vs getting divorced might be treated differently by others (since they can't see depth of affection or love).

So it did change things. That's why you married because it gave you all that

Yes but I don't need any of it. It's just a safety net. Nothing has actually changed. The relationship is the same. Life goes on. I wouldn't have married if I didn't plan on having children.

He has never said no to marrying me, just that it's a pointless piece of paper (in his opinion) I've said to him in the past, if it's not a big deal, then why not go regestry office and just do it with close family (I'm not a big event girl) and he has said when we do it we'll do it "properly"

That's his way of saying no. I wouldn't plan to have children with a man like that unless he was prepared to sign other documents which would give the financial security of marriage.

He is using the 'we can't get married because we can't afford a wedding' excuse which a lot of men use when they don't want to tie themselves financially to a woman. That's what this whole thread is about really.

WeTookVows - agree that the relationship is judged as lesser. The crap about "If he loved you he would marry you" sort of thing.

I wonder if the recent changes in divorce law will affect this in any way. I suspect that unless the wedding industry loses some of its power the myth will not be wholly debunked.

WeTookVows, well a pp did refer to marriage as having "social currency" so if one person thinks like that, odds are others do.

and the last line of your po demonstrates that thinking too. Odd to think a couple who have been together for a year, gets married and 6 months later splits up might be considered to have more depth in their relationship than a couple who have been together 30+ years.

Btw - my username isn't that I see marriage as the pinnacle of my existence - I name changed on the Line of Duty thread and all other pertinent Ted Hastings quotes were taken

There is an opt-in option for those who want the protections of marriage. I wouldn't want to see a system whereby those rights were afforded just by being together a certain length of time as there are some people who actively don't want that (particularly second marriages of widow/ers where there'd be huge amounts of money lost). However I would like same-sex civil partnerships brought in for those who oppose marriage from a feminist/ historical/ religious perspective. 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.

He is using the 'we can't get married because we can't afford a wedding' excuse which a lot of men use when they don't want to tie themselves financially to a woman. That's what this whole thread is about really

Yes. I'd suggest that the OP suggest to her OH that they see a lawyer about a range of protections for both of them and their child that will fill the gap and even do more than the traditional marriage certificate and see what he says.

"And as for giving cohabitees the rights of married partners - NOWAY!!"

OK. So some of you don't want rights for cohabitees and also don't think people should get married if they want those rights.

What would you then say to someone like Arwel Pritchard who complains about not getting widower's benefit because he wasn't married.
www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=123900&headline=Unmarried%20dad%20slams%20%27unfair%27%20payment%20rules&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

Yes. I'd suggest that the OP suggest to her OH that they see a lawyer about a range of protections for both of them and their child that will fill the gap and even do more than the traditional marriage certificate and see what he says.

Yep. “Oh we don’t need to do all that. It’s so unnecessary. Just pieces of paper. We’ll have a proper do one day with a big dress and everything! Just not now. Or any time soon”.

@GooseTheCat You can get married at my registry office for £47 on a Tuesday morning.

I personally think marriage is just one big expense!! And most people can't afford it!
My friend has just got married "before children"
And she's now about 20 grand in debt which she will be paying off until her child is a bit older.... (I understand that's quite a lot for a wedding I wouldn't be paying that much)
But now she's paying off her wedding her child is going without
Me and my OH have been together nearly 10 years and for the sake of a title and a ring I'd much rather put my money to good use for example towards my LOs university fees or when he comes to purchase his own home.... but this is totally just my own opinion... live and let live and all that 😊

Arwel and Donna, who worked as an accountant in Porthmadog, were engaged but had prioritised buying a family home over the expense of getting married.

From that article^^. It does not cost very much money at all to get the legal bit done without any of the fuss. This is terribly sad, but there are so many things in life where you need to fill in the forms, meet the requirements etc before you get the benefits. Marriage is just another one of these things.

I’d also support civil partnerships for anyone who wants them btw, sisters etc.

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. Why should sexual and procreative (not that all partnerships in the name of marriage are these things) be privileged over how others live their lives? And singles should have similar rights. For example, I once had an insurance policy connected with my work. I could name my spouse or parents or a 'de facto', but not simply any person I chose. That's not fair.

@Eliza9919 I think most of the weddings I've seen lately are treated like a competition who's wedding is bigger & better... that's just my friend circle though and doesn't apply to everyone

@Meandmetoo I used the term social currency and I'm afraid it is true in my experience. I quite agree that solely being married doesn't tell the whole story but I'm trying to put into words how things might be seen by society - especially when things go tits up. DH's employer for example specifically used the terms husband / wife in bereavement / dependent leave policies, along with parents-in-law. Thankfully his boss wasn't a complete knob and did allow people whose long term, cohabiting partners were ill to have time off.

I got married young and I was treated differently by estate agents and others when I used the terms Mrs and husband. It's not right but it does happen.

Fairenuff as I said earlier, the time you need a contract is not when things are going well ( which hopefully they continue to do) but when they go wrong. Things HAVE changed, even if they aren't immediately obvious, because you have an layer of protection that is clearly important to you.

Yes but I don't need any of it. It's just a safety net. Nothing has actually changed. The relationship is the same. Life goes on. I wouldn't have married if I didn't plan on having children

Everything changed. Because all the things you listed became that safety net. Just because the relationship didn't change doesn't mean nothing changed.

It's quite odd to argue marriage doesn't change anything when you 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.

Children way bigger commitment than marriage. It baffles me when people think any differently. I can get a divorce and forget the person existed and move on with my life.

Cant do that with a child, children are permanent so the two are not really even comparable IMO

Gwenhwyfar - I don't think anyone said you shouldn't get married only that you should fully understand the rights and responsibiities that marriage gives to both parties and that you should make an informed decision.

If you want XYZ then you don't need to be married to have it
If you want ABC then you probably do need to be married to have it
If you don't want to be bound by AAA then do not get married
etc etc

And as for the man you mentioned - he should have got married if he had wanted the benefits - it is not expensive, (and the article using "couldn't afford it" to give the impression that the poor are being victimised is misleading). Once again it is ignorance that is the problem. Poor, poor man - in such terrible circumstances - but he is dealing with the State Benefits system which is notorious for being unfair - whether you are married or not.