Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think it is important to be legally married

334 replies

SweetSally · 24/11/2019 20:43

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?

OP posts:
CTRL · 26/11/2019 00:45

I think it’s important if your investing your time and money into a relationship (ex: you are buying a property together) but I don’t think it’s the end of the world if your single and choose to spend your life single

I HATE when people address thier partners as ‘husband’ or my ‘wife’ and they aren’t legally married - then say is just a piece of paper anyway....

RainMinusBow · 26/11/2019 04:27

Not all of us are lucky enough to afford to own their own homes - fiancé and I both work ft but still renting!

Graphista · 26/11/2019 05:20

“Do any of you believe in the values of being brought up in a family where the parents are married?”

I don’t think parents being married or not makes a difference where the parents are truly committed to each other and the kids. But ime it’s rare this is the case when the parents aren’t married, the marriage doesn’t make the parents more committed but generally speaking those that choose to marry tend to be more committed.

And stats seem to bear this out, iirc relationships where the couple aren’t married are more likely to end in separation and the nrps after separation (usually fathers) are more likely to lose touch with the children and earlier on after the separation too.

And quite honestly, as a divorced single mum myself again ime there is still very much a stigma to having children “out of wedlock” especially if you then end up separated from the dad. My sister and I are nc now but when we were still in contact I certainly noticed her and other friends/family who’ve had children without being married and since separated front the father being treated appallingly by schools, Drs, bureaucrats and even complete strangers.

There’s not actually such a thing as legal next of kin BUT the reality is if there ends up being doubt or dispute regarding care of a patient who is in any way mentally incapacitated then medical staff will tend to go with clear legal connections to protect themselves. It’s not admitted I’ve certainly been flamed before for saying so but it’s what I witnessed several times when nursing.

Redlipstickhighheels - how many patients do you think reliably and accurately keep their gp informed about who they want as their nok? Especially young seemingly fit and healthy men who are the least likely to visit the Drs anyway? Plus what if a person takes ill/has an accident while outside their home locale? Can be very difficult to track down a partner as opposed to a spouse.

Yes ideally people would be sensible and keep a record of preferred nok inc contact details, blood type, allergies, current meds and brief salient medical history on their person at all times. I’ve certainly done this for many years, people with certain conditions are advised/encouraged to do this but personally I think everyone should, it’s a simple thing now with phone emergence apps although I was doing it before the smart phone thing just with a wee note in my purse, I also included my wishes regarding organ donation and my nearest and dearest know my feelings on that matter too.

The reality is a frightening number of people don’t even know their own blood type, let alone that of their partners/spouses and certainly most people don’t discuss their wishes in the event of serious incapacity, which rarely happens in a way that is foreshadowed.

All pps giving it

“We’re not married and we’re fine” sounds like you’re still with your partners/they’re still healthy/alive - the point at which you realise whether or not you really ARE ok financially/legally when shtf its too late to change things

Also “we’ve got wills, serious illness coverage, life assurance, named on each other’s pensions” etc - all well and good - except your partner can change these at any time without telling you and you may not find out you’re up shit creek until after they die! I’ve actually known a couple of cases where people have had nasty shocks after a partners death where wills or beneficiary on life assurance had been changed without their knowledge.

I didn’t marry expecting to divorce but I wasn’t naive enough to think it would never happen to me either! I did marry having seen the horrific effects that not marrying can have on a family when one party becomes seriously incapacitated or dies, both people in my circle and as a nurse.

FinallyHere · 26/11/2019 06:36

@Untamedtoad and @Niki93

What you describe, including wills in each other's favour, equal savings etc. is indeed very good. There are two benefits that marriage confers:-

Firstly, and for me most importantly, a will can be changed at any point, without the knowledge of the beneficiary. You may have made wills to leave your assets to each other. However, you could still find, on the death of the first partner, that a later will has left the estate elsewhere.

By contrast, You cannot be divorced without at least knowing about it.

While everything is good between you, it makes no difference. It's only if one partner changes their mind, that the protections of marriage on the financially weaker partner become important.

Secondly, assuming you do inherit through a will, you do not benefit from the tax advantages of marriage. No tax is payable on transfers between married couples.

Depending on the level of assets, on the death of the first partner, anything the other inherited (above the allowance) would be subject to inheritance tax. Especially in parts of the UK where house prices have risen significantly, you may be faced with paying inheritance tax to simply continue living in your shared home.

There can be other advantages re benefits, making use of each others annual capital gains allowance and visas if working abroad.

Having RTFT I see @meditrina and @GnomeDePlume have already pointed out that what matters is understanding the differences. I sincerely hope that the above helps some people who had thought the differences might be about a big splashy day or 'feeling' different.

Absolutely, the really important thing to to be informed and to consider what might go wrong.

SweetSally · 26/11/2019 07:45

@Graphista

“Do any of you believe in the values of being brought up in a family where the parents are married?”

I do. This is one of the reason why getting married was critical for both my husband and I prior to having any children

OP posts:
YetAnotherSpartacus · 26/11/2019 08:14

I don't see marriage as a positive value, so no. I do see the value of being brought up in a family where both parents have financial security independent of each other, because when one he runs off with someone else leaving the other she with the children, unpaid mortgage and minimal support this often results in poverty, which is clearly not good.

And quite honestly, as a divorced single mum myself again ime there is still very much a stigma to having children “out of wedlock” especially if you then end up separated from the dad. My sister and I are nc now but when we were still in contact I certainly noticed her and other friends/family who’ve had children without being married and since separated front the father being treated appallingly by schools, Drs, bureaucrats and even complete strangers

Seriously, I think this is really what all this marriage business is all about. Some women think they are better than others because the have a license to fuck and a band of precious metal around their finger. It's damned whores and god's police at its basis with the god's police wanting to maintain the gold standard or moral superiority.

LolaSmiles · 26/11/2019 08:21

Seriously, I think this is really what all this marriage business is all about. Some women think they are better than others because the have a license to fuck and a band of precious metal around their finger.
There are people who can be rude arseholes. If they weren't being rude about marital status they'd be rude about something else.

This whole "married women think they're superior for wearing a ring" is a nonsensical argument anyway.
As is said many a time on MN, marriage isn't about a big party, or a sparkly ring, or expensive photographs. It is first and foremost a legal contract that two parties knowingly enter into. That contract has obligations and responsibilities and protections.

If people want to knowingly enter that contract, great.
If people don't wish to enter a legal contract with someone else, great.
But don't then complain when people who have entered a contract get the terms of that contract and claim (as some do) that those not in a legal contract should get a perks only version of it.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 26/11/2019 08:27

But don't then complain when people who have entered a contract get the terms of that contract and claim (as some do) that those not in a legal contract should get a perks only version of it

I was going to respond to this, but I think it would be easier to do so if you listed the perks and disadvantages.

My feeling is that there should not be just one 'contract' that shapes how we live our lives. For example, if one of my best friends and I (she's single, I'm not) decide that we'd like to each other to be our 'NOK equivalent' why should we not be able to do this? Or why should two single people not in a sexual relationship be able to enter into an agreement where they support each other and the other gets the other's pension?

LolaSmiles · 26/11/2019 08:39

The perks and disadvantages will depend on the situations of the people making a decision on how to organise their affairs.

E.g. A has multiple assets, so does B. They meet later in life and want to ensure that their assets pass to their children. In that situation marriage to legally combine assets would be a fairly large risk to both parties, but that wouldn't be the case for C and D who have met at university, neither have assets and they have built their assets together in their 20s.

In terms of next of kin, I'd be all for people lobbying to get separate legal arrangements available if that's something they feel strongly about. The thing is, I'd be fairly willing to put money on the fact that they've not sought legal advice to find out if that's possible.

Equally, your example on pensions is also separate. Again, if people wish to seek legal advice to see how they can have a contract in one area of their life then they can do so.

Marriage is legal contract that covers a range of areas. If people wish to enter that contract, great. If they don't, great. If they wish to sort their legal arrangements in another way, go get legal advice, but that's separate from marriage.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 26/11/2019 08:53

Equally, your example on pensions is also separate. Again, if people wish to seek legal advice to see how they can have a contract in one area of their life then they can do so

But it should not be about individuals 'seeking legal advice' - it should be about these alternative ways of living and being simply being accommodated for. For example, anyone with a transferrable pension should be asked who they would like that pension transferred to - the default option should not be 'spouse'.

Teachermaths · 26/11/2019 09:32

@YetAnotherSpartacus

You already have that option with a private pension, you can nominate who you like. In the event of there being no nomination then it goes to your spouse. Why should it not? Alternative ways of living are by definition outside the "norm" therefore specific advise needs to be sought to deal with them.

But don't then complain when people who have entered a contract get the terms of that contract and claim (as some do) that those not in a legal contract should get a perks only version of it

Lola has completely nailed it here.

The advantages and disadvantages of marriage will depend on your specific situation.

LolaSmiles · 26/11/2019 09:40

That's just it teachermaths. If people wish to nominate people for their pension, they can. If they wish to draw up alternative legal contracts for specific areas of their life, they can consult a legal professional who will go through what's available.

It should be about these alternative ways of living and being simply being accommodated for.
They are. People have the freedom to enter into whatever legal arrangements they wish.
... Just like people have the freedom to enter the legal arrangement of marriage if they wish.

What some people want on MN (and this may include you) is legally binding recognition automatically conferred without people consenting to enter into those legal arrangements.
E.g. Give me automatic rights to DP's property that was theirs for 20 years, of which we have lived there 5... But I don't want DP to be able to claim on my pension because I worked hard for that.
Aka textbook, the law should automatically apply in any situation where I benefit, but not apply if it costs me.

Lifecraft · 26/11/2019 09:58

@Niki93 people have already highlighted doesn’t actually matter because you don't need marriage for financial protection

There are some financial protections you get by being married that no solicitor can get you if your are unmarried. And there are some obligations in being married that no solicitor can get you out of.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

GnomeDePlume · 26/11/2019 09:59

@YetAnotherSpartacus take a look at Powers of Attorney for NOK equivalents. Private pension plans normally allow nomination of someone other than spouse as beneficiary.

If you are happy to be in a relationship which doesnt exist for legal purposes then carry on. For some people that is what they want which is fine.

Marriage wont make your relationship happy, it wont make you or your partner faithful, honest, reliable. It wont make you or your partner healthy or immortal. It wont give you good judgement or make your job secure.

What marriage does give is a base line of rights. An assumption of mutuality and exclusivity. It cant be entered or left unknowingly. It gives a clear timeline to a legal relationship.

If that isnt what you want then dont get married. Opt for as little or as much as you want in terms of legal ties.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 26/11/2019 10:12

If that isnt what you want then don't get married. Opt for as little or as much as you want in terms of legal ties

The issue here, however, was an OP stating that it was important to be married and asking (effectively) if people agreed. Thus, the same could be leveled at the impetus for the thread rather than the dissenters; if you want to get married do so, if you do not, do not.

For me, as said, financial independence is more important than marriage and as attested to by post after post after post on the relationships thread, marriage without financial independence is a pretty flimsy bit of paper.

Lifecraft · 26/11/2019 11:39

Private pension plans normally allow nomination of someone other than spouse as beneficiary.

They allow you to nominate anyone to receive what's left of your pot when you die. But if you have a final salary scheme that pays you a monthly amount until death, be that at 65 or 105, that will often only pay a spouse half of what you were getting, upon your death. No spouse, then no one gets anything the scheme just stops paying.

GnomeDePlume · 26/11/2019 12:08

YetAnotherSpartacus I took the OP as meaning that if you want a relationship with the rights & responsibilities of marriage then you have to be legally married. Anything else is not marriage.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 26/11/2019 12:11

The OP clearly asks why so many people are against marriage and why they can't see the benefits.

GnomeDePlume · 26/11/2019 12:31

On the first page OP completely agreed with:

meditrina Sun 24-Nov-19 20:54:34
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.

havingtochangeusernameagain · 26/11/2019 12:49

If people genuinely feel marriage has too many patriarchal or religious trappings (I disagree that it does with a straight-forward registry office marriage but fair enough lots of people disagree) then have a civil partnership instead, once they become law for opposite sex partners. It confers the same benefits, without the baggage.

JacobReesClunge · 26/11/2019 13:04

Well, CP has some pretty unpleasant baggage too. But I agree, I know there are some people who want to enter into some legal process with the state to formalise their relationship. Myself I think being opposed to marriage because of the history but being fine with CP is a logic fail unless one is actually homophobic, but still, there are people who do think this, so hopefully the law change will be useful to some of them.

JacobReesClunge · 26/11/2019 13:04

Some process other than marriage I mean.

MyFavouriteTimeOfYear · 26/11/2019 14:35

@Teachermaths you never did say if anything to my response?

I guess you may of seen why marriage isn't that important after all to everyone

MyFavouriteTimeOfYear · 26/11/2019 14:35

Take if out of that sentence!

Valanice1989 · 26/11/2019 15:16

Marriage isn't for everyone. Not everyone wants the associated legal rights and responsibilities, and that's completely fine. However, it annoys me that people (let's be honest, men) have spread this nonsense about marriage being nothing more than a piece of paper. It's a legal contract - of course it's written on paper! What else would it be written on? People just use that excuse when they don't want to marry their partners.

I do think it would be beneficial if there some kind of campaign along the lines of "Marriage: not just a piece of paper". It could dispel the myth of common-law marriage. That way, people would be likelier to make an informed decision.