To only get socially married?

[Enormousnamechange]

Hi all

So here's the thing - DP is ambivalent about getting married (he'd do it for me but equally if we never married he'd be just as happy), and I have come to realise that all the things I want from marriage come from the social side rather than the legal side if that makes sense. I'd keep my own name regardless, and can't have kids so we won't be having any of our own, and financially I'm in a much stronger position and will likely be for the rest of my life for one reason or another. From what I know so far, getting married would if anything being a bad idea for me.

But I'd feel so sad never being someone's wife, and to grow old watching my friends get married. Never getting to do the dress and have the party. Never being able to introduce this lovely man to people as my husband. Having everyone wonder why we never got married and if we were really committed. You get the idea. But these doesn't seem like good enough reasons!

I have wondered about doing everything except the legal bit, and as no one would think they were entitled to know my legal/financial situation in any other circumstance they wouldn't need to know here either. We would live our lives after the non-legally binding ceremony exactly like any other married couple. I suppose it could 'come out' if we were to split but not need to go through a divorce.

The thing is I've never ever heard anyone else even think about doing this? It seems to totally solve my problem but I also don't know how people would feel - would they feel betrayed and lied to? But equally I feel that the particular ways in which DP and I are legally bound to each other are not other people's concern. DP's views on this are that he's bought in whatever I'd like to do and he quite likes the idea of being socially not legally married.

But what do you think? Have I lost the plot? Would you be upset/annoyed/amused if you found out you'd been to a wedding of two people who weren't legally married?

YABU - No sham weddings please
YANBU - Seems harmless enough

If either of you are seriously ill and need decisions made then you are not each others next of kin. You can be together for decades but not be able to make decisions about what happens at the end of life

A, this is not actually true
B, it can easily be addressed via LPA which should be put in place anyway.

Would it be like a blessing for people who can't get married in church?

This is utterly mad. You’re prioritising all the wrong things.

Your friends would feel lied to, but also what would be the point? You’d have NO legal protections at all- you wouldn’t even be your DP’s legal next of kin. You’d have no right to his pension, widows pension, marriage tax breaks, equal split of all assets in case of divorce.

You’d be mad to do this. Just go to a register office and have a quiet ceremony if he’s not fussy- but for the love of God, make sure it’s legally binding.

The fall out would be the same , emotionally, surely whether you are married or simply living together. If you own a property jointly, your partner would be entitled to their share anyway, so there would be some legal involvement and he would want to protect his share.
You can't just walk away whether you are married or just living together, without some financial divvying up if you own a home and all that's in it.

If you just want a party and a dress, that's just shallow IMO.

How old are you both?

@Enormousnamechange I can completely understand why this sounds so appealing. It's basically the wedding equivalent of a naming ceremony rather than a christening in a Church. I'm sure people in the first wave of those had similar responses but they're quite normal now, so perhaps you're just ahead of the curve! I do think it would be worth being upfront with guests, but this could be framed as a lovely "commitment" ceremony rather than a legal wedding.

You want to call him your husband, show commitment and have a party. That is what legal marriage is for. Otherwise it's just a party, but with no theme. It sounds like you do want the legal parts. I can't work out why he would want all the palaver without the legal bit either.

and the main stress of a divorce is splitting the assets, in particular the house.

So if you own a house together then you will have to have the stress anyway

If you are "socially married" will you be each others next of kin?
Imagine in 20 years time you don't have any say about important medical decisions if he is unconscious.
I think marriage has a purpose.
Divorce is complicated but that's part of why you make it work and the commitment you made.

Sorry - I should have acknowledged the prenup point far earlier. It was my understanding that these can help, but are not completely enforceable in the event of a divorce, which is why it's not something I'd like to rely on.

To recap:

Won't be lying to everyone I care about! Nor will I be expecting them to buy gifts/take leave/childcare to come to a non-wedding. I'm leaning towards a commitment ceremony/significant anniversary party when we're ready, with legal ends tied up separately (Wills/POA etc.).

Does that sit a bit better?

...you're the financially stronger one with more to lose, you can't have children and you're most likely to maintain good health and outlive DP

You are the financially stronger one now
You will probably remain so
You are likely to maintain good health.

None of those things are guaranteed and if you are that committed to one another, why wouldn't you want the added protection that comes from being legally married? The only downside as far as I can tell is financial on your side and there are ways to mitigate that.

If the legal bit isn't emotionally important, have a quick trip to the register office and then do a humanist ceremony and big party as your 'wedding'.

It does seem as if a commitment ceremony would be the best way of showing what you mean to each other publicly. As somebody said upthread, you can say that after it, you will be referring to each other as husband and wife.

However, one of the advantages of marriage and civil partnerships in England, is that they automatically sort out lots of legal situations re assets, next of kin etc. Before civil partnerships were legal, I worked with a gay man whose partner died. To add to the stress of bereavement, his partner's family arrived on the scene and insisted he sold half the flat and took all his partner's possessions. I know you are both happy with the current situation with your finances but you do need to think about what would happen if one of you became unable to work or needed care.

You mention growing old together so a lasting power of attorney is needed in case one of you develops a condition like dementia.

The irony is that lots of people getting married won't have considered all these things. Traditionalists will argue that's another advantage of marriage but people have lots of valid reasons for not getting married. It just needs a bit of forethought to avoid potential problems if either of your circumstances change.

Ultimately marriage is a decision to legally combine your assets in a way that long term cohabit isn't. There's no escaping the fact that it is a different level of commitment. It doesn't mean married couples love each other more, it's just a statement of fact that a couple who have chosen to legally bind their assets are making a step of commitment more than those who don't.

I'm a big believer in people understanding this and deciding whether or not to marry. You've decided that you don't want to legally join your assets and that's your right. The issue is you're wanting to appear married without actually marrying and seem overly concerned about what people think of your relationship.

If you want a commitment celebration for you and your partner then do it and your friends/family will enjoy it, but it's probably best to lose the wanting to seem married whilst not wanting to marry.

A commitment ceremony if fine, but a pretend wedding is just really cringe,

However it doesn’t change anything, you still can’t call him your husband, you still won’t be married, you still won’t be his wife. Whatever option you take.

Thats weird imo. Its OK to want the commitment and legal protections of marriage, even if your dp is not bothered. I think youre selling yourself short. If you want to be married and hes ok with it, then its hardly some niche unusual desire. Its what most people want, and you dont need to feel bad about it.

I relate as ive waited ages for my dp for this and now ive told him that im fed up pretending that im not bothered, and he needs to "shit, or get off the pot" ie, bloody commit and do something about it, as weve been together years now and are pretty happy, and yet im the one who has sacrificed the most for our family, yet if he decided to leave, id have nothing

It sounds like you want a party all about yourselves tbh. Just have a birthday party?

And I don't just mean legal from a financial POV, but the security of having a legally recognised next of kin, someone who has the absolute right to be there for you and with you and advocate for you if necessary.

Maybe a "commitment ceremony", openly styled as such, would be more your thing. People might think it's a bit silly but if they care about you, they'll understand it's important to you and respect it.

I am married with a child but I always had sympathy for the idea that I get more time and money spent on me than people who don't do those things.

and what happens if you are suddenly ill and cannot work etc.

The whole point of a lifetime commitment is that you are there for each other no matter what.

You are currently the stronger partner in the relationship but that won't always be the case.

If you don't want to commit for life and for no matter what that's fine, but don't pretend.

Friends of mine had a huge "we've been living together for 10 years now" garden party. It was lovely. There were some speeches about how lovely they are (they are), an announcement they were expecting a child and a lot of food, music and chat. A really nice relaxed day. They never intend to marry, they've written wills and a more financially "sorted" for each other's mutual security than a lot of people. Everyone knew it was NOT a wedding. They had some nice clothes made, but not at all weddingy. It was honest and very them. Maybe just throw a party.

For those finding my reasoning a bit weird and difficult, it basically boils down to the fact that my head says "You don't need marriage - you're the financially stronger one with more to lose, you can't have children and you're most likely to maintain good health and outlive DP. Why would you get married?!

Wow... honestly I find these absolutely batshit reasons to not get married to someone you love and WANT to be married to.

Marriage is a risk, of course it is, but if you want to reward (which is sounds like you do) then you take it.

I don't think there is a way to compromise those two things though: you can't have a wedding without having a marriage.

Another (absolutely brutal, sorry!) perspective: say you have a life-changing accident or illness tomorrow which affects your earning potential. Your DH's career then rockets. Ten years' from now, you are in very different financial positions and your DH decides to leave you. You get nothing, because you aren't married. The protection when it comes to assets works both ways, and life is long.

Also saying you don't want to get married because you don't want to get divorced - suggests you're not as committed as you think. Maybe worth reflecting on that?

That sounds lovely B33.

It appears that you want the status of marriage- being called a wife- without the legal commitment. You can't have both.

Also, if you marry and then were to divorce, you and your ex can decide on how to divide your assets. You don't need to get solicitors involved.
If he says he doesn't want any of your assets, why do you think you would need to give him any? I know several couples who have divorced and they agreed on the split of assets themselves. it never went to court or even a solicitor. They divided the value of the house according to what they had each put in. There were no children so no issues over maintenance.

Having said that you also need to accept that how your think now and how your partner thinks may well change.

as I've mentioned above they're all socially motivated and it seems silly to get legally bound (to the extent it would take months if not years to extricate ourselves if it went wrong) for reasons even I don't think are strong enough. If that makes sense

This is precisely what people mean when they say marriage IS a bigger commitment than not getting married. The difficulty of extricating yourself etc.

I understand the reluctance around marriage, I have also seen horrendous divorces, and I have been in very committed long-term relationships, but the reality is that it is a greater commitment to actually get married.

You can't do all of it legally by other routes, e.g. inheritance tax, widow's pension etc.

It doesn't ultimately matter if you do or don't want to get married. But pretending that you are, and lying to everyone who cares about you, is really not OK.

Why tell a huge lie to everyone you know?