To think it is important to be legally married

[SweetSally]

I wonder why so many couples are against marriage? Many would say it's a piece of paper...when it's not. Why can't people see the benefits of marriage?

Many would say it's waste of money - is it really? One thing is getting married and another thing is splashing cash on a grand wedding...

I welcome your views (and please let's be nice to each other and accept everyone's opinion)

Please vote - is it important to be legally married?

In that case missyoumuch, why did the women have children with men who wouldn’t marry them? I seriously hope none of these women as SAHMs. That is crazy and puts them at a serious disadvantage

It puts any woman at a serious disadvantage anyway.

It is not necessarily important to be legally married.
It is extremely important to know the differences between marriage and cohabitation, and make an active choice about what you want and why.

^^ It's this surely - there are going to be situations where marraige doesn't make sense and I'm saying that despite me personally being married before we had children.

I am not married so that I financially protect myself. I am the high earner, we live in my house and i have another property abroad. I also have life insurance and good savings. I have a daughter from my previous relationship and a son with my partner. I need to ensure that if anything happens to me my children are looked after and inherit everything.

Yetanotherspartacus - yes I agree with you that being a SAHM puts women at a serious disadvantage generally but mariage can partially mitigate some of the issues. Being unmarried on the other hand is like playing Russian roulette with your future.

Yetanotherspartacus - yes I agree with you that being a SAHM puts women at a serious disadvantage generally but mariage can partially mitigate some of the issues. Being unmarried on the other hand is like playing Russian roulette with your future

Being a SAHM and not having financial independence is like playing RR with your future.

Being a SAHM and not having financial independence is like playing RR with your future

Being a SAHM, unmarried and not having financial independence is like playing RR with your future. I fixed that for you.

Marriage isn’t legally the best option for everyone. I have a child with my partner, I own the house, have the higher salary and the most savings. He has a child from a previous marriage. My finances (and my child’s inheritance) are better protected by not getting married.

YABU to think everyone’s circumstances are the same.

Marriage isn’t legally the best option for everyone

It bothers me when women think that because they are married they are safe. They are not. Only financial independence really gives safety. Unfortunately, many women think marriage gives them financial security and it does not.

No it doesn’t make them safe but it does partially mitigate some of the risks that are associated with not working.

Of course there is a tendency for lower earners/ women to think that this will protect them for the rest of their lives which is unrealistic and a rude awakening when they realise that they may need to start to pay for themselves

I think marriage is a choice between 2 people and nobody else's business. In other words, never the state.

Well, marriage is essentially making your relationship, or your legal contract at least, the business of the state.

Of course marriage is to do with the state. Just like any other legal contract.

@Darkstar4855 same here.

In addition I know lots of older women with adult children, grand children etc who are divorced/widowed. If they got married to their boyfriends, who may or may not have assets, they risk their family not inheriting their assets on death and vice versa. Yes you can write wills and put trusts in place to ensure the assets go to her family but it doesn't prevent his family challenging the woman's will on death and causing lots of stress.

@Bartlet agreed.

However if you are married to someone where he is an average earner if you get divorced then you aren't going to get spousal maintenance. You are going to have to go back to work.

Absolutely Cola but even an earner who is on considerably more than the median income is not going to be able to support a good quality of life for two households in many parts of the country. Money goes much further when only one mortgage, set of bills etc are being paid.

All of that is valid, other than conflating weddings with marriage, but you're not claiming marriage is "just a piece of paper" (presumably because you know it is more than a piece of paper)

In Aus it is as good as a piece of paper, defacto here holds some weight.
Basically, if you live together here for 6 months or more as defacto, i can take half if we split and vice versa.
He could make decisions when i had dd if anything happened to me, he was my next of kin

I don’t agree with the op on two counts and find it worrying that people believe this.

Firstly for the vast majority marriage really isn’t a safety net. Most families find it a struggle coping with one household and simply don’t put enough into pension pots. Sahp who think they’re going to be protected after divorce are delusional. Seriously where do think the money is going to come from.

Having your own job and pension is the best protection.

Secondly security re raising kids is down to the individual parents. Marriage really doesn’t have anything to do with it. I speak as somebody unmarried for 26 years raising 3 teens who has barely acknowledged or thought about my marriage since we did it a year ago. The security and commitment we provide as parents have nothing to do with it .

If a couple are struggling to cope financially within one household, they are precisely the sort of people who benefit most from access to the fullest range of state bereavement benefits if one of them dies. There are more of them for couples who are married or CPs.

Not necessarily enough to survive on.

Obviously not. But there's really no way to argue that if a couple struggle day to day, and one dies, state bereavement benefits aren't a help.

They don’t protect you from much though so it’s disingenuous to infer they do.

No, it's disingenuous to downplay the potential help provided by state bereavement benefits to couples who were struggling to cope before. Its hardly as if a widow/or on a low income is going to be like nah, I'll pass on Bereavement Support Payment because it's only a 2.5k lump sum and I'm only interested in financial support that entirely covers all costs. Someone in that position is better off having access to those benefits than not and there is no way around that. I choose this particular payment for my example because someone in my family has had cause to claim it this year and it was a real help, what with them being on low wages.

But people on here act like the relatively paltry benefits of marriage for the majority is the protection you need to secure your future. In many cases couples shouldn’t even be together let alone married. It tricks women mainly sahp into thinking they only need a ring in my finger and they’ll be fine.

In most cases they won’t.A job and pension is what they need.

Nobody should be marrying people who don’t want to marry them,people they aren’t in a good relationship with or because they think it’ll make them secure.

My sister isnt married and has one small child.

She has a joint mortgage with her partner but only works 9 hours a week in a min wage job.

He earns much more than her.

I worry about what would happen if they split

DH and I are married, I am the higher earner by quite a long way. The house is in my name only but so far as I am aware as we have been married a long time this is an asset of the marriage. I cant decide to kick him out into the street.

If we were not married then I think that I probably could.

If we were not married and didnt have wills then my heirs (DCs) could kick him out into the street.

Is my understanding correct?