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.

When I started as an IFA I had a boss who used to tell women who were "common law wives" who came to our firm for advice, that the difference between a common law wife and a harlot was that a harlot had rights! He wasn't being nasty he just wanted to drive home the financial danger (his word) they were in without a marriage certificate or any sort of written financial agreement.

Yes, I've often despaired when I hear this comment trotted out. Nobody ever says a passport is just a piece of paper, or a university degree, or a birth certificate or your albums of old family photos ....if your house caught on fire they are the "pieces of paper" which you'd grab and run with. Yet ill-informed people will cheerfully say that marriage is nothing but a piece of paper . I've been married twice and those two pieces of paper meant that I had financial and legal security . Women who get talked out of it are very short sighted in my humble opinion.

It’s odd that some women think of marriage as legal protection, while others think of it as a trap.

I think more important to teach all teenagers that a marriage is a legall contract and like any other, you need to read the small print.

If it is just a piece of paper, why do couples who have been together for yearsand have children get married if one of them is diagnosed with a terminal illness ?

Lots of people (usually women) say ‘having a kid is more of a commitment than a marriage!’ and then look shocked when their boyfriend removes them from his property and they have no rights as a flat mate. 🙄 do basic research into your lack of protections, ffs.

I m grateful for these threads. I did everything 'backwards'; i.e got pregnant, THEN moved in with (now dh), had another kid, then got marrie d. Never wanted tk get married as I'd seen (or believed I'd seen) nothing beneficial come out of marriage. Plus the ceremony idea made me cringe uncontrollably. Dh nagged, and nagged me to get married, and it's only recently and from reading these threads (and watching Judge Judy) that I've realised how important that scrap of paper is, and how naive I was.
Never been taught anything about the 'legal ' side of marriage in school, or in early adulthood, and I now think it's nuts.

Anyway, been married almost ten years, glad I had our tacky little wedding.

YANBU

OK, if there's anyone on this thread who still thinks "marriage is just a piece of paper" then for your own sake make damn sure your partner makes a Will and you are the beneficiary.

I've seen a hell of a lot of so-called common law wives in deep financial shit because all their late partner's cash and assets have gone to his family and all because he died without making a Will.

I've never read a post on MN that I agree with more.

And it's totally fine to not want to get married, of course! I don't expect anyone to justify that to me or anyone else. You can buys a house together, have kids, spend your whole lives together happily and not be married. That's completely fine. I think that people should only get married if they are going to take it seriously and understand what it means. It is a big commitment financially.

I was never taught anything about this in school. Is it being taught now? I hadn't heard anything about that.

Why is it the school's responsibility to teach people this? Is no one responsible for themselves anymore? Honestly, this information is freely available, if you get fucked over by your 'partner', to a large part the blame is also yours.

PLEASE tell your friend what she NEEDS to hear even if she doesn't WANT to hear it.

As a sahm she is extremely vulnerable financially and legally (which it sounds like you are aware of)

Anyone familiar with my posts on the subject will know I have witnessed a relative royally screwed over as a result of being an unmarried sahm living in a family home that was solely in her partners name. Not screwed over by the partner though - but when he died his family screwed her and their kids over, pretty much unceremoniously turfing them out of their home and putting her in a position where she had to return to full time work while they were all still grieving.

It's NOT just in the event of separation that things can easily go awry, if your partner becomes incapacitated or dies, especially if they're the breadwinner and even more so sole earner you can be left in a seriously precarious financial and legal position.

Loads of things are just so much easier to administrate if you're relationship is legally recognised

"but obviously has legal implications which are of benefit to the lower earner/party with fewer assets." There are benefits for both parties eg the higher earner usually the man gets parental rights recognition with marriage.

"It is blatantly unfair that this happens." Totally agree on this that the state doesn't have a clear setup on this.

"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." That's very much what I've witnessed too. My ex claimed I was dragging out the divorce to avoid marrying OW, soon as I realised I made sure she knew it wasn't ME delaying anything!

I've witnessed people co-habiting for decades with the guy refusing to marry and giving it "it's just a piece of paper" bollocks, sometimes also delaying ttc (which is a REALLY shitty thing to do), then leaving their "partner" for another woman who they quickly marry and also often having children too.

They've treated their previous partner as nothing more than a placeholder until someone they considered more worthy of their commitment showed up!

We see it on here all the time, I've been flamed for saying so and so have others who've said similar - if he's not interested in making a genuine commitment within the first 3 max 5 years then he doesn't really consider you his life partner and worthy of his full commitment.

I was clear with ex from the start that I wouldn't hang around for someone not interested in making a full commitment and that I wouldn't be ttc before marriage, not engagement (which is meaningless, though I've seen it used to fob women off), but marriage. When we started dating we were both quite young still and it was general discussions of the topic not specific to us as neither of us actually thought we'd get serious with each other initially.

He proposed around 2.5 years in quite spontaneously after we went through a tough situation together, he didn't even have a ring prepared or anything. I half thought he was joking because of how it came about. We married about a year later.

When I look at my friends and family and their relationships there are very very few where my theory doesn't hold up - so far.

"then for your own sake make damn sure your partner makes a Will and you are the beneficiary." If you're not married they can cut you out of that will whenever they wish without telling you - I've witnessed that coming to light after a persons passed too.

I even know of one case where the "partner" discovered "their" man was married to someone else - and yes I mean fully married still in the relationship until he died at which point it all blew up!

an excellent thread, and yes i'm married,

YANBU

But I think the law needs to change so that after a period of time, a defacto relationship attracts the same rights and obligations in the event of a split as marriage.

In Australia if you live together as a partnership for two (I think it's two) years then you can access a family court settlement and assets the same as if you were married.

But it is just a piece of paper. Where I live if you have been living with a partner for two years, if you split you are entitled to half of all assets. So really it doesn’t matter if you are married or not.

@SuzieQQQ it's just a piece of paper to you because you live in a jurisdiction that protects your rights for you. OP is talking about the UK where it's very different.

I completely understand why some people would not want to marry (if there is a big difference in assets and earnings for instance)

And I also understand why others feel they need to do it for future financial security (if they don't have much earning potential).

So I do understand why some people throw around the piece of paper saying.

I am not sure what I will be advising my dc when they are older. At this stage of they are high earners I think I would advise against marriage but I would advise the low earners to get married.

@WishingILivedOnAnIsland I disagree. Why should everyone get their choice taken away from them just because some people don't make themselves aware of their rights? There is no problem with not wanting to get married and share assets as long as you are fully aware of the implications of that. Many choose to not get married precisely because they are aware and want to protect assets for children etc.

Marriage is a serious legal commitment with serious legal consequences and should be actively entered in to, not foisted upon them. You don't need to spend a lot of money If, as a previous poster says, your parents etc. have cultural expectations and won't speak to you for X number if years then frankly they are dicks anyway whose opinions I would discount. Making people aware that it is a legal commitment and not just a nice day would be enough for reasonable people.

Marriage is probably the most important contract that most people will ever sign - or not sign
and should be very carefully considered by both parties in the relationship.

It is very advantageous, even vital for some,
e.g. those planning to be SAHP and with little earning capacity, or who will lose that capacity

and very disadvantageous for others who fear the consequences of divorce,
e.g. those with large assets, pensions, future inheritances etc, especially with DC from a previous relationship

I would be horrified if just living together gave the same rights to a partner

Those rights should only come after specifically agreeing to a contract, whether marriage or civil partnership, not by stealth.

Hey I did the £100 lunchtime wedding 24 years ago! It’s necessary for so many reasons - for both of us!

The only reason to marry is if one of you has no money or assets so you can take some of the other person's if you split.

If you both work and contribute financially you don't need to.

Or get a will.

Also (and this may get me flamed) I don't agree with the "what's mine is yours" concept and don't think you should be entitled to things just because you're married.

DP has a very successful business with lots of assets. I have nothing to do with it. Why should I get a share of that when I have contributed nothing towards it?

Hey @that you seem to have forgotten about pensions, custody - which was main reason we married as we found out if I died my mother might get custody of our DC together. Also job benefits (only for those married!) etc.

@that - my DH agrees with you on assets - I’m the higher earner and he’d refused half though I would think this fair (I only got to be the high earner with his support!)

Sorry should make clear i would split assets 50/50 as I think this is the fair position!!