To think marriage doesn't actually make much difference to most everyday women?

[Dojasayso]

Interested to hear other people's realistic opinion regarding marriage.

In principle marriage in practical terms means a joining of assets/finances and thus meaning in the case of divorce assets are split accordingly.

So therefore I understand on that basis it can be seen as 'protection' as often stated on mumsnet.

However in the real world of modern everyday people where both men and women typically work, I don't actually see how it makes such difference unless you are a high earning household.

Men still have to pay child maintenance if they're not the primary caregiver regardless of marriage.

Examples:

1. Many people rent so in the case of divorce then whoever can afford it will take over the tenancy and the other rents somewhere else. Either party may also be helped by housing benefit to top up rent if eligible. Child maintenance also issued to primary caregiver.

Marriage has made no difference?

1. Unmarried couple buy a house together, split up and sell property and split equity or someone buys the other out just like if divorcing? Someone can't run off with the equity of a jointly own home if you've bought a house together. Judges won't demand the party that moves out (usually man) pays the mortgage until children move out unless they are exceptionally high earning. Especially if that means that party cannot go on to buy another house themselves.

So again, marriage hasn't made much difference?

1. Unmarried couple, dad walks out on part time working mum.

Mum then claims tax credits and housing benefits and all other associated benefits which tops up wages. Sometimes even making the mum better off. If house is owned then as above, they split equity and mum still claims plus maintenance. She can either buy another house if she can afford it or rents with housing benefit element if low earning. Being married would have made no difference.

1. SAHM, dad walks out. Same as above, income support plus other benefits and child maintenance. If renting then housing benefit, if owned then equity split.

So unless you are hugh earning how are you protected? A man doesn't suddenly become a high earner when your married so that in the event of divorce you suddenly have money when you previously didn't.

There's also lot of two parent families that still need to claim top ups despite working. Being married then divorcing won't change that?

You get asked to name beneficiaries on pensions and life insurance when you sign up, so again marriage makes no difference there in the event of death. Unless again, one is a high earner with assets on top on pensions/insurances to be split.

And before ANYONE does the classic line of "medical decisions and next of kin if DP is in a coma/life support". Marriage makes NO difference!!
Unless you have Lasting Power of Attorney for someone you CANNOT make any decisions about someone incapacitated regardless if they are your husband/wife. It's a medical decision made by a doctor in regards to procedures. A doctor won't say "we won't perform surgery because his wife doesn't want us too". You have to have an advanced statement in place which is done through a solicitor and not marriage.

Anything else requires a "best interest decision" decided by health and social care professionals (usually social worker). Doesn't matter if your married or not. Unless you have LPA you cannot make decisions on any incapacitated persons behalf.
You don't need to be married to have LPA, you can make anyone your LPA.

Soo mumsnet, am I missing something?! Unless you are a high earner I don't see this magical "protection" thats talked about? Other than widows benefit? But you can only claim that for 6 months.

Please enlighten me to how marriage protects your average Joe family that claim tax credits/rents/jointly owns etc .

Disclaimer: I am not against marriage and infact plan on marrying my DP next year but for emotional/commitment reasons of wanting marriage and not practical/financial reasons.

VOTING:
YABU: marriage does benefit low/middle earners
YANBU: marriage doesn't make much difference to everyday people.

@bluebluezoo

That was obviously the first time I’d been called by my married name, I loved hearing it and seeing it on the paperwork and especially on the scan photos

Do you not think your husband would have liked the same experience of changing his name?

Seeing his married name on paperwork and hearing people say it?

Do you think he’s sad not to have changed his name like you did?

Quite. It’s so frustrating and actually a bit nauseating that so many women have internalised this idea of changing their name when that isn’t actually a requirement of marriage. What’s with the eagerness to throw away your own identity? And yes, if “everyone having the same name” is so important why not make up an entirely new one or have the man change his?

Agreed, I naively thought that most women would keep their names, and that children would 50/50 have either parents name or a new one. I didn’t marry, and my children have my name.

It’s amazing how many rude comments I get for the children having my name, it’s like I’m suddenly a radical feminist bra burner who dislikes men! I’m just a normal person, why does it have to be a big statement the children getting their mum’s surname? And why do women change their names ‘for the family’ when the children can take either name?