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.

Thanks for the replies. I agree that it's really not my place to say anything to my friend.

I should have made it clear that I'm talking about the UK. I understand that Australia (and New Zealand and Canada, I think?) have de facto rights that kick in after a few years, thereby making marriage largely pointless.

Yes this so much this.....do you know what courts think about pieces of paper....they think its bloody difficult to prove you meant something different than the piece of paper says you meant...and if you haven’t got the piece of paper its even harder to persuade them that everybody meant for you to have it really....and thats partly because to an extent your friends are right...it is just a piece if paper..its incredibly easy to get one...you just have to get of your arse and pay a few quid..so if you haven’t bothered to then they going to assume you didn’t intend to...

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

Correlation != Causation.

The "family values" brigade routinely trot this out as evidence that "traditional marriage" is better for children. Its simply not borne out by the evidence when you factor in poverty which is a much bigger factor in family breakdown.

Of course its a convenient justification for prioritising tax cuts for the better off over support for poor families - its all their own fault, anyone can be a gazillionaire if they just tried a bit harder, we planned things better so that we had higher paid jobs/avoided any mid life tragedies/global financial collapse.

If the poorest in society waited until they could afford the "family values" brigade's concept of family they would never have children.

For me the legal stuff is irrelevant, for me it’s a life long commitment to each other.

@Proteinshakesandovieshat - he works full time.
I also work.

Of course it is but the legal element is far from irrelevant. It’s the main reason we did it and it’s the reason a lot of older couples get married after living together for 20 or 30 years. Whatever unmarried couples do to protect each other IHT is the one financial risk that only marriage can mitigate.

he works full time.I also work

Then I don't really get th point of your posts. If you are 2 financially independent adults the protection marriage brings isnt required. That's not what the OP was talking about.

However, as was said, upon death it can make things complicated.

It should be taught that it is a contract. This should be taught at school.

This. Lovey dovey stuff should be put to the side and this should be stressed. I have a friend who is a sahm to three kids under five and her partner owns the house. Makes me feel all kinds of uneasy.

But a driving licence is a license that permits you to drive your car legally. A marriage licence permits you to do what exactly? You can live with a partner without needing a licence, so what does being able to be married actually give you. It might make tax easier but you can carry on being a couple without being married and having the licence.

I'm actually engaged before anyone says anything but also generally interested in the analogy. They're not the same at all.

The marriage contract is a piece of paper permitting you to benefit from any unused IHT exemption after your partner dies, claim marriage allowance if applicable, claim certain bereavement benefits if applicable (afaik law still not changed following McLaughlin decision though its coming) to inherit in the absence of a valid will and to more effectively challenge a will not making provision for you from your partner. So in this sense, the driving licence analogy isnt so bad.

However as a OP has pointed out, it's a piece of paper that also potentially comes with some pretty significant obligations. You get various rights with marriage but you give some up too!

The point is origamiunicorn that you don't as far as the law is concerned just one example but a really important one...there is a presumption in English law that if a couple are married and only one of them owns the house they both live in that the intention is that they share the ownership of the house...that presumption does not apply to a couple who only live together...because English law believes in contracts and marriage is a contract and just living together isn’t.
If anything the institution of Civil partnerships makes that even clearer...anyone can now enter into a contractual personal relationship (at least as long as there are only 2 of you) and get all the protection that the law allows based on your mutual intention to contract with each other...don’t bother to contract don’t get protected....as the poster above says there are certainly good reasons not to contract but to believe that you have when you haven't is just daft...but depressingly common

I meant to say at the end of my last post that you dont give up any rights when you get a driving licence. That I know of anyway! So marriage is like a driving licence in that it allows you to do some things you couldn't otherwise, but unlike one otherwise.

origami, I think the point is that it's ridiculous to claim that something is worthless just because it's been printed on a piece of paper. (What else would it be printed on, anyway? Do they think legal documents are usually carved in stone by pixies or something?) When people say "marriage is just a piece of paper", they're heavily implying that a marriage certificate holds no legal weight.

Well said.

It is very foolish to have children outside of the legal protection of marriage.

then if you fall in love or have kids or team up with a partner it will be on an equal basis

Except you will still be the one that carries, gives birth to, breastfeeds (if you choose to) and, more than likely, stays at home caring for the children during their first year of life. Maybe that stuff doesn't matter if you're really wealthy, but women who have to work for a living, even those on higher salaries, are likely to have their careers affected by childbearing. That's just reality, whether you like it or not.

origami, I think the point is that it's ridiculous to claim that something is worthless just because it's been printed on a piece of paper. (What else would it be printed on, anyway? Do they think legal documents are usually carved in stone by pixies or something?) When people say "marriage is just a piece of paper", they're heavily implying that a marriage certificate holds no legal weight.

@Valanice1989 This actually makes sense put this way.

@that there is so much more to it than division of assets, particularly if your partner becomes incapacitated or dies.

Wills can be changed or challenged, as can life assurance.

Often what is stated on these threads is someone smugly saying "there's no such thing as legal next of kin" which is true, but where there's doubt and conflict on treatment of someone unable to say who they consider their nok or what their wishes are you'll find medical staff tend to not just take people's word for this but will default to legally recognised relationships. I've seen this happen.

There are also some things that the govt still don't recognise equivalent to marriage if you're not legally married in the event of a partners death, certain benefits and tax laws.

There's also parental rights - again most problematic if a child becomes very ill and there's conflict over treatment decisions.

As for the idea of conferring the same rights and responsibilities on co-habiting couple as on married couples - really how would that be defined? Regulated? Whenever I've asked those who point this out in reference to how it works in countries where this is the case I've never had clear answers as to when the authorities determine the start date of the co-habiting relationship - because many couples drift into cohabiting rather than having a clear time when that decision was made and then when there's a separation and emotions are fraught I can well imagine and I suspect there are - disputes about when they started living together if it means the difference between assets being divided or not. One of the clear advantages of keeping it to marriage is the date is recorded officially and witnessed by others.

And what about couples who start out as housemates and then develop a relationship? That too can lead to different views on when they became a cohabiting couple.

There's also the potential for housemates, lodgers etc to make spurious claims - because it's damn hard to prove a negative. How do you prove you were NOT in a relationship with that person when you lived at the same address and nobody really knows what goes on behind closed doors?

It would also mean that couples/individuals who DON'T want to make that commitment and risk losing assets are prevented from cohabiting in order to avoid that, this could have a detrimental effect not only on the couple but also any children of the couple who may be prevented from having both parents living together for this reason.

By having a clear, defined, officially recorded, witnessed contract with a long history of clearly defined laws attached to the contract everyone knows where they stand, once informed fully of the law.

I do think the laws on marriage v cohabiting need to be far more widely made clear to the population, but I absolutely disagree the laws should be changed to accommodate those ignorant of it, disadvantaged by being with someone unwilling to commit to them fully or hoping to take advantage of another's ignorance.

I suspect if the laws were changed those (mostly men) who are not interested in treating their partner fairly in the event of a split or their death will still be "wise" to the ramifications and will simply avoid cohabiting as well as marriage - let's be honest we see many threads on here of appalling partners who don't pull their weight even if they are cohabiting, financially, with housework, childcare, life admin - I really don't see people like that playing fair simply because the laws on cohabiting were changed. I can well see a situation where they would arrange their lives so they weren't always living with their partners so that in the event of a split they can claim "oh it wasn't X years because we had a 2 month separation in y year" "oh we weren't living together I was living at my parents I was only there a couple nights a week"

"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?"

Do you genuinely not contribute anything? Many wives/partners contribute indirectly to the success of their partners career/business by completely taking on all the responsibilities at home, particularly childcare (which both are truly responsible for), freeing the higher earner/business owning partners time up to invest in the business, some it's slightly less indirectly in the way of "helping out" with business admin on an occasional basis, organising their partners diary, hosting business dinners etc

"I am named as beneficiary on pensions and other policies" which it is much easier for an unmarried partner to change this without telling their partner.

"Just sitting there and expecting a piece of paper to keep you secure is ludicrous, only you can do that." You really don't see the irony of saying that? You're relying on your partner being on your children's birth Certs and you being named as beneficiary on his pensions etc - those are pieces of paper too.

Yes people need to administrate their lives well but for many, even most, a very easy, relatively cheap way to cover many issues relating to their relationship and family is to get married.

"Marriage won't help you on its own but it certainly can help make difficult times a little bit easier." Exactly, that's when it becomes most important and it's usually at those times people find how unprotected they are and regret not doing so.

There was a thread a few months ago, the op was getting screwed over by ex partner in their separation and she was basically blaming this on our country not having cohabitation laws rather than on her own ignorance and lack of having prepared and protected herself. Iirc she was a sahm, no income of her own, didn't have any claim on the family home despite having contributed to costs of running/having said home, I think same was true of other assets. So all she could possibly get would be cm (and we all know how generous and easy to get that is - not!)

"People don't think long term or about the worst case scenarios" absolutely! These discussions focus so much on separation, which is important of course, but the 1 way every relationship is guaranteed to end is one of you dying. And as you say that's not always when people are elderly. The relative I reference was in their early 30's when their partner died, out of my family and friends there's around 15 have experienced their spouse/partner die unexpectedly young - I'm talking under 40. Shit happens.

@onering - do you ever correct them? That common law doesn't exist in uk?

"The life insurance policy is a joint one so if he dies I get it." He could change this, or get another you know nothing about.

"He doesn’t have a pension - or at least one that’s worth anything so I don’t care about that" so he DOES have a pension, it may not be worth much now but could be worth a lot in the future. If you were to separate or he dies you could be very glad of that money.

"I have about 17-18k saved.
I pay into a pension every month." So perhaps you're the better off partner - what happens to your family if you die? Become incapacitated?

@tadpole - but those of us saying cohabiting needs to remain separate to marriage agree with you, why should you be default "married" when that's not how you want your relationship to be?

Many of us in support of people being better informed about marriage also support those who actively choose not to marry. There are good reasons for some people as to why marriage would not be in their best interests.

"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." Both do in different ways. A career is no more guaranteed than a relationship. You could become too sick/disabled to work, your industry could suffer financially, you could be unable to work if a child or partner or parent becomes sick/disabled and needs care. Preparing as much as possible for all eventualities is what's sensible. Many male partners leave female partners who become sick/disabled, a child becoming sick/disabled can also put a great strain on relationships leading to separation.

@horridhenry - sorry I disagree the majority of cohabiting couples I know in real life are woefully ill prepared for difficulties, they tend to sleepwalk into life generally and don't organise their lives. Seen many many posters on here with the same attitudes/lack of knowledge/overly optimistic view of what will happen in the event of a split "oh he'd never do that to me/the kids" - famous last words! I NEVER thought my ex would do half the stuff he did within DAYS of us splitting, and if we weren't married he'd have got away with what he did too. Because we were married he had to repay/compensate me for what he did, yea it took a wee while but it got sorted. If we'd been unmarried I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

"I do think parents should teach children what marriage means" ha! In my case if that were true I'd have learnt marriage means abuse, including financial, control, entrapment... But of course not all marriage is like that.

@cherrypavlova - that was quite a nasty post at 9.31 blaming only mothers for poor outcomes for children of relationships that have broken down. To a degree it's a separate discussion though not completely, but we have real issues with fathers not being held properly responsible for their children - whether conceived in marriage or not! Cm is woefully low and very poorly enforced, contact is very poorly regulated, there's no shame in being a deadbeat dad, not really. That very much needs to be addressed.

Yes we should teach ALL our children to be financially independent wherever possible but ALSO to take full responsibility for the families they create, why is the onus on women?

"have always been the low earning SAHM partner.

My name is on everything. Just because I don’t earn doesn’t mean I can’t own." What position are you in if your partner dies or becomes incapacitated? Those "things" your name is on are they things he can remove your name from without your knowledge?

"women who have to work for a living, even those on higher salaries, are likely to have their careers affected by childbearing. That's just reality, whether you like it or not" exactly you can't deny biology nor that we currently live in a patriarchal society.

I said cohabiting couples who have actively chosen it graphista, and specifically distinguished them from the sleepwalkers.

My Sil is another. 3 Kids thinks she'l be fine financially if my arse of a BIl doesn't stick around. She is a fool.

My DH was with his ex DP for over 10 years they had two kids.
He didn’t want to get married as he had some property in his own name , a successful business and was due to get a substantial inheritance within a few months

He openly admits to me that he didn’t want to have to give her half if they got married

She gave him a ultimatum for getting married so they split up

We met about 6 months or so later and were married within 3 months . That was 20 years ago .

Most people that don’t want to get married know exactly what it means they know it’s a legal contract and how it could affect them .Mainly it seems men who have money to lose

I’ve also seen this happen loads of times

Couple not married, but in long term
relationship, engaged maybe and maybe with kids
Then they split up because the bloke won’t get married

The DH is normally married within 1-2 years with kids on the way to someone else

@graphista - many women (not all but a sizeable minority) are the higher earners in a relationship. So on a break up they are better off not being married particularly as women usually end up with the kids (eg see Notbeingrobbeds threads as the higher earning women who ended up giving 60% of her assets to her ex despite being left with the kids).

So if you are the lower earner being married works for you on a break up. But not for me or many other women. Thankfully I had children without being married or I would have ended up giving away many of my assets like notbeingrobbed. Marriage doesn’t benefit or protect everyone, for every winner, there is a loser.

Not necessarily. If a couple get married, one dies and their married status means the survivor doesnt have to sell the house to pay the IHT bill, no loser there. Unless you count the taxman.

We're not married becuase I don't want to be. No children but I am the higher earner and if we do have children he will likely be the one to take a back seat career wise. All of our assets are jointly owned and we have had advice from solicitors to confirm we have the correct protections in place if one of us were to die.

The nexr of kin stuff is absolute bollocks. When DP was admitted to hospital last year they had no issue discussing the situation with me, despite not being married.