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.

@thatmustbenigelwiththebrie marriage I think you need to read up on the true benefit of being married in the UK because 'just getting a will' does not cut it in the UK.

It is not "so you can take some of the other person's money" - it is to recognise the contribution that a spouse makes towards their partner's financial (etc) achievements. Do you have children? Have you ever supported your DP financially, emotionally, practically (housework, cooking, life admin) to aid him in setting up his business? Marriage recognises that a person who is part of a couple essentially has the chance to delegate some of their responsibilities, affording them more freedom to take bigger risks leading to bigger financial gains, when compared to a person who is single.

It's also a way to be legally recognised as next of kin. If your partner is seriously ill in hospital and information can only be given to immediate family, wouldn't it be useful for there to be a way for a partner to be legally recognised as immediate family? Yet at the same time prevent a very new partner from muscling in on where family really belong. Well, yes...

I think that it should be discussed either when someone is pregnant or registering a birth. Yes for some people it is not advantageous, although it is not just about money but also next of kin etc.

A five minute explanation with a registrar, outlining the pros and the cons. Warning against either party becoming a SAHP without marriage would mean that people were informed. I don't think it will change people's reluctance to get married but it might make people consider their position before having more children or giving up a job.

The next of kin bullocks crops up every time on these threads. False scaremongering.

And custody bollocks. I think being informed goes both ways. Thinking a marriage certificate will protect and provide for you in old age and before is incredibly naive. You need to make sure enough has been paid into a pension whilst married and that splitting of property in divorce will house both of you adequately.

Re custody scaremongering my children’s father will be the only person gaining custody of them if I die as he is on their birth certificates as their father. I am named as beneficiary on pensions and other policies but most importantly have my own. Our house is owned by both of us.....

Just sitting there and expecting a piece of paper to keep you secure is ludicrous, only you can do that.

I think telling unmarried men that they have absolutely no say in what their children are named, cannot register the birth, have no right to be named on the birth certificate if the mother doesn't want them to be. As a result they do not have parental responsibility until they can get themselves added to the birth certificate. If their newborn needs treatment in hospital and the mother is not able to make decisions, they do not have parental responsibility. If they disagree with the mother on medical treatment, tough luck.

Women need to be told the above and need to use this power to get themselves in a more powerful position. Do not give your baby your partner's surname, it can be changed after you get married. We are trained to be too kind. Women need to look after themselves first, especially when having children.

Marriage won't help you on its own but it certainly can help make difficult times a little bit easier.

A friend of mine lost her partner when she was in her late twenties - he was killed in an accident doing one of his hobbies. They had a young child and she was pregnant. Not married. Luckily the house was in her name but she couldn't access any of the money in his bank accounts. She wasn't named in his will. His life insurance wouldn't pay out to her. Neither would his pension. All of it went to his parents.

She was very fortunate to be close to his parents who helped her and gave her her share, but it could so easily have gone the other way.

If DH died tomorrow at least I know I still have a home to live in. I still have access to money and pensions and I'll get his life insurance. It won't bring him back but it would make things just that bit easier and it would mean I have one less thing to worry about.

People don't think long term or about the worst case scenarios. Marriage was never optional for me and I would never have children outside of marriage - I've seen far too many women get screwed over. They end up having twins which means childcare is extortionate and they have to give up work. They end up wanting to stay home or go part time due to medical appointments or childcare issues. Before they know it, it's five years later, they've been out of their careers for a long time and their earning potential is massively lowered.

I think it's so important that women (and it is women who need it the most due to maternity leaves etc) don't sleepwalk into situations where they're not protected long-term.

I think you’re absolutely right. I think it costs women dearly and costs the wider society financially. It also causes children to be disadvantaged.
I truly believe people should think very carefully and plan their children. For me, that means marriage first and an ongoing commitment.

In my view, marriage is a financial contract.

Thewheels suggesting mothers use their children as bargaining chips to secure your future is appalling. The father of my children is named on their birth certificates because he is their father end of. I would never attempt to take that away from them ever in any circumstances. I don’t have the right and I’m pretty sure my dc would never forgive me if they found out their dad was left off their birth certificate for my own selfish gains.

Plenty of married mothers cost society financially. Marriage doesn’t make you financially in the best position.

I don't see that it is appalling to use the power that you have, that is exactly what men are doing to their children's detriment. When they leave the relationship, the mother then brings the children up in poor financial circumstances, because they haven't had the financial protection of marriage. The surname thing is a mistake that so many women make. They end up bringing up children alone, who don't have their family name, unable to do anything about it. They believe "we'll get married when DC can walk with us down the aisle" and other such bollocks. No, "DC and I can take your name when we get married"

I'm amazed at the number of highly educated, professional women who think common law marriage is a thing.

There are two on my bank of desks at work in a common law relationship. That's 1/3 of the total bank of desks. Multiply it by the office floor, and you would have 20 cohabitees. And they talk about how they would be protected as common law spouses.

Im actually a Teacher and i DO teach this in school At every oppsrtunity .

Child: Marriage is just a piece of paper.
Me: yes. A Legal document.

@SolsticeBabyMaybe absolutely it is. Marriage has historically never been about love.

It's an extremely important financial contract. Obviously not wanting to get married is absolutely fine but people need to educate themselves or the benefits and pitfalls before deciding either way.

Plenty of married mothers cost society financially.

Everyone costs society money. The vast vast majority of people will never pay enough tax to cover what they take from the state in terms of education, medical bills, hospital stays, use of roads and public services, care home fees and end of life care.

I’m not married and I’m not bothered about getting married.

The house is in a joint names so I’m entitled to 50%.
The life insurance policy is a joint one so if he dies I get it.
He doesn’t have a pension - or at least one that’s worth anything so I don’t care about that.
He has no savings.

I have about 17-18k saved.
I pay into a pension every month.

C0rnflower , I wasn't suggesting women use parental responsibility/birth certificate. Those are just facts that all unmarried couples considering having children need to know. For their children's benefit.

Keeping their father’s name off their birth certificate would never benefit my children. It is a fact I have no right to deny then- ever.

My DP and I keep our finances completely separate, except for a joint account which we both pay in to which covers all household and car expenses. I don’t expect any entitlement to any of his assets, and he doesn’t expect any of mine. I have a decent chunk of savings and an ok pension, he has no savings and a very good pension. I feel confident I am set up ok financially.

I have never wanted to get married, i have never wanted children, always have earnt my own money, and ensured that I could afford to live life to the standard I want on my single wage. Given this, I do not see any advantage in getting married, only disadvantages should we ever split up.

I find the concept of contracting myself to another person strange. I am with my partner because I want to be. But I also want to be free to leave without the complexity of divorce.

I fully intend to be with my partner for the rest of my life, it’s been 20 years so far and still going strong, we are both sorted in terms of naming each other in wills, pension and life insurance beneficiaries.

For me, as a childless, financially independent woman, marriage is unnecessary.

Yanbu op

Pointing out that unmarried fathers don't have any legal rights to name their child and no PR until either the mother or a court grants it isn't using a child as a bargain chip. It's just pointing out what the law says, and nobody's opinion about any of the ethical ramifications of this is relevant to the point.

Same with highlighting that an unmarried mother can't name the father on the birth certificate without his involvement and consent. Those are just facts. People being aware of them has to be a positive, so those for whom this is important can make informed decisions.

I had a colleague who spouted the same thing. I asked her if she had ensured- when buying a house with her boyfriend - that she had checked her legal position as regards ownership of the property.
"Oh he deals with all that" she said . We both work somewhere where daily wrangling with the requirements of a piece of law are part of the job. I said, "I think you need to check ".
A year later they were married.

Im quite suprised that the women here saying they have no wish to marry, and then going on to point out theyre in the stronger position financially than their partners, can’t actually see they are supporting the argumnet for marriage for the magority of women, rather than saying it is unnecesaary.

I get tired with the belief marriage offers some sort of protection to ‘vulnerable women’. No, you know what does offer protection? Having a stable career.

I was married to the father of my eldest three DC. I was the higher earner, my name was on the majority of the bills and on the house. When we split, he thankfully was very graceful and just walked away. I didn’t get jack shit from him aside from three DC he barely pays a dime for (only the bare minimum CMS recommend but it’s barely anything). He earns half my salary still to this day.

If you have a stable career and don’t rely on a man to fund you plus have a joint mortgage/rent, no worries. You don’t need to be married, divorce can actually just make things a whole lot messier when you split. What you do need is a stable source of income of your own.