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?

It's not important to me. We have kids together. I have a lot of personal assets so I don't worry about the finance side. And things are already sorted for the kids.

100% agree @SweetSally

I think the benefits of marriage outweighs the negatives especially if you have children. A wedding is as expensive or as cheap as you make it.

Depends on your situation and the applicable law (e.g: sometimes-limited freedom of choice depending on private international law etc…). I’d have less of an issue if the applicable law allowed a complete division of property; no community of property.

On an emotional level it means nothing to me; my mother got divorced once, my father twice. Add to that a serious heartbreak somewhere in my twenties and I’m not doing that. Every relationship can end, and there’s a good chance you might end up miserable. Money might not make you happy, but it’s a whole lot more comfortable to be miserable when you have money and you can afford all the help you need and more than having to part with a considerable percentage.

Why do people seem so angry about it? If you got married and you like it why are mad that others who haven’t done it could be legally protected in case Of death etc?

Because it's a legal minefield. It confers rights on live in lovers some of us would prefer not to have, particularly in terms of inheritance and pension (particularly if you have children from a previous relationship). It opens up the potential for some really messy legal wrangling in terms of relationship breakdown (including what may not have been a romantic relationship in the first place. It's not about anger, it's about simplicity in law, which this is: want protection and rights of marriage, you get married.

It’s crucially important for people who chose to have a kid, unless they are rich, or have kids with someone else and want them to be their next of kin and inherit their stuff upon death. So many people still seem to think that a kid is ‘more of a commitment’ and then are shocked to find themselves with no home or right when their boyfriend fucks off, or that ‘common law’ is a thing that exists, and don’t educate themselves when making themselves financially vulnerable.
I’m Childfree and atheist, and marriage is important to me because it made my husband legally be my family, being married to an amazing person is spectacular, after an upbringing from hell, having my own chosen family and safety is bliss.

I think it's an out dated institution... but having said that, by law it does give some protection to woman, while the children are very young (and we are at our most vulnerable) in case things do go wrong.

Almost every unmarried mother I know would be quite disadvantaged if they split up with their partners.

Morally I am unfussed about marriage; do whatever you want.

As others have said, it needs to be an informed choice. A ‘common-law marriage’ is a myth. Cohabiting leaves some people extremely vulnerable, and there are threads on here every day bearing that out. There are posters on this thread who are very clear about their rights and content with their legal arrangements, marriage or not. And there are posters who say they have no idea. Please don’t sleepwalk into problems.

“DH is in Forces and implications of being a wife not a girlfriend are amplified“ my ex and father were army and I totally agree and love how you put it (which i may be stealing for future use!)

Owlbethere - personally I’m against automatic rights being conferred on people basically by default as they’re not then making an active decision, it also removes the decision for those who DON’T want to be tied to another legally and financially merely by virtue of sharing an address, plus properly assessing, legislating and enforcing such laws would be a nightmare and an unnecessary expense for the country in my opinion. How long would you have to be living together to get those rights? Who decides that given in the event of a separation it could very much be he said/she said whereas with a marriage there’s what at least 3 witnesses? And a signed and dated documentary proof? How would you protect against lodgers etc claiming there was a cohabiting relationship? What proof of such a relationship would be sufficient?

No, it’s very simple and clear as things are now, if people are ill informed in believing there’s such a thing as common law marriage to an extent that’s their lookout, but I do think there should be education on this.

Getting married doesn’t have to be expensive, time consuming, religious etc it’s possible to marry for less than £100 and the rights and protections it gives are worth it!

As I say on almost all these threads I have personally witnessed the horrific fallout for a family where the parents weren’t married, the house in the mans name and the man died. The family lost their home and were very badly off financially as a result (his family inherited under the law and saw that through, despite previously getting along fine with the woman but their actions eventually effectively ended their having a relationship with the children).

It’s not just if you separate that not being married can cause major problems but also death and
incapacity.

As a nurse I saw the difficulties faced by unmarried partners trying to sort their partners financial and legal affairs without that legal backup.

It can be done but it’s so much easier if you’re married and at a time when you’re already dealing with a lot emotionally surely things need to be as easy as possible.

I’m divorced, my ex is a shit but if I’d not been married he’d have been able to screw me over even more! Our having been married just made so many things at that time far easier to deal with.

I personally think it is important. Other views many vary.
I don't care how others choose to live.

We got married (Registry office) after 15 year together because I wanted our children to have a clear recognised status on (dual) nationality (husband is British and I am not). My home country is very bureaucratic and it was easier that way to have them recognise the family unit. Now brexit has proved me right and the kids' status is one less thing to worry about.

Not married. Personally, I think too much emphasis is put on women marrying for 'protection' when this is really is a bit of a smokescreen. There are plenty of threads on the relationship board that demonstrate that 'protection' often boils down to half a mortgage that the woman can't pay because he wiggles out of child support and she has no income of her own, having given it up to be his SAHW. I think that it's far more important for women to make sure that they do not sacrifice income by marriage or babies and that they always put their job or career prospects first. I've seen so many threads about 'I had a good job and I moved becaise of his work and now I can't work in my field or get a job at all' - but in real life I've seen maybe two men move for her work and disadvantage themselves. Or I've seen women say that they have dropped to part-time to manage the house and this is OK because his wage is big enough to allow it. I think these behaviours are far, far more dangerous than not being married. Bottom line - financial independence is more important than marriage.

In my country (Canada) there’s no difference between married and commonlaw as far as support after the relationship is done. The major difference is in property division.

In short, there’s a disincentive for the person who is wealthier to get married as, when things end, they end up rewarding their ex while simultaneously being penalized.

This is usually not much of an issue if the two people are at roughly the same level economically.

Marriage = so much financial protection for so little effort.
Don't get married if you don't want to but FFS make sure you have your property and assets properly secured in the event one of you dies.

@YetAnotherSpartacus - totally agree. Marriage benefits the financially weakest party on divorce but disadvantages the wealthier party. There’s quite a few threads of women who have been the main carer for their children and the main earner and lost out significantly because they married the father of their children. I would have been one of them had I married, I didn’t I chose to stay unmarried and kept my resources so I can used them to build a future for my dds.

As for the repeated claims that if you are unmarried with children some random family member will inherit- no, in all U.K. jurisdictions your children will inherit. Which is fine by me as it’s what I want.

Marriage doesn’t benefit all women and these threads are pretty sad when you consider marriage is what some women consider as “financial protection”. How many men think that? Maybe if you want to protect your financial future, get a job and don’t give it up. Because you only have to read the relationships thread to see that marriage is not great at providing women with “financial protection”.

@Graphista - assuming that family you mentioned were in the U.K., he must have willed it to some other member of his family (which he could Have done if he was married too). On intestacy his children would have inherited everything.

I am unmarried and female with children.

I have sorted out the estates and affairs of several family members through illness and incapacity, and after their deaths, including losing relatives who shared a home and financial liabilities with me, and distant ones where I was not the direct next of kin, and including taking estates through probate etc. I have never had an issue with making decisions, getting information, access or funds where needed. I cannot see how that would differ with the death of my long term unmarried partner.

I have watched loved ones spending tens of thousands on solicitors and going through extremely long, stressful divorces - one very close to me went on for over five years before there was any resolution and it was seven years before it was finally completely settled. That’s longer than many marriages.

I agree that people should be either purposely married (and understand that they are financially liable toward their spouse, and that the process of dissolving the marriage can be long and ruinous) or purposely unmarried (and not putting themselves in the ridiculous ‘ust a bit of paper’ bracket, ensuring their financial rights are protected) but I don’t agree that marriage is automatically ‘protection’ or ‘crucially important for people who have a kid’. Why would that be true?

Illegitimate children, father not on bc no will it was in the 70's and my understanding is that as there was no legal proof (and no dna testing then) the children didn't have a legal claim

Almost every unmarried mother I know would be quite disadvantaged if they split up with their partners
I wonder how you think my being married stopped me being disadvantaged when I split from my xh?
It didn't, it just gave him more of a hold over me and cost me a hell of a lot more money than I could afford to divorce him. I didn't have the strength nor energy or finances to fight it in court and of course no legal aid available either. So I ended up with just 50% of the equity in our home after legal fees which I would have had even if we weren't married.

Now as the one with more assets and likely double the earnings of dp in a few years I'd be an idiot if I re married.

It's only in the interests of the lower earner to be married. If you're the higher earner you will get fleeced if you divorce.

It was important to me and my DH to get married we arranged everything in 3 months we had a very cheap and cheerful wedding last month and we are both really happy that we did it and had the wedding that we both wanted. It wasn’t a for a financial reason it was because we love each other.

You can’t generalise.

For some women marriage dies not increase financial stability, as PPs have demonstrated.

For emotional commitment there are other ways to demonstrate it.

Reading everyone's comments I can see that a lot of people see marriage as a financial decisions and only few see it a more romantic gesture. Yes again many women post threats saying they are feel hurt because their partner would not marry them yet again he says he loves them. Do any of you believe in the values of being brought up in a family where the parents are married? Do you think bringing children in a family where the parents are not married affects how the future generations sees "commitment" ?

Been with DP 20 years. No intention or interest in marriage. We have no children. I am main income earner. We live in a country that doesn't have IHT or CGT or any tax relief if married. So what's the point?

If we did get married it would be tiny we don't want the fuss and we are too far away to have friends and family come for the event from the UK. You might then think then it's an easy registry office done and dusted. However:
-my parents and DP parents would be devastated they weren't there
-close UK friends would feel disenfranchised from our lives

• if parents did come then a whole world of other family pain happened which our parents would bear the brunt of in the UK
• local friends would be unhappy they didn't get to throw us a do
• if a do is thrown a whole load of people get unhappy at us
• we can't afford a big do and don't want one

So back to square 1. Dont bother getting married.