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.

Also @Graphista - why do you have the misconception that it’s easier to change the beneficiary of a pension or life insurance if you are not married? These policies are written in trust and go outside the estate and can be left to anyone you choose.

I’ve never come accross anyone on mn who actually thought common law marriage was a thing. I have come across many, many myths about marriage though. That being married makes you the “next of kin” so you can make medical decisions for your spouse. That you can’t change your will if you’re married. That you get credit for your spouses NI contributions. And so on and so on.

@bingbongnoise I was more secure unmarried, and still am. Lots of women are the higher earners so are better off unmarried. Not all but many.

Sosayi how can you respect a man who was happy to share children with a partner, but not assets.

It's not like he injects to marriage at all. Just with her. Good enough to be the mother of their children, but not his wife?

@Igotthemheavyboobs if you partner takes a career hit and the hit to his pension, without being married then he is being very very silly.

I wont marry do. Same as you I have assets, do doesnt. I have the better pension. But we arent having kids. Both have them. His is an adult. My are still young.

No way would I expect him to damage his career, so mine carried on improving and my pension kept getting topped up while is wasnt. Or wasnt improving.

If dp took a career hit for our family. I would expect to share all assets, including pension.

Also, as people say, yes married people cab change policies. However, a person married to the deceased person has a much better chance of challenging it successfully.

.

I’ve never come accross anyone on mn who actually thought common law marriage was a thing.

I don't know where you are looking on here. But it happens all the time. Load of women, realising they arent entitled to half of his house. Many people think that by giving together and both paying Bills and having kids, means the house is half theirs. Or that they will be able to live there with the kids until the kids are 18.

In fact there was one thread recently, where the woman had given up work, lived in with her partner, not got married, no kids, his house and she kept insisting common law was a thing in england, because her mate had said so. She was in her 50s and not worked for over 10 years.

I know people in real life that think it. Me and dp are thinking of moving in together. Lots of people have said 'oh but what if you are together long enough to become common law and then you have to give half the house'. I googled it, at least 4 times to prove it.

I’ve never come accross anyone on mn who actually thought common law marriage was a thing.

I don't know about MN, but my own mum thought common-law marriage existed until I put her straight!

I suspect the myth of common-law marriage has the same origins as the "piece of paper" cliche, actually. "We don't need to waste money on a wedding ceremony, we've been together for years, you're already my common-law wife."

Proteinshakesandovieshat

I respect my husband 100 percent . He actually a very generous upfront and honest guy . He happily shares his assets with his children ( they are grown up now ) neither of his kids went without anything growing up .

He shares all his considerable assets with myself and my son when he was growing up ( my son also grown up now)

He didn’t for whatever his reasons want his ex DP to have a claim on what he was about to inherit or his business. Or his property .She gave him an ultimatum and they split up because he didn’t want to be married ( to her )

To be fair she did go absolutely batshit crazy when we got married despite them being separated for well over a year and I don’t blame her one bit .

And if getting married was that important to her she shouldn’t have had kids without being married first . Harsh but true

DH always said had told her that he didn’t want get married . So it’s not like it was a surprise that he wasn’t about to do it when given an ultimatum.

He did however want to be married to me for whatever reason and happily shared everything with me from the get go.

A lovely couple I know had been together for over 30 years. They have two adult children together and she had a child he helped raise from newborn. She passed away pretty suddenly. The man has been refused funeral funding, bereavement support and all the other benefits he has needed because of them not being married. They didn't work.
He's having to fight for everything that he would have got very easily had they been married. He's not entitled to her pension or anything else.

My own husband (more so his married mother) would trot out the "it's just a piece of paper" line all the time. I was a SAHM with no protection. We did eventually get married when we had been together for 10 years. It's scary to think that I could have been left with nothing if anything had happened to him. I had no safety net.

Sosayi

Do you have considerable assets/income?

I'm just wondering why your dh had a change of heart about marriage when he met you. And marrying you within a year.

@horridhenry fair enough apologies if I misunderstood

@Sosayi - how can you respect someone who treated their family like that? Let alone love them?

"I respect my husband 100 percent . He actually a very generous upfront and honest guy . He happily shares his assets with his children ( they are grown up now ) neither of his kids went without anything growing up" really?! Did he cover fully 50% of the costs of raising those children after he left their mother? Did he compensate her for the hit to her income as a result of having those kids and being his partner? I'll be bloody surprised if so as I've NEVER come across that either in real life or on here. That's the only way it's remotely close to him ACTUALLY being a generous decent guy.

"He shares all his considerable assets with myself and my son when he was growing up ( my son also grown up now)" this would strongly suggest he DIDN'T do ANY of the above!

@zsazsa - I have to say generally I think being the higher earner and actively making a decision that disadvantages your family is a pretty shitty thing to do. I understand why higher earning women may be cautious and could be framed as protecting themselves as they have the children, but ultimately it's still a shitty reason not to marry.

"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." So you're happy to put your partner, who you presumably claim to love, in a disadvantageous position? Not even just with your own personal assets but if you were to die unexpectedly and he wasn't earning as a sahp he'd be unable to claim certain benefits.

"The next 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." Was dp capable of telling them you were his nok? Was it recorded on his medical records that he wanted you recognised as nok? Was this your local hospital?

Because I've absolutely seen/been involved in cases where the patient isn't able to indicate their partner is nok, partner has nothing to prove they even live together, I've even seen cases where there are "overlapping" relationships and the partners each say they're the nok (they're a bloody nightmare to deal with!) so hospital errs on side of caution (and covering their own backsides legally) and only deals with legally recognised relatives.

"misconception that it’s easier to change the beneficiary of a pension or life insurance if you are not married?" Because it's not a misconception? "can be left to anyone you choose." Your words - that's why it's different if you're unmarried.

I've been on mn a few years now and seen several threads where either unmarried op's or pps "advising" have claimed there's such a thing as common law marriage, or that cohabiting partners are entitled to things they aren't

"That being married makes you the “next of kin” so you can make medical decisions for your spouse." Being married doesn't make you nok, it does make it easier to establish you can have that input if necessary, especially if your partner hasn't thought to have it noted on medical records and is unconscious/incapable of informing medical staff.

"That you can’t change your will if you’re married." I don't think I've ever seen that said, which would - technically - be incorrect. However there are laws about inheritance and marriage which mean that the relationship is recognised legally, whereas if unmarried your partner can disinherit you without your knowledge and without you having any recourse, if you're married it makes it harder for others who believe they have a claim on your partners estate from watering down or even removing your inheritance. Particularly true of Scotland and I think also Northern Ireland where legally recognised spouses/civil partners cannot be completely disinherited regardless of wills.

And that's without getting into the situation of people who die intestate.

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

And what happens to this if you die?

If someone (usually the woman admittedly) reduces their hours to raise children, do they deserve compensation for the lost value of their career from the other partner? IMO they deserve some compensation, but it should be limited because they did this voluntarily and the lost value of their career is largely hypothetical.

Marriage, particularly how it works in the UK, is essentially the union of two people into one legal entity. It is quite a drastic legal step. This works fine provided they never break up, but in the current day where the divorce rate is ~50% I think it needs to be redesigned to take this into account.

pension and life assurance benefits can be left to anyone you choose.

Not if they are held under trust they can't. You can advise the trustees of someone you would like them to consider as a recipient but the final decision is down to them and in cases where the relationships are complicated, and the deceased was not married, many take the safe option and will only pay to blood relatives. Unmarried partners and children who did not have the deceased's name on their birth cert. were out of the running.

Oh yes, and don't forget assets left to someone who is not a legal spouse/civil partner could attract inheritance tax.

"Oh yes, and don't forget assets left to someone who is not a legal spouse/civil partner could attract inheritance tax."

That's one of the big advantages of marriage. Inheritance tax in the UK is huge. If its a house being given in the will, you'll probably wind up having to sell it to cover the tax.

If someone (usually the woman admittedly) reduces their hours to raise children, do they deserve compensation for the lost value of their career from the other partner? IMO they deserve some compensation, but it should be limited because they did this voluntarily and the lost value of their career is largely hypothetical.

There's a wealth of research showing very concrete evidence of negative career outcomes for mothers. I have no idea why you think the effects are "largely hypothetical", but a quick Google will put you straight.

I'm also wondering in what way this is voluntary. Do you think most women make a choice to be the one who bears the child and takes the bulk of leave? What's the alternative? "Choosing lesbianism" and having children with another woman? Identifying as a man, pretending to be the father instead? Not having children at all, even though they want them? Please explain, oh wise @Scott72

*Oh WE have been together 20 years and never married, and seen loads of people marry and split up all around us while weeeeee stayed together!'

Yep, but you still have fuck-all protection, and these women do/did have*

They also had a humongous bill at the end.
The cheapest divorce I have heard of was £9000. Friends half of the wedding cost £9000 and they were married 3 years. As she put it, it cost her £500 per month to be married. She didn’t get anything extra just by being married

It's also a well documented fact that in relationships where the couple are married, the relationship will be more likely to last than those who just co-exist

Dp and I have been living together for 40 years, other unmarried friends have similar longevity in their relationships. We only know one couple who got married and stayed together. The rest are divorced. (Some on their 3rd or 4th spouse)

Maybe it is the circle of friends I know but no one is married and if they do marry they don’t stay married.

I have helped with a few divorces and from what I have seen of the divorce process I think my staying single is the right choice.

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

Very good one. Dp is terminally ill and we have been through wills and pensions and life insurance and iht stuff.

Those "things" your name is on are they things he can remove your name from without your knowledge

No. Cars houses etc all have my name written all over them.

He could remove me from his will in secret but as there is only our children left in the family I doubt it will come to that.

They are well provided for in his will.

“What happens to this when you die”. - whatever you want it to. I’m named on dp’s pensions and policies and he is on mine. Really not hard.

Ditto what the poster below said. 30 years unmarried here, have overtaken most marrieds we know, many of whom have split up.

I also echo what a pp said re financially protecting yourself. The best way is to do it yourself.10 years in a marriage with little equity in a house, zero savings and very little pension isn’t really going to benefit you.

Telling girls that the most important thing they can do is get married is ridiculous. Sort out the above and marriage is of no consequence. No way am I telling my dd to get stuck with somebody for money. I want her to focus and work on her relationship/ career not money, go halves and set herself up financially so she can walk if necessary.

It is possible to have financial independence and get married. I know because I’ve done it. The added advantage is that the Treasury won’t be grabbing the fruits of my labour when I die.

Theres a thread running at the moment of an op who had a baby and lives in her dps house and has no clue about her rights, even in the event of his death

People keep talking about all these different seperate protections that they have.

Are they just pieces of paper as well?

I maintain my career and financial independence while married. Divorce wasnt a trauma because of that.

But it stands that lots of people want to be sahp. Sahp is often a choice.

If you make this choice. Then you need protecting.

However, none of the protections make marriage just a piece o paper.

The divorce rate in England and Wales is closer to 40% than 50% scott, so if you were just playing the numbers game, a marriage is more likely to end in death than divorce. Personally I'm quite happy about the provisions for married couples in death!

I also echo what a pp said re financially protecting yourself. The best way is to do it yourself.10 years in a marriage with little equity in a house, zero savings and very little pension isn’t really going to benefit you.

Telling girls that the most important thing they can do is get married is ridiculous. Sort out the above and marriage is of no consequence.

This isn't true. If you sort those things out well enough, the IHT provisions become very consequential. More so than if you don't I daresay!

Also, of course if you're low income then potentially more than 50% of those modest assets is going to benefit you more than not having them.

StarStruckBy1

No I didn’t have any real assets when we met I was a single mother working part time

Graphista
He had always given generous maintenance for his two kids along with buying them school Uniforms extra clothes and paying school trips .

If he was a cunt to his ex DP and kids I wouldn’t have married him obviously.

Being self employed meant he was often able to have them through the school holidays if needed and even now they are grown up with there own partners and houses he still meets them every week for breakfast/ lunch and a catch up .They are very close and it’s him they come to for advice

They don’t see their mum as much maybe once a month and we all live within a few miles of each other .So make of that what you may

Not all men are heartless bastards although by the sounds of it you seem to think they are just because they don’t want to get married and have made that clear .

And we don’t have any kids together either a joint decision that we had 3 between us all close in age and we didn’t want any more .

So he’s not one of those feckless men having kids here there and everywhere either .

Oh and His EX DP had a house of her own that that was rented out and she had already moved back Into her house with the kids when I met him .She is also remarried

But I still stand by what I said if you want to get married and have kids Get married first. Don’t bitch about it afterwards

I agree with you OP. When doing family law moots for my degree it really hit home how important marriage is, legally!