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?

You are much more likely to split if you are not married.

Outcomes for DCs from households with both parents in a relationship far exceed those from separated parents.

Therefore, people should be married before having DCs.

...FWIW, I used to volunteer at a well-known advice giving organisation and have literally, in 10 years of service never seen a woman who wouldn't have been better off married than not. There may well be a handful of women for whom this trend does not hold true, but they are vanishingly small in number.

It depends on your circumstances and stage in life. For me, being married now would not be financially beneficial.

I 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?

I don't think there's hostility, but, as has been said, it's just a case of actively choosing to have both the rights and responsibilities of marriage or otherwise (by default) not choosing to have either.

Stirling Moss was racing cars at the highest level for years, but didn't have a driving licence for a number of years, meaning that he couldn't legally pootle around town to go to Asda. Later on, I believe, he did pass his test (which I'm sure didn't cause him any difficulties at all), because he wanted those rights - along with the responsibility to tax, MoT and insure his car, if he then chose to own one. In his case, nobody doubts his abilities, but there's still a legal avenue you can choose or not choose to take, to gain the legal rights and recognition.

I don't know if it's still the case, but there was a system a few years back whereby people coming to live in the UK had to pass a test to prove that they had a reasonable level of comprehension of the English language. Included in this were people from countries like the USA and Australia, but they still had to take the (for them very easy) test if they wanted the associated benefits.

As PP have said, legally forcing people to take on the mantle of effectively being married - the rights and responsibilities - would be outrageous. Isn't forced marriage actually illegal, anyway?

How is anybody else to know whether the (non-blood related) adult you live with (for however long), is your romantic partner with whom you want to share your whole life, a casual partner (Mr Right-Now), a mutual friend with benefits but nothing more, a very close lifelong friend but one with whom you share no romantic attraction, a lodger or even a housemate whom you hate, but have no other feasible option but to share a dwelling with? What if you share a house with more than one non-related adult? How does the state decide which one to assign as your de facto husband or wife?

You could say the same about birth certificates - why does the government force you to register a birth? You know you're the parents, so why does anything else matter. The government could just randomly assign a name to your baby and write to the mother (if the delivery hospital has passed on the details of the birth's having taken place) to tell her what name her baby is to be officially known as.

There's no such thing as being a bit married - you either are or you aren't. Would you prefer individuals to be allowed to freely opt in and apply for that status for themselves (or otherwise choose not to) or would you rather some government department monitor your life and then arbitrarily decide whether or not they consider you to be married to another apparently associated adult at some stage when they see fit?

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.

Very true. A banknote, postage stamp, TV licence, driving licence, passport, house title deeds etc could all be described as 'a piece of paper' (or plastic), but it's what they represent that matters.

In fact, one reason that some people for not getting married is the perceived cost of many thousands of pounds, when in fact, all of the razzamatazz is not only completely optional but legally means absolutely nothing. It's the application and committing to what that 'piece of paper' represents - which can be dealt with for £100-£200 - which actually makes you legally married.

Just like you can have an enormous month-long party and fly everybody you've ever known out to a luxury resort in Barbados to celebrate your 18th birthday, but it's the simple fact of having lived for exactly 18 years that makes you legally an adult - that and that alone.

It's not important to everyone but in the [still very common] case where the woman gives up work for a long period of time to bring up kids it's beyond essential. I know many women who've been stung by failing to do it.

This is a 'pet peeve' of mine. There are many reasons why being married is beneficial if you plan to be together long term.
There have been lots of age 50+ couples choosing to get married in recent years, after just co-habiting for many years as they have got older and perhaps had a health scare, and realised the issues they would face upon one partner dying whilst not married

• Pensions. Many pensions will pay a portion to a surviving spouse, but only a spouse (some let you specify a nominated person, many do not - it must be a spouse)
• Inheritance tax. Granted this may not apply to many couples, but the fact is that property automatically passes to a spouse without any IHT liability. Even if you leave your partner all your assets in your will, if unmarried they are liable for IHT. Many have been caught out on this thinking they're not 'rich' enough, but property values in some areas are so high as to impact more people.
• Ensuring the correct next of kin. Others have stated that if an unmarried partner dies, their assets will automatically go to their children. This is correct, however, if the children are young, the assets will be held in trust until they are old enough. This may mean the house you live in can't be sold etc.
• Living abroad. Perhaps only relevant to a small number of people, but was very relevant in my case. When my husband was assigned to work in the USA for a few years, I was only able to accompany him because we were married. This is the case for many countries.

As well as the firm legal reasons, there are also many issues that are simplified in the case of death/illness if you are married simply because you have clear, legal proof of your relationship.

Ensuring the correct next of kin. Others have stated that if an unmarried partner dies, their assets will automatically go to their children. This is correct, however, if the children are young, the assets will be held in trust until they are old enough. This may mean the house you live in can't be sold etc.

Exactly.

It's even more important before the children are actually born. If you are married (even recently so) and, tragically, you die in childbirth but with the baby surviving, your widowed husband will automatically gain full parental rights over his child.

If he isn't your husband but only your partner/boyfriend - even if you've been a couple for 20 years and there's absolutely no possible doubt that he is your child's father - then this will not happen.

For a start, the only people legally allowed to register a child's birth (and state the father's name on the bc) are the child's mother and/or her husband (not sure how this affects same-sex marriages now, but presumably also the mother's wife). He may or may not eventually gain rights, but the state will step in and make a lot of basic decisions on the child's behalf, make him jump through hoops, possibly force him to apply to 'adopt' his own child, before he (hopefully) is allowed to be considered the child's legal guardian.

Can you imagine the trauma of not only losing your beloved partner of many years but also having to take tests, make applications and be assessed before you're allowed to legally start parenting your own newborn child?

It is very important to be married. Nobody thinks ahead to “What if he cheats or finds the daily grind too much like hard work and leaves?”, but we should. Single mothers tend up dealing with the brunt of the appointments and admin to do with their kids, have to pick them up at short notice and very often end up forced into low paid, part time work with no career progression while the man’s career goes from strength to strength. No offence to CMS but many men just ignore them and they go away, or arrange a pittance and make the woman’s life hell to the point she will put up with almost no child maintenance just to stop the drama. If you are not married you have no legal rights to the property, it’s harder to get maintenance and you could well end up in the poverty trap and reliant on benefits. A woman has to think ahead and prepare for the worst case scenario. Falsely assuming everything will be OK is a huge mistake.

But you're conflating not being a higher earner with the pie being too small to make a difference to anything tabulahrasa, and they are very much not the same thing.

A couple with one average earner might have substantial unearned equity if they're old enough to have bought a home at the right time. The sole earner could have inheritance that was ploughed into the property. They could have a pension pot well into the five figures, maybe six if they're old enough. None of these things are exactly uncommon.

There are certainly people where there are so assets or they're tiny, but you can fall outside this group without there being a high earner.

I am married only for tax and legal next of kin reasons.

I'm not in the UK so the laws might be different but we got married because:

We wanted to commit to each other
We wanted to be able to make medical decisions for each other if the other wasn't in a position to do so
We wanted to inherit from each other and pay less tax upon death to do so
We wanted any future children to be automatically from us both
We wanted us both to have equal rights and responsibilities for any future children (so upon death of mum, dad is automatically still the care giver and the person who decides over said children instead of going through rules and regulations first).

I do live in a country where pre nup's are enforced and we have made one to protect the assets we had before marriage. So anything after marriage is split 50-50 but what we had before is ours and can't be taken away in case of divorce, no matter what. And I protected my future inheritence as well, that also stays outside of the marriage. So financially I can't be totally fucked over by a bitter seperation. Neither can I do it to him.

I do think that it was easier for us to marry because pre nups are enforced here. I would have hesitated otherwise, and so would he.

Not just divorce and death, it's also critical illness. If you are married you have rights of decision over medical information and decisions. If you're single, it's usually next of kin. With so many complaints of MiLs on here, I often wonder how the same people would react when the parents of their cohabitee are allowed into the hospital and make decisions where they may be kept outside and out the loop as they are single.

I also wonder with men who don't want to get married but want to have the kids but haven't thought through what might happen to the child if the mother were to die in childbirth or shortly after (yeah, I know, but does happen, sadly).

As said above, it's nice to think of the fun and lovely reasons to get married but it's also good to look at the risk aspects and the legal/financial situation with an objective view.

In most circumstances, when one party gsi a from marriage, the other loses out. This even more with 2nd marriages.

So it really depends on the circumstances and where each stands, both financially and their feelings towards long term commitment.

I really don’t understand the hostility to wanting the same rights for cohabiting couples as married ones I have to say

Because all you have to do is go to a registry office and get married. No religious trappings at all. But a big difference to your legal status.

That said I completely agree with the very good post above that says, you don't have to get married but you do have to understand the difference between marriage and being a partner and make an informed decision about which you want.

Important if you shared finances, business, home ownership or biological children together.

It’s a legal contract first of all, the romantic side second of all.

It makes no difference to my partner and I.

As soon as our first child was born, whatever we both had separately, became jointly ours.

Our financial advisor sorted out absolutely everything to make sure if anything happened to either of us, all assets etc would go to the other person.
Very in depth wills up to date, life insurance etc..
Marriage would not change anything for us.

But one thing I don't like is my children having a different surname to me, so I will be changing my surname. I will get flamed on here for saying that!!

DP are chatting about this at the moment...neither were fussed about marriage pre DS's arrival.

I earn 2 x what he does, but we live within our means and could both be easily independent if required.

We both have wills setting out our wishes for next of kins etc

We both have life insurance and life assurance via work and both have each other as nominated beneficiaries.

We don't qualify for married tax allowance

Both sets of parents had messy divorces as we were growing up, so put us off. As a result we have messy family situations and a wedding would be a minefield because of this.

Neither of us are religious.

I don't like the idea of being 'given away' or vowing to obey someone.

The only plus we can think of is that we'd all have the same surname, which means I'd get rid of my useless father's surname. But then I could just change by deedpole?

If I'm missing some other advantage please let me know?

“There are certainly people where there are so assets or they're tiny, but you can fall outside this group without there being a high earner.”

There’s still a significant amount of people that it makes no practical difference to. That’s all I was pointing out, that actually there’s a lot of people that would come out more or less the same financially - married or not.

I mean, my house has doubled in value since I bought it, but I’d have to have bought three of them for inheritance tax to be an issue...lol

There’s a lot of people that are below average earners, but not low enough that benefits after someone dies would be paid.

I mean they wouldn’t be any worse off for being married and there are other reasons, just saying things like splitting assets or inheritance tax aren’t necessarily relevant to as many people as threads like this seem to assume.

“But one thing I don't like is my children having a different surname to me, so I will be changing my surname. I will get flamed on here for saying that!”

Well mostly because that’s nothing to do with being married, you could have given birth them snub surname you wanted, unmarried or married.

Neither of us are religious.

I don't like the idea of being 'given away' or vowing to obey someone.

Marriages don't have to be religious, nor do you have to be "given away" by anyone. You can just turn up at the registry office with two witnesses (can be strangers off the street) and get married. Your vows also don't need to include "to obey" either. Mine certainly didn't and I got married last year - you have a choice of three versions depending on what you want to say.

If I'm missing some other advantage please let me know?

If you got married, you would be entitled to widows allowance should he pass away. As unmarried partners, you're entitled to nothing. The government doesn't recognise unmarried couples in this way.

You'd also be entitled to a portion of his state pension if you got married and he died after reaching pension age - again as an unmarried couple you are entitled to nothing as the government doesn't legally recognise your relationship.

Of course remaining unmarried is a perfectly valid choice but it's important to be aware of the consequences of that choice, both positive and negative.

I really don’t understand the hostility to wanting the same rights for cohabiting couples as married ones I have to say

A big part of it, I think, is that people who want cohabitants to be treated the same way in law as married couples don't seem to do a very good job of understanding that this would take rights and choices away from some people. There are individuals who have deliberately chosen, from a position of knowledge, to avoid marrying their partners because they don't want that. Some of them have posted in this thread. People who want cohabitants to be treated the same as married couples want to take this right away from them.

I feel no shame in saying I'm quite hostile when people think others should lose rights because they have very special reasons why they can't possibly be expected to engage in a legal contract. I can understand it more if the person isn't advocating it for themselves but rather as protection for others, though I'd still be concerned about an approach that removes legal rights from people.

Mishfit by all means don't get married but being given away, religion and vowing to obey have absolutely nothing to do with it. They're not part of marriage, just some things some people getting married do. Similarly, not writing wills is a thing some cohabitants do but you still wrote them. You just do the bits you want to do.

A big part of it, I think, is that people who want cohabitants to be treated the same way in law as married couples don't seem to do a very good job of understanding that this would take rights and choices away from some people. There are individuals who have deliberately chosen, from a position of knowledge, to avoid marrying their partners because they don't want that. Some of them have posted in this thread. People who want cohabitants to be treated the same as married couples want to take this right away from them
This.

Some people may meet later in life and have assets they want to protect for their children rather than have them tied to a new spouse who could disinherit their children.
Some people want to cohabit for longer and are perfectly happy with their finances and set up.

Legal contracts shouldn't be imposed on others to account for the stupidity of people who don't read up on the consequences of their actions. That sounds harsh, but I don't see why people who are happy to remain legally separate should have to never cohabit to avoid the law inserting itself into their affairs just to appease the people who confidently declared they don't need to opt for the legal contract only to later decide they do actually fancy the benefits.

It’s definitely important if you want to improve your financial position through divorce and are the lower earner.

There’s still a significant amount of people that it makes no practical difference to. That’s all I was pointing out, that actually there’s a lot of people that would come out more or less the same financially - married or not.

It's not though! You said there's only extra protection to the SAHP if the other parent is on a high salary and that just isn't true. I 100% concur that for many people the asset splitting protections are irrelevant, but we can point that out whilst not also saying protections only are relevant for the spouse of a high earner.

Also the reason I mentioned equity was because there are loads of modest earners who have a lot of it just due to when they bought, not IHT necessarily. That would be a death matter not divorce.

Marriage is my worst nightmare not sure why but I've always said I'd never do it

My mum and dad are in the middle of a divorce. My mum had a decent personal pension, he is getting half of it, he has no personal pansion so she gets nothing. He is living in the mortgage free house, while my mum is now living with us and not entitles to half of the value of her house because he in entitled to a lump sum of her pension. She could walk away with 10,000, while he gets to keep the house. So please tell me where the good in being married was there?