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?

That's fine overtime.
Many of us think people should have the right to choose if they want to bring the law and legal contracts into their relationships as long as it's an informed choice. Zero judgement.

The issue is when people say they don't do marriage/don't want marriage but then want rights bestowing on them without the legal contract or, worse, think that others should lose their freedoms and rights.

I met DH in my late teens and travelled all over the world with him due to his job. After basic education i couldnt progress in my career because of this. We never stayed in the same country for long.
It was very important for me to get married, because i would struggle financially if he left while he earns a lot.
I guess it depends on each couple and their situation, but for me marriage was a must.

@JacobReesClunge Agreed! Some deliberately don't marry as they don't want the 'rights' given by marriage.

Example - a friend's grandfather got together with a new partner in his early 70s after his wife passed away. He didn't marry her because he wanted to ensure that his house and other assets all passed to his children. She had her own home, which she sold when she moved him with him and kept the money from the sale in her own, personal account.
He wrote a new will specifying that his new partner would be able to continue living in the house if he died first, but that he wanted to leave it to his 2 children.
When he died, she continued to live in the house. However, she also attempted to challenge the will, claiming that as they'd been together for 15 years, she should have some 'rights' to his home. Her own solicitors advised her to drop the challenge in the end as his will was very clear about his intentions. Although it was still a year of stress and upset for my friend's family.
He would certainly not have wanted to be treated in the same way as a married couple, which is precisely why they never married.

Totally agree. It was important to me (and DH) to be married, and definitely to be married before having children.

If you don't want to, fine. But if you're not wanting to because either you've muddled the legal status of marriage with a big expensive party, or because you've bought into the myths about common law marriage and trot out the phrase of it "just being a piece of paper", then more fool you.

No I don't think it's important and I won't be doing it. That said, I live in a country where cohabiting couples have similar legal protections to married couples. If I lived in the UK I would definitely consider it but here, nope.

I love my DP and we have two wonderful DC but I'm a bit of a free spirit at heart and I like to leave an escape route! I'd feel somewhat trapped if I was legally bound to another person and so I like the thought that should something ever happen I can walk away without a messy, drawn out divorce.

For me, standing up in front of people who love us and making public promises to each other was very special.

I was devastated when he didn't want to do those vows any more.

Which is when I was hugely grateful that the legal and grown up part of his promises got enforced by a wonderful British legal system that takes a dim view of vulnerable people being abandoned and isn't at all interested in middle aged temper tantrums.

The ECONOMIC REALITY of children mean that women become financially vulnerable. They go to part time jobs, start earning less than men or even SAHM, and this is as true today as it was in Victorian times (quoting a pensions specialist off Women's Hour)

I would never get pregnant with a partner or what having children outside marriage is called.

It’s good if you’re the one entering the relationship with nothing to lose.

Heard lots of cases like @Thestrangestthing mentioned up thread. Why the hell would you bother in this day and age?

Totally disagree with you OP

“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.”

Would you be happier if I rephrased it as higher? Or over certain amounts?

“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”

I did clarify that I meant when it was jointly owned.

Just figured it was worth mentioning because, splitting assets, better protection in general if you’re a SAHP and inheritance tax come up loads on threads about marriage, but there’s a fair amount of people that those things are more or less irrelevant to.

Even if you have a will pensions houses with everything set to go to the other partner the other person can change the next day it and you will only know when you try to put in a claim

If your married it can still be changed-without you knowing but you have a much better chance of winning in court if you have that “ bit of paper”

I don’t want cohabiting to confer the same rights as marriage. It needs to be an active opt in and sign the contract for that legal status.

I know Australia has cohabitation rights. I prefer the UK’s stance.

I would never dismiss someone’s relationship as ‘spouse or whatever having children after marriage is called’

I’m hoping it is just the lack of tone in the written word but it comes across rudely.

I chose to protect myself and my children financially by not marrying their father. He asked me, he likes everything to do with marriage - I said no. We continued our relationship anyway and had children to whom he became a SAHD.

Many couples and individuals are protected by marriage, many are disadvantaged by it and it’s important not to make sweeping statements either way.

There is no way that I’ll ever marry again as I want to protect my assets for me and my children and have no desire to have the state meddle in my financial business.

I’m glad that the state isn’t imposing obligations on me by virtue of the fact that I cohabiting just because some women are too foolish to protect themselves.

I don't think amounts would help either tabulah because you could still be on a pretty low income and potentially have assets worth splitting. As one example, in my circle and family there are couples and singles who have purchased through RTB whilst not earning much and seen the property substantially increase in value.

So I think it would be better just to say that there might not be much/anything in the way of assets to split, because that's indisputably true. And also that IHT doesn't affect the majority of people. Those are both relevant points that some people will benefit from knowing.

@NameChangeNugget

Exactly. I won't be marrying dp. I own my house and all bills and cars etc are in my name. I can pay of these myself if me and dp split. Marrying would do me and my children no good.

Mishfit0819

One thing is that you have each unilaterally made mutually beneficial plans. Those could be unmade unilaterally. That decision to unmake them could be as a result of a unilateral view that the relationship is over, a sudden mental health crisis, a brain injury.

Of course divorce can have the same effect but there is far less chance of marriage being dissolved without the other person being aware.

@NameChangeNugget
You mention thestrangestthing's comment. Based on those few facts, I'd say that the marriage contract is doing it's job.

The key point is, a married couple is treated as a 'team' instead of as 2 individuals. So the idea is that decisions are made as a 'team', knowing the possible future consequences.
Perhaps in that case, the reason the mum has a good personal pension and the dad doesn't is because he ended up doing jobs without pension benefits in order to be in the right area of the country to support her job. In that case, the consequences of that decision were considered as the married 'team' - that it maybe didn't matter if he didn't build up a pension if she built up a good one. Then in the case of divorce, that has to be taken into account.

That is often the case the opposite way around - where a mother has taken some time out with young children or has worked part time for childcare reasons. She will likely lose out on pension benefits, but if that decision was taken as a 'team' because it made the most sense for their family, it would only be fair that she is not penalised for a 'team' decision should they divorce.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. If a spouse feels hard done by that their assets (houses, pensions etc.) are going to be fairly divided, this should have been taken into account at the point the decision was made.
Sometimes it will seem unfair, sometimes very fair. But the idea is to protect people in the future from decisions that were made as a couple.

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?

You can't give cohabiting people the same rights as married people because too many cohabit without wanting to be in a position to make medical or financial decisions for each other. Most people who flatshare wouldn't want to have the same obligations as married people. So what you need is a contract that says: "we are a cohabiting couple and want rights and obligations enforced". This is what marriage is. It's a contract saying exactly that. Some people like to add a disney type dress, words of love and religious ceremony but that is optional. The only thing that you really have to do to get narried is sign a contract. Even saying "I do" is optional.

OP, can you give me the benefits please?

@Vapatea A bigger mistake is the belief marriage protects you from those things.
Pray tell how does that not happen to just as many women who were married to the father of their children?
And the child maintenance service- if you can call it that, is a joke and it is no easier to navigate whether you were married or not.

We are an international couple and we basically had to get married to gurantee that we would always have the option to live in all countries we have nationalities for between the two of us.

We met quite young by todays standards and were in similiar financial circumstances (i.e. broke students) and knew that any money we would earn would go towards building a life for both of us and would be shared. If that would have been different, we'd have a pre-nup, as it was, there were no assets to protect.

We also make an effort to avoid an unequal situation should we ever get a divorce, e.g. when one of us is unemployment, we still pay money into both of our private pensions. Not just in case of a divorce but also in case of a pre-mature death, because life insurance only covers so much.

Ultimately, to us, marriage was a short-cut to get lots of the legal stuff we wanted done without having to pay a hefty sum for solicitors. Of course we could have sorted everything related to buying property, having children, supporting each other in unemployment etc by signing specific legally binding agreements for each step but neither of us could be bothered with that. Throw in our different nationalities and marriage was an excellent solution.

I was also planning to move to another country, as they have better employment opportunities for my area but DH job is specific to the UK. Hence, before I was willing to take that career hit, I wanted a ring on my finger.

No I don't think it's important and I won't be doing it. That said, I live in a country where cohabiting couples have similar legal protections to married couples. If I lived in the UK I would definitely consider it but here, nope.

Genuine question: after how long do you gain the legal cohabiting protections? Do you have to register it, so kind of legal marriage in all but name, or does it kick in after a certain amount of time? If the latter, how do they know for a fact that you're a couple and not just close friends (and if three or more non-related adults live together, who is coupled with whom?) - and do you think it's fair that people who've actively chosen not to marry are effectively forced to live under a marriage contract?

I just think that legally and financially associating yourself with another person should be entirely optional and a conscious choice that you make. Anything else sounds almost coercive to me. It would be like forcing people who've happily been renting a house for X number of years to commit to buy it (and the landlord to sell it) - worse, actually, as that's just property and not human lives we're talking about.

Very well put, CatNinja

We don't know the full circumstances of thestrangestthing's parents' marriage, but it's very common for one partner to yield earning/pension-building abilities in support of the other and/or to look after the joint children and home. It happens to be much more common for the woman to be the one doing this, but it can just as easily be the man - or either in a same-sex marriage.

It's a partnership to which people legally commit - not a one-way insurance policy that (overwhelmingly) women have to get a man to agree to before they feel able to safely and securely live the couple/family life they want to. Or, to put it another way, to get a man to agree to 'buy' her and her services. Ugh.

This just serves to demonstrate that marriage can have benefits and disadvantages, rights and responsibilities - and why nobody should be treated as married unless they've actively made that decision in law.

In my situation (immigrant without indefinite leave to remain, standard prospects for work), marrying my SO was the best option. We would have liked to wait a few more years, but being married in the same country was a much better choice than doing cross-continental long distance for a second time. Now that there is a baby in the mix, I am also very glad to be married rather than common-law.

I can see why others would prefer to remain legally "single" though. It takes all sorts, doesn't it?

I'm nearly 60 so I doubt have a rather old fashioned view of these things, but I wouldn't have had children with someone unless I was married to them.

I understand that some people don't want the commitment of marriage, but children are, or should be, a much bigger commitment so it surprises me sometimes that people often make the bigger commitment without the smaller. For example, I have two sets of friends who have each lived with their partners for 18-20 years and have children with them, but haven't married. I find that odd.

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

Me too, I knew from around 12 years old I'd never get married. Financial independence and self reliance are far more Important imo and is what I'll be teaching my DC.