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?

Yup, totally agree, especially if you want children.

It's not important to me to be married. I'm a single parent, higher earner with assets in only my name. Why would I want to get married? To risk my DD not inheriting from me? To risk my assets in a divorce? Dp has his own assets and no children (we are not planning any either). We have drawn up wills to make our wishes known. Marriage is not for everyone, but the number of friends and family that constantly try to encourage us to get married is annoying.

@MyFavoriteTimeOfTheYear 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.

If your boyfriend (because legally, that's all he is) were to die, I would love to know how this financial advisor has managed to get the govt to agree to pay you widows benefit, or got his pension company to agree to pay you spouses benefit for the rest of your life?

I don't think it matters either way. What matters is that you understand the difference between being married or having a civil partnership, or not. It is always sad when a partner doesn't realise until too late. I do really think this difference should be taught in schools.

I have never wanted to get married, like a previous poster, it’s just not something I have ever envisioned happening.
I have always been financially independent, and whilst I do share a mortgage with my long term partner, we purposefully got a house that we could both afford to finance on one of our salaries so neither of us are dependent on the other. We both have life, and illness cover in case of future health issues.
I love my partner, and want to live with him, but also want the freedom to just leave and cut off contact, should the need ever arise. I don’t want to be contracted to him, I don’t want to ever feel trapped or obliged to stay together. He feels the same.
This might sound harsh, or unromantic, or like I am assuming something bad will happen in the future. But, for me, it’s not. I have the best of both worlds, I love and live with my life partner, but am under no financial or legal obligation towards him, or he to me.
We don’t have kids and never will, so this does make a difference, and I do understand that. I also earn a salary such that I am not dependent on his earnings at all.

@MyFavouriteTimeOfYear

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.

You wouldn't get any sort of widows pension should either of you die.

You would pay IHT if your estate was big enough.

You would not be entitled to any portion of his private pension.

There is NO way to legally replicate marriage (apart from civil partnership). If you are both aware of the potential legal difficulties should one of you die or one of you be an unequal earner then that is fine. Just don't make any assumptions about the rights you may or may not have.

I think it's more important not to rush into marriage when half end in divorce.
I think it's lost it's importance tbh, people don't care about getting divorced now, it's sort of expected.
I'm married and have been with dh for 31 years, we could have thrown the towel in many times, but our marriage was important to us, something to strive to keep.

@Teachermaths

No assumptions made by me thank you

Neither of us have a private pension.

Our monies and assets are in a trust fund, so neither of us would pay IHT.

We are multi millionaires, so I think it would be completely unnecessary to claim widows pension, and neither should anybody that is in a good financial position.

I agree with the theory that being married makes couples work harder on their relationship.
I was actually not aware of the legal implications when it comes to private pension. This thread has been quite informative for me and I would like to thank everyone who was civil in their statements and views.

@Teachermaths - what utter crap. There are no general difference for a private pension. You can leave a defined contribution pension to anyone you like, marriage makes no difference. Mine is left to my dds.

These days I think the issue with private pensions is more likely to be when people haven't specifically assigned them to a beneficiary that's not a spouse. You can usually specify an unmarried partner or child. Check though, just to be sure. I know there are some same sex couples who had issues pre equal marriage because CP wasn't counted in the same way by some of the old schemes.

@zsazsajuju as long as you have nominated them. If you haven't then it goes to your next of kin. Teacher pensions were very clear on this.

@zsazsajuju the problem with nominating a beneficiary is that the person doing the nominating can change it whenever they fancy.

If you're married you have a decent chance of fighting a will/pension and getting your claim. If you're unmarried and your partner has changed his/her mind and left everything to the RSPCA, you stand no chance of fighting it.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

You don't have to register it but you do have to be in a "committed, intimate relationship." In regards to potentially gaining rights over property/pension etc. you have to be living together five years, or two years if you have a child together.

do you think it's fair that people who've actively chosen not to marry are effectively forced to live under a marriage contract

Well I don't draft the laws but as far as I'm aware the legislation was brought in as so many people (mainly women and their children) were being left high and dry, so in that sense I do think there should be legal protections afforded to those with children. I do see your point though and I do think there may be an "opt out" option, both parties would have to agree and draw up an agreement - which I've never heard of anyone actually doing in practice and I certainly wouldn't sign my name to that!

@Lifecraft

Its a matter of opinion. And has absolutely nothing to do with knowing the financial aspects of it. Which people have already highlighted doesn’t actually matter because you don't need marriage for financial protection. You dont need to be married to create a will for example? Hardly worrying.

Whats worrying is people highlight they get married legally for financially security...i dont personally think thats the reason for marriage? Again, thats a matter of opinion. Im not saying no one should get married, i just dont think its important, not to me or others. It is 2019, marriage is less important now than it was years ago id argue.

Thanks for explaining that, Squirrelplay

I'm still trying to get my head around how they can prove committed and intimate. One of the things with marriage is that there's an assumption of intimacy, but it's completely self-certified. In fact, there's nothing to stop a couple of very close platonic friends getting married if they want to - whether for tax/security purposes or any other reason.

It's interesting that you can opt out if you BOTH want to, but if one person wants it (or just doesn't care/think enough to opt out), they can effectively force the other one into it.

It's good that women and children are protected, but, in a way, it's also rather patronising towards women (and the minority of men it would affect) as it treats them as having no independence or agency in the matter.

Which people have already highlighted doesn’t actually matter because you don't need marriage for financial protection

This depends on your definition of financial protection. Being the lower earner, living in a house owned by your partner and being unmarried leaves you with nothing of you break up. Otoh if you were married you'd have some claim on the house and possibly maintenance. As long as the person in the "weaker" position financially knows this and is happy then that's fine. What isn't fine is living like that and assuming you get the same rights as a married couple.

@niki93 why is financial security not important to you?

@teachermaths

I never said financial security doesn't matter to me? It does. But being married doesnt mean the only form of security, it isn’t financial security for me. Financial security for me is having my secure job with a secure income and wage, with personal savings etc? Which are all done independently. Thats nothing to do with my partner. We have a mortgage together (not married) its in both our names. And we’re financially stable?

I understand people are arent married but live under the roof of the mortage payer arent ‘secure’. But then you wouldnt live in a house that someone else owes if your name wasnt towards it surely? I thought that’d be common sense for most people. It still doesnt require a marriage. I own my home with my partner of which we arent married. We’re an example of the opposite to what you’ve suggested yet, it works still, financially as well as anyone else.

@niki93 while you don't have children and are both earning/working full time then your set up is fine. However if one of you chose to work PT or become a SAHP once you had children and then you broke up, you wouldn't be entitled to any recompense or maintenance for the years you weren't working. If you were married you'd be entitled to some of the other person's private pension and possibly maintenance.

Marriage isn't appropriate in every circumstance. But people (particularly women) should be aware that they are financially vulnerable if they don't part own the house and work less/not at all. Co habitation does not afford the same rights.

In your set up no marriage sounds OK. Do you have decent life cover? You won't be entitled to a windows pension and may have to pay IHT on anything you inherit if your partner dies.

It's not the be all and end all for me. We're not married and we have a child. It wasn't planned that way, but it works for us. Whilst I'm not the higher earner if the two of us, I could well afford mine and my child's life if god forbid DP wasn't around one day for some reason. We probably will get married one day, we'll also fingers crossed have another child one day (if we'd be lucky enough). I don't know which one of those things will happen first, but I really don't mind.

@Teachermaths

Thats the thing though. Its all circumstancial, so those who dont believe marriage is legally important is down to them and their circumstances hence why it causes this debate, and can prove to some, it isn’t actually important.

We have a child on the way. And we do have good life insurance and home cover. We both have seperate compen life plans with our work/employers that deem if anything happens to us, the pay out goes directly to each together which covers a pension and mortgage . So we are covered in those events, all be it without marriage. Which will be updated once baby arrives, but again, without a marriage which we’re fine with. It does work, and marriage to us isn’t legally important, to us and others. Its not needed is my point. Its preference, but not legally needed/important.

Again, all subjective.

Child on the way.... If something happens to you in child birth and your baby survives. Your partner has no right to keep the child. Yes it's extreme but it has happened.

Things like that people don't like to think about.

In some cases marriage is legally needed. There is no legal contract that replicates a marriage.

The difficulty is that it is circumstancial. At the point of getting married nothing really changes. What matters is if something does change. When one person dies, if one person gets sick or decides the relationship is over, becomes dependant financially on the other. Even more so if this thing happens abroad (eg on holiday) in a place which recognises marriage but not cohabitation.

At that point a marriage certificate may become a terribly important piece of paper.

It is a bit like powers of attorney. The point at which they become important is normally beyond the point when they can be created.

I would not have kids with someone who wouldn't marry me, and I always wanted kids, so for me it was a simple choice.

So the main reason people seem to be giving, for getting married, is for financial security in the event of a split, so do most people go into marriage thinking "this bastard might leave/cheat, so if he does I want to be able to take them for half of everything". If so... Why the f**k are you getting married in the first place? If I thought for a second my partner would do that sort of things, I wouldn't be with him, I wouldn't be rushing him down the isle in some bizarre "act of love" to secure myself financially for if/when it goes tits up. It just makes the whole idea of marriage seem like the complete opposite of what it's actually meant to be. The whole basis of marriage is love and trust. I have more of that without the marriage. I truly trusty partner not to "do one" or cheat, hence the fact I don't feel the need to get married to secure myself in the event he does one or cheats. 🤣 Just seems completely bizarre to me. Each to their own!