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?

If you’re the lower earner and plan to stop work to care for your children staying out of the workplace for years then yes you should marry .

I think it's important to inform yourself about the implications of marriage compared to co-habitation.
especially if part time work for one party and/or children are involved.

A marriage is a legal contract, no more, no less. It offers a number of benefits, including tax benefits, but also a number of responsibilities such as division of property in the event of a divorce. It’s up to the individuals concerned to weigh up the pros and cons and decide what works best for them.

In the status quo married or not makes no difference but at some point one of the partners will die, may get sick, may decide the relationship is over, may get into financial difficulty.

Being married or not will affect how these things get handled legally.

I think in a happy relationship, whether you're married or not is largely irrelevant.

But when things start to go wrong, then being married can offer you a vast amount of protection. For example if you're a SAHM or only work part time, you could be entitled to stay in the family home until the children are 18. If your partner sadly dies, you'd also be entitled to things like widows allowance and a portion of your spouses state pension. You also wouldn't be subject to inheritance tax on any property that's in joint names.

Not all people would benefit from marriage but it's important to to know the legal difference between marriage and just cohabiting. Because it's a big difference when the shit hits the fan.

So many threads on here where people aren't married and find themselves with nowhere to go when their relationship ends because they've given up work and moved in to homes that aren't in their name.

If you're going to have children but don't want to get married it's vital that you keep your financial independence.

nakedavenger I think it’s nuts personally to allow other people’s opinions to factor so heavily into your decision to marry or not marry... but I guess if you did genuinely want to marry you would anyway, which is fair enough if you don’t!

OwlBeThere

really don’t understand the hostility to wanting the same rights for cohabiting couples as married ones I have to say. 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 marriage is a serious legal commitment and contract, it should be entered into willingly and opted into not bestowed by default. I’ve had cohabiting relationships where it’s been lovely for what it was but in no way would I have wanted the law to treat us as legally committed once we broke up. In my experience, you have a relationship and live together and if it doesn’t work out you want to be able to walk away with a clean break. So many people would feel unable to live with partners if doing so meant after a period of time you suddenly were legally bound. Given that anyone can get married for less than £150, I think that things are the way they should be. You both have to opt into being married, not sleepwalk into a similar legal setup.

As for me, I can see pros and cons to marrying and ultimately believe what matters is that people educate themselves on what their legal standing is in a relationship so they can make an informed decision. I’m horrified by the number of grown adults who still believe common law wife/husband is a thing in the UK. Where they get it from I have no idea. We did choose to get married while pregnant as was always our plan, we wanted to be married before a baby arrived but didn’t want to delay TTC for a wedding, so we focused on what was important to us (buying a house and TTC) and then had a simple lovely ceremony at six months pregnant with six immediate relatives as guests, a dress from New Look and a lunch after before going home for dinner time. It was perfect and we spent less than £400 all-in. We wanted to be legally family, to share a name, and it was important to me as someone who was going to become the lower earner due to the baby to be married (and important to DH to give us that as a unit).

But I can also see the argument for how marriage just becomes one more hassle to unpick, often at great expense, at the end of a relationship, and I know some people who really wish they hadn’t been married when a relationship breaks down as it’d have been much simpler to walk away. Not everyone benefits from marriage so people need to know their rights.

Problem is people get caught up in the romantic side of marriage when at its core as unromantic as it sounds, it’s purely a legal contract. While I’d be lying if I said there wasn’t a little fizz of excitement for us both at becoming husband and wife and sharing names and wearing rings, ultimately that’s secondary to the understanding of the legal side, but I’ve met plenty of people who don’t even seem to realise that’s what marriage is ultimately and get so caught up in the romantic side and believing it’s all about the floral arrangements. Same with people saying they can’t afford to marry, not realising that getting married isn’t the same thing as having a wedding. If you can’t afford together to save up £150 fair enough, but people usually mean they don’t have thousands for a wedding which is totally unnecessary. Then again I’ve heard that used as an excuse by people dragging their feet a lot so I guess it’s a convenient way of not marrying (to say you can’t afford it and want a big white wedding) rather then just being honest with their partner that they have no intention to marry them. I have friends who’ve been engaged for 5+ years with no date set and I just wonder what’s the point? You’re only engaged if you’re planning to marry surely.

So many threads on here where people aren't married and find themselves with nowhere to go when their relationship ends because they've given up work and moved in to homes that aren't in their name.

Yeah, this almost seems a bigger issue to me than marriage. How many people willingly put themselves and their children in the most vulnerable of positions, living with a man in a mortgaged or rented property where only his name is on the lease or mortgage. Believing naively that nothing will go wrong and even if it does he’ll be a decent guy and treat her the same as when things are great. Giving up a job to raise kids while his income skyrockets with no claim to anything if they split.

Before we got married I weighed things up and figured as we both equally own the house (both on the mortgage and equal deposits), if I was planning to return to work full time after maternity leave I couldn’t actually see any way in which I’d be ‘more protected’ being married. We’d have been fully equal. But it was knowing I was planning to return part time that was the kicker, as my salary would have dropped significantly for a long time, affecting my pension and ability to accrue savings and so forth. So marriage was crucial to us.

Marriage I guess papers over some of those unwise decisions mentioned above by bestowing some right to remain in a property you have no claim to.

I think my answer is 'it depends' - if you are going to structure your life as if you are married - eg with one partner staying at home with kids and the other being the main earner - then being married is really important and yanbu. thousands of women are massively disadvantaged by being bumped into this situation without the benefits and protections of marriage.

However, if you aren't going to fit into that patriarchal model of family life then tbh I think it's better not to be married. If you can divide responsibilities and costs fairly and genuinely treat each other as equals (with no imbalance as to who is responsible for childcare).

DP and I have been together for 23 years and haven't married. If we had planned to have children, we would have as it would be important to me for us to all have the same name. I'm very much of the "Why fix it if it ain't broke" opinion.

No interest in getting married. I'm the higher earner and would probably be better off financially without DP. We've talked about it but neither are particularly bothered.

DS has DP's surname and again, I'm not that bothered, I probably wouldn't change my surname if we did marry anyway.

And I'm sorry, but the 'if he won't commit to marriage what makes you think he'll commit to a child' is total bullshit As he said when I mentioned it to him last time someone posted this thread, his love for DS is unconditional, his love for me, isn't.

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.
I agree.

It's also important to own the choice and consequences too, so don't decide you don't need marriage, it's a piece of paper, marriage doesn't make you more serious, DP and I have been together 10 years and some of our friends have been married 3 times in that time... We have children which is a bigger commitment, give up your job and security, and then when it looks like the relationship is ending start claiming cohabiting couples should be entitled to 50% of each other's assets in a split because you've stayed home for years.

My partner and I are both completely non religious, so opposed to the whole religious aspect of marriage.

What religious aspect? If you're in the UK, we have had the option of entirely civil marriage ceremonies for almost 200 years and the very clear majority of weddings are civil.

In answer to the OP, I'd agree with previous posters who said it isn't important to be married, it's important to be informed. In some cases it will 100% be more important for a particular individual/couple to not be married. It depends what you want.

Unfortunately, the reality is that for some cohabiting couples they are not informed, or at least they aren't both informed. There are married couples who aren't either but marriage is obviously something you're less likely to sleepwalk into as requires definitive action, and also if you're generally a bit crap about things (as a lot of us are) then being married tends to cover things a lot of people would want. So it mostly matters less.

Just going to point out that protecting assets is only an issue if there are assets...and that there’s only extra protection to SAHP if the other parent is on a high salary.

The first part of that is true, but the second isn't. The working partner can be on a salary that isn't high, and the SAHP if married can still potentially get a settlement that recognises their contribution. You can have assets without being a high earner. It will be a percentage of a much smaller pie than it would be if there were more in the pot, but that's not the same thing.

But there is a good argument that for lower earners and the lowest earners in particular, the state bereavement benefits on offer may be a more relevant reason to marry than assets. Especially as marriage is more likely to end in death than divorce. I think that's reasonable to point out.

“The working partner can be on a salary that isn't high, and the SAHP if married can still potentially get a settlement that recognises their contribution.”

Recognising their contribution is pretty pointless when it’s too small a pie to make any difference to anything...

I mean yes it should be a conscious decision and people should be aware it makes a difference to benefits at one end of income and asset splitting and financial settlements at the other, but there are a lot of people in between that where it makes no real difference.

@Bluesheep8

If your dp dies you get no widows benefit.

If you inherit from him you'll have to pay IHT.

Also you don't have to be married to change your name. Nor does being married mean you have to change your name.

Just going to point out that protecting assets is only an issue if there are assets...and that there’s only extra protection to SAHP if the other parent is on a high salary.

You don't need to be married to a high earner to be protected by marriage. As an example:

• It means you're eligible for widows allowance should your partner pass away while you have underage children (which can be invaluable if you're a SAHP or need to drop hours at work for a while)
• It means you can access part of your spouses state pension.
• It means you're not eligible for IHT (which means you don't need to worry about where you and your children are going to live in the event of your partner dying - obviously this only works if your home is worth over a certain amount)
• It means you have more rights to the family home and are likely to be able to stay in the home until your children are eighteen years old - which means less disruption for them.

Of course, being named on the mortgage etc. can help in some of those situations but when people move into their partners' homes and get pregnant, marriage means they (and their children) have some much-needed protection.

@Niki93 I personally dont think marriage is important in the slightest. (then some stuff) Legally it still doesnt matter. (some more stuff) I dont know the financial benefits myself

This kind of post is very worrying. Stating it's not important, saying legally it doesn't matter, but then admitting you haven't got a clue what you are actually taking about!

I agree if you are a parent and one of you decides to be a SAHP, or take a significant step back from work or a career for the children or to allow the other to pursuit their own career.

Otherwise, just put legal safeguards in place to protect investments.

A couple I know were married at aged 20, for 30 years, got divorced, about a year later decided to make another go of it, never got remarried, then together about 17 years, when he died in his late 60s. He had a very lucrative pension, that she assumed would transfer to her. But not a chance. She wasn't his wife, just his girlfriend, and the pension scheme only carried on paying his surviving spouse.

They'd spend a year apart in 50 years, and she's got to live out the rest of her life on state pension only, when being married would have got her about £2000 a month extra! She could live for another 30 odd years!!!

“Of course, being named on the mortgage etc. can help in some of those situations“

Sorry, yes I didn’t specify that, obviously if you move into someone else’s house, then you’re always just living in someone else’s house if you’re not married to them.

There are non financial things as well, obviously you’re not necessarily the person in charge of medical decisions or next if kin if they die.

If a partner dies while you’re pregnant it’s very difficult and costs a fair bit to have them named on the birth certificate.

Just pointing out that inheritance tax and asset splitting really aren’t relevant to a big chunk of people.

She wasn't his wife, just his girlfriend, and the pension scheme only carried on paying his surviving spouse.

Yep - sadly the benefits of marriage are often only understood when it's too late. I had a friend who had been with her partner a while - she wanted to marry but he wasn't interested. She had a toddler and was pregnant with number two when he died in an accident in his thirties. They weren't married and she wasn't entitled to a penny. He had life insurance - she got nothing. Luckily the house was in joint names and her family were supportive and helped her out but it could have been very, very different.

If he could see what she went through after his death, I'm sure he'd regret his decision not to marry her.

I agree with so much that has been written here. I married and for us with our plans it was the right thing - we wanted children and knew my career would stall and i would go part time. Also, if you are not legally married you are also no legally the next of kin to your partner and could find yourself shut out from decisions if they were to become seriously ill or die. I do remember in the lead up to our wedding worried that my future in laws would cut me out if something happened to DF.

We have now now been married 16 years and have DC together. If something were to happen to us i would probably choose not to marry again without serious thought and clear legal protection for my children as I wouldn't want all that DH and I have built together to go to someone else's family.

Marriage was important to both of us. We wanted to publicly make vows that we intended to be together for the long haul and wanted to fully commit to each other, both from an emotional standpoint and a legal one. I know you can be in a committed relationship without that public ceremony, but for us that was important, especially before bringing kids into the mix.

From a very practical standpoint, it was also the easiest way for me to emigrate to the UK. We are a dual nationality couple and when we weighed up where it would be easiest to settle together, getting married and settling in the UK was the most efficient option (still a pain, but less so than the American options!).

We now have 3 children and I am a stay at home parent, so I’m glad we are married as it affords me some important legal protections.

Funny how some folks say it's 'just a piece of paper, we don't need it to prove our love, blah blah' - but then years later suddenly find that piece of paper IS important - for financial reasons.