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.

@SuzieQQQ just curious, where do you live?

Pointing out that not being vulnerable is better protection than being married doesn't refute the point that marriage generally provides more protection for women who aren't the higher earner/asset holder. It's unfortunate if people are tired of hearing it, but it's still true.

If she was the right one he'd want to marry her. In 9/10 cases it is that simple. It's why normally after they inevitably break up (when the kids are older and he has 'done his bit' ) the bloke always marries the next one.

She needs to play hard to get and make him work for her again. Also if anyone said 5yrs plus 2yrs engaged I'd tell him to jump.

I'm saying that for me it's unnecessary, and my desire not to be married has influenced my life decisions to some extent. I can see that marriage is a necessity for others given the current laws.

I don't think we can just assume it's about her rather than marriage itself, there are some blokes who just don't want to do it and are very committed regardless. However, it does seem pretty obvious that he has no plans to be marrying her. She should make her life choices and plans accordingly.

If you choose not to marry, you need to make sure that you have a proper legal structure around you to protect yourself and your children in case of death or break up. It’s perfectly doable, but I agree that many people don’t realise that it’s necessary.

Hear hear 👏🏻

If you are childless and both have independent income then marriage may have few benefits although inheritance tax is still an issue (Ken Dodd’s two fingers to the tax man death bed marriage).
However, most people are not in that position. I am the higher earner and DH was the SAHP so he would have been the vulnerable if we hadn’t been married.

I think also part of the problem Bertrand is that long term cohabitants sometimes sleepwalk into it, whereas marriage obviously requires a certain amount of planning.

So even if a couple are aware of the legal reality of their position and don't believe in common law type stuff, if they have a plan to marry at some point and are mildly crap at legal things and paperwork like most people, they don't necessarily bother putting that legal structure in place. Because if you're planning to get married in a couple of years once you've saved up, kids are old enough to participate or whatever, maybe it doesn't seem like a priority. Then life happens and shit happens.

Whereas I would say people who've made an active decision that they're going to choose long term cohabitation as an alternative to marriage have often put plans into place, because they don't expect to get married in the short to medium term future. So it feels like a more urgent priority.

Pinktinker absolutely right.

I hate the "get married for protection" bollocks. We will never change the world if that's what we teach our children.

And as for "she is just not the right person/ if he loved her he would marry her" crap - talk about making women into some sort of creature that needs to be "bought".

Establish a carreer, make strong alliances/friends/ learn to be resilient and adaptable/ learn a language/understand finance/look after your health/run your own affairs - then if you fall in love or have kids or team up with a partner it will be on an equal basis.

I definitely agree OP. Marriage provides many positives for both the husband and wife.
I definitely don’t think it should just be viewed from a legal point of view though, as it’s so much more then the monetary side of things.
I have a friend who has been with her partner since she was 18, she is now nearly 50. She has had 4 children, and I sense she feels very resentful that she has never had a proposal. There was a point in time that she thought he was on the verge of it and she was elated but never happened.

I don’t think many take marriage seriously. Some feel it’s a piece of paper, others just want their fancy proposal and big day etc. The vows and commitment seem long forgotten to many.

I do think parents should teach children what marriage means and what they will lose should it end so both parties can make an informed decision. Quite often one loses out hugely financially and they should go into it with their eyes wide open as to the risks.

Is the key message that people are taking away from this thread really that we should be teaching our daughters about the protection and importance of marriage? Really?

I despair.

How about first and foremost we teach our daughters about the importance of financial independence?

You don't need to get married to have legal protection. But it is not automatic with cohabitation and children. Take independent legal advice, tweak the default arrangement. No problem. But don't trust someone else to do it for you.

You don't need to get married to have legal protection. But it is not automatic with cohabitation and children. Take independent legal advice, tweak the default arrangement. No problem. But don't trust someone else to do it for you.

This. It's what DP and I have done, with regards to the children and assets in the event of one of us dying.

Echo what @BertrandRussell and @bellinisurge said.

Marriage is not necessary for protection; there are other ways of protecting yourself (named beneficiaries on pensions and wills, joint ownership of property, life insurances etc etc) and THIS is what we should be teaching our children (male or female) about!

“How about first and foremost we teach our daughters about the importance of financial independence?”
Absolutely. But I also want my daughter- and my son- to think that raising children is a valid life choice but one which has to be made with due consideration and open eyes.

Whilst getting married can be very cheap I think marriage is a very expensive piece of paper when you come to divorce.

Especially if one party isn’t amenable to anything or it isn’t just a straight forward division of savings and the family home.

Friends divorce is hitting £50k and rising.

Cheapest divorce I have known was £9,000 and that was because friend represented herself and only had a solicitor to look over her letters and forms.

@CrunchTime0 is your partner a shap or work part time?

*sahp

I think when I a single parent families cost society dearly, I wasn’t just meaning financially.

Seven out of 10 offenders come from broken homes, he said, adding that single parent families were more than twice as likely to live in poverty than those living with both parents.

That is more complicated than single mothers raise delinquents. It’s obviously the effects of poverty and low socioeconomic factors coming into play. Mothers who actively choose single parenthood via ivf or similar don’t have the same statistical outcomes.

According to the Centre for Social Justice estimates, the direct cost of family breakdown is up to £24billion. Research indicates that the extra costs brought about by the effects of broken homes could quadruple that figure.

What marriage before children does, as a social norm, is make people plan a little better. I think encourages people to wait before introducing pregnancy with someone they barely know. If you choose to get pregnant from casual or very new relationships, you are far more likely to face difficulties later on.

Marriage is far more than a piece of paper.

@Pinktinker that's in a ideal world. I do agree and I never gave up my career despite being married. I was so glad, once I got divorced I had made that choice.

But if there is huge disparity between earners or the womans to work part time or be a sahp (or it's best for the family) being married does offer some protection.

Not spousal maintenance. But asset wise, especially if they are in the mans name.

Whether marriage is necessary for protection depends entirely on the type of protections you want. Some, like the ability to inherit unused IHT allowance, are not accessible outside marriage. Some, like greater testamentary freedom, are only accessible if you aren't married.

As for teaching our daughters to be self sufficient, this is not an either/or. Not that we live in a system that allows everyone to be such anyway.

If somebody wants to get pregnant with somebody they barely know they’ll do it regardless.

Not being married doesn’t equal a baby with somebody you hardly know. Likewise marriage doesn’t save you from broken relationships particularly when one has been bullied reluctantly into it.

C0rnfl0wer I agree but they are less likely to get pregnant with someone they barely know if society is critical of that behaviour. Peer group pressure and social norms are powerful things.

You’re right, not being married doesn’t equal that but being married before children does often mean you’ve thought about it a bit more.