to think spreading the myth that marriage is just a piece of paper is irresponsible?

[Lagobel]

I've never heard anyone say, "Driving lessons are a waste of money, a driving license is just a piece of paper." I've never heard anyone say, "Studying is a waste of time, exam results are just a piece of paper." I've never heard anyone say, "I'm just going to keep renting, a mortgage is just a piece of paper." Yet almost every time the differences between marriage and cohabitation is brought up, the "piece of paper" line gets trotted out.

Why do so many people fall for it? It's so obvious that it's just a line that people (mostly men) sell their partner when they don't want to share their assets with them! "We don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" is just a way of making "I don't want to marry you" sound romantic.

Even more frustrating is when they refer to it as a "very expensive piece of paper". It doesn't have to be! A couple who get married in a register office in front of two witnesses during their lunch break are no less married than a couple who have a white wedding at a castle. The legal document is the same either way. I don't understand how people aren't aware of this – even if they don't know anyone in real life who had a £100 wedding, surely they've seen it on TV? Elopements are quite a common sitcom trope.

Before anyone says, "Just because someone isn't married to their partner it doesn't mean they don't understand the legal side of things – I don't want to get married because I'm the higher earner/I don't meet the inheritance tax threshold/I don't care whether or not I get bereavement allowance" – I'm not criticising that decision at all. There are definitely good reasons why someone may not want to get married, especially if they have children from a previous relationship and want to protect their inheritance. But in those cases, people are choosing not to marry BECAUSE they know it's not just a piece of paper. They're aware of the legal implications, and they've made an informed decision.

I'm frustrated by this because I have a friend who's upset that her son's father has just told her he doesn't want to get engaged in the next five years (and he wants the subsequent engagement to last at least two years). They're in their thirties and she's a SAHM. The rest of our friendship group is telling her that she's being silly, of course he's committed to her, marriage is unnecessary nowadays, a piece of paper and a ring won't change their relationship. I don't want to be a downer, but it annoys me that they're giving her a false sense of security, yet if I say anything I'll probably get shit for being the one to tell her what she doesn't want to hear.

Will didn’t want to get married, had more money than partner, drew up an agreement for the house with the solicitor. Now ex partner, no expensive divorce, I had my legal contract for the house, win, win, situation.

@AnneLovesGilbert it was taught in my school which was a bog standard comp as part of “life skills” so it would certainly have been taught in others too. People believe lots of things that are a bit daft unfortunately. I have never met anyone in rl who thinks common law marriage is a thing though and a quick google would sort them out. Lecturing people on what’s best for them is unlikely to go down well.

Yanbu, although you'll be doing well if this doesnt turn into the usual I'm un/married and I'm better off than yaaaaaw. Differences between the two can be very significant.

Out of interest, how old are people who were taught it in school? I'm mid 30s and we never got it so I guess it wasnt on the NC then.

They are probably trying to be nice considering she must feel like shit about this.

Generally I've found blokes use it as an excuse for "I don't want to get married" and women as a justification of why they aren't married.

I was at a wedding once and a friend who wasnt married to her long term partner kept going on about how she was more married and committed than her married friends (?! Yes really!).

When she got pissed she then let slip that actually he refused to get married and didn't believe in marriage.

They're now split up

To be fair, I can see why somebody with considerably more assets wouldn’t want to get married.

It’s antiquated but, it’s more than a bit of paper

Also OP unless your mate has significant assets in her own name, she really ought to look into getting a job.

YANBU.

I blame Joni Mitchell.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=h1_PIuEmj8s

It's primarily a financial contract. It's also ridiculously outdated. The idea that you become financially responsible for another human being for life, is just bonkers.

Of course, many people don't understand it as such. The myth of the 'common law spouse' continues tk thrive, and for people who are misinformed in that way, it may well seem that marriage is just a piece of paper.

But however they view it, people are entitled to not want to get married for any reason at all. They don't have to justify that decision to you or anyone else.

It should be taught that it is a contract. This should be taught at school. As long as it also comes with a clear understanding of what that contract is and what the risks are. Not the blanket line that it offers you protection. If you have assets, pension etc of your own you are likely to get shafted if your DH/DW decides to take a shit on your life and rub it in. I will never get married again.

But marriage would be a lot more equitable and palatable if ANCs were legally enforcable.

My husband and I went in to our marriage making sure all assets and liabilities and our inheritances will be equitably and fairly distributed. It is a no-brainer when you have dependents

Marriage law has to move with the times ...

Assets before marriage and inheritance remain outside the marriage and accumulated wealth (pension, house, investments etc) are then equitably divided.

I think people are kidding themselves if they buy that line.

DH has a friend like this, his other half desperate to get married, SAHM because his career is a full on, all hours one not suitable for his fair share of childcare. And started harping on about it just being a piece of paper and I couldn't help but say "no shit Steve", it's a really important one too.

Even where that leaves the children not properly provided for? Because that's the major reason why the pot is potentially so wide ranging in the law of England and Wales.

Out of interest, how old are people who were taught it in school? I'm mid 30s and we never got it so I guess it wasnt on the NC then.

I'm thirty and I definitely wasn't taught anything about the differences between marriage and cohabitation at school.

Many people seem to believe that the law has changed over the decades to recognise cohabiting couples as de facto married. It hasn't. If that did happen, it would take away a couple's right to live together without being forced into a marriage contract.

There was an MN thread a while ago from a woman who was angry that cohabitation wasn't listed as a marital status on her maternity notes. There were comments about how old-fashioned this was, and how she should just write "it's the 21st century" on the form. It doesn't matter what century it is - cohabitation still ain't a marital status! The clue is in the word "marital"! If the form had asked whether or not she was in a relationship, then cohabitation should definitely have been listed as an option, but that clearly wasn't relevant to that particular form.

It's not so much the issue of a couple choosing not to get married...it works for lots of people, and that's great. What makes me sad is vulnerable women, who have DC with their partners and give their lives over to their kids and partner, only to get utterly screwed when partner turns out to be abusive, or buggers off, or finds another woman.
The marriage bit was important to DH and I before we had our DCs, but I was earning a good salary, and though I'm in a low paying job because his job is full on, and this jobs works well around my dc, I work in a field I am highly qualified in, so if anything happened, I'd be able to get something higher paid to support us.
I love my DH to bits, but i would never be comfortable not having the legal protection of marriage, or the qualifications to make sure DC and I could survive financially without him.

YANBU! MY feelings about marriage have changed 100% since I was a young naive feminist. At some point I grew up and realised that not marrying someone I wanted to spend my life with was not in fact a strong statement of my female independence and belief in love winning the day.

Nope, not marrying if children are in the picture is a surefire way for women's financial stability to be weakened for decades by needing to leave the workforce in the early years or work but still be the main carer on evenings/weekends, do the majority of the doctors appointments, potty training, clothes buying, cooking, laundry etc. And then if things don't work out it's even more financially precarious for an unmarried parent.

I'm fully in favour of pre-nuptial agreements but yes, if I had daughters I would make it very clear what they are risking financially by not marrying.

On a related point, people who already have kids and then (re) marry someone else can also cause a heap of trouble if they die intestate or leave assets from first marriage to second partner. People need to educate themselves on this stuff.

Agree with you up to a point OP. Although these debates miss two very important points:

1. You assume that everyone who can't afford a big wedding can just elope or have a quick registry office do. I tried that with ex-h, it caused massive issues with my family and lead to me being estranged from my parents for two years. There are huge cultural expectations around marriage that are very hard to overcome and explain why lots of couples put themselves in debt for a huge wedding. There has also always been huge snobbery towards unmarried women, because they were usually poorer women who couldn't afford to get married, for the reasons outlined above. I think that snobbery persists today in attitudes towards marriage and underlines a lot of these debates.

1. It's never stated anywhere, but marriage means you agree to be financially responsible for your partner even if you split up, unless you can agree a financial consent order to stop them bringing claims against you. If you remarry they can still make a claim against your future earnings, assets and inheritance, unless they also remarry. I wonder how many women posting on here would be happy for their ex-husband to come along decades after they divorce and make a claim on their pension, because it can and does happen. That is the consequence of marriage. Yes it gives a stay at home parent greater protection in the event of a split, but it also comes with liabilities if you are the partner with greater earning potential (as I was with my exh).

Many people seem to believe that the law has changed over the decades to recognise cohabiting couples as de facto married. It hasn't. If that did happen, it would take away a couple's right to live together without being forced into a marriage contract.

Unfortunately, both the tax system and benefits system in the UK do in fact treat unmarried couples as if they were married. Curiously, this arrangement only applies insofar as it benefits the state and penalises the couple. So a couple who are living together "as husband and wife" but not actually married will have their benefits reduced as if they were married. But, at the other end of the income scale and at the end of life, a couple who are living together "as husband and wife" do not benefit from inheritance tax exemption.

I can absolutely understand why so many people believe in some form of common-law marriage, as many of those people will have experience of being treated by the state as if they were married, when they aren't.

It is blatantly unfair that this happens.

You can see more about the official murkiness of what makes a couple in this link.

revenuebenefits.org.uk/tax-credits/guidance/how-do-tax-credits-work/understanding-living-together/#What%20is%20a%20couple?

'money is just a piece of paper,but y ou still work for it'

@NoelFridgeAntics, it was impressed very firmly on me by my solicitor that I needed to be very clear about what I wanted when I was divorced because once it was made absolute there would be no coming back for more. The divorce settlement was it.

The main reason we got married this time round was because at that time survivors’ pensions were contingent on marriage and we wanted to protect one another.

When DH and I decided to get married we did the official bit for 3 reasons (relevant at the time)

1. To avoid Death Duty (or whatever it’s called).
2. Married tax allowance.
3. If we had children and married after they were born he’d effectively have to ‘adopt’ his own children in the eyes of the law.

@Lagobel

AIBU to think spreading the myth that 'marriage is just a piece of paper' is irresponsible?

YANBU at all.

Sadly, some people (women especially) keep peddling this myth, and try and convince themselves it's true, to convince themselves that they don't want to get married/don't need to get married...

It's usually because they're with a man who refuses to get married, and they say 'well marriage is just a piece of paper anyway' in the hope that people will believe they don't care.

I find that in most cases, when a man says he doesn't believe in marriage; it's not true. It's just that he doesn't want to marry that particular woman.