To think that an educational campaign from MN on the legal benefits of marriage would be a good thing?

[MargeGoesBowling]

Let me preface this by saying I have no religious or morale concerns about whether people are married or not. It’s not a judgement.

I accept that, in the event of a split, marriage doesn’t benefit the person who is in the stronger financial position coming into the marriage. There are plenty of women who are financially independent and much more solvent than their partners, so marriage could potentially have a downside for them.

Where an unmarried woman is working, paying into her own pension, has assets (even a jointly-owned property), she’s in a stronger position.

However, in the case of an unmarried couple, particularly where children are involved, and the woman has either given up work or gone part-time, she has left herself in a vulnerable position. Often, we see that she’s living in a house that her partner owns and has no claim on the property.

I see it so often on MN- “my partner doesn’t believe in marriage/he thinks marriage is only a piece of paper/weddings cost money/he’s a good man and would look after me if we split/he has me named in his will”.

Ultimately, when relationships break down, people aren’t at their most benevolent. Splits get nasty. Women get locked out of houses they don’t own, savings they thought were shared turn out to be in the man’s personal account and so are inaccessible. Or, even without a split, wills and assurance policies gets changed for various reasons.

Plus, there are the exceptional tax benefits.

Marriage isn’t a magic wand. Married women get screwed daily when the relationship ends, there is no doubt about that. However, they’re in a stronger position if there are shared assets, or the husband has a large pension or savings, often gained because the woman did the bulk of childcare and house-related work. It can mean that a woman has a better chance of remaining in the family home while the children are small.

Given the size and reach of MN, AIBU to think a campaign giving clear facts about what a legal marriage contract entails would be of benefit to woman, and mean they’re more educated on what’s involved, what it means for them, and the risk of dismissing it as “just a piece of paper”?

I agree my nephew’s partner has recently died and he is left with a 2 year old daughter to raise. His partner was the higher earner and he has found he is not eligible for benefits because they were not married/civil partnership.

Surely it would be better to focus on ensuring either sex can support themselves?

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

Surely it would be better to focus on ensuring either sex can support themselves?

Absolutely.

But given that Mumsnet is aimed at women, and women are more likely to quit work/reduce hours/be a high earner/pay sufficiently into their pension/be the resident parent after a split, they’re at a greater risk of hardship.

I totally agree. It should be on the school curriculum too.

People don't realise that there's no legal recognition of a common law marriage and it has all sorts of implications, financial support, tax, property, inheritance, next of kin etc

I studied law so am aware of the various legalities but I was still never that bothered about it, I was engaged to DH but in no rush to actually get married. Then, when I was pregnant with my eldest, I read a tragic story about a woman who died giving birth and the babies dad wasn't allowed to take her home from the hospital as they weren't married so no automatic parental rights. The baby was given to the Mums sister as next of kin initially. I planned my wedding pretty quickly after that.

Marriage conveys a number of rights, people can be a bit stupid about it tbh.

I think part of the problem is that even if people read about it they think it would never happen to them, their partner is a decent bloke etc. But they're missing the point that presumably the vast majority of women that find themselves in that position also thought it would never happen to them or they wouldn't have got into the situation in the first place.

I was the higher earner for many years and, unlike my husband, I had expectation of an inheritance. However, life happened, he climbed the career ladder, whereas I was mostly treading water and, at one point, was forced to reduce my hours significantly and eventually went freelance. He now earns a high salary, great benefits, huge pension pot etc, whereas I..... don't. I'm definitely glad we were married.

Given that average life expectancy is higher for women and it is a minority of relationships where the woman is older, the possibility of the woman being the second to die in a relationship is higher. So more important for women to be aware of what benefits, rights and responsibilities marriage brings, though it should extend to all.

Like it or not, marriage conveys certain rights, whoever is highest earner.

The best course is to encourage fiscal knowledge, and acceptance that both parties in a relationship need to be accountable for their financial protection.

We are conditioned by romance and the notion of togetherness and put aside practicalities right up to the point of getting screwed.

I think it would be sensible to be clear on the pros and cons although as @squee123 says people don't ever think it will happen to them. For me I feel marriage made separating so much harder. I wanted to move on but I couldn't until my exh agreed to play ball. Divorce is expensive, time consuming and I think really tough for women when they have kids. If I had known how challenging it would be I might not have married.

I would've had a pre-nup. One that has to be updated every couple of years.

Or one to recognise common in law arrangements might be better?

@MySecretHistory

Or one to recognise common in law arrangements might be better?

Why?

My sister lives with her partner of twenty years. They have entirely separate finances. They’ve opted to not get married or enter a civil partnership because they don’t want to be legally tied. She wants her house to be inherited by her adult children, and he wants the same for his assets with his children.

Why should they be deemed to be legally tied after X amount of years when they’ve purposefully not married to avoid this?

Someone having a legal claim on your house should not be on an opt-put basis.

Absolutely. I know lots of well educated people who believe that by living together they are magically protected by “common law”

But many women are not on mumsnet

And come here after the fact or when already mums… or when shit hits the fan in a relationship

It would be better to be taught in schools or that we educate each other

A good friend of mines lovely partner has terminal cancer and they are unmarried she doesn’t work and they have 2 Kids and a house that’s in his name from pre relationship. I had a gentle word with her about her rights. They are getting married in coming weeks it’s sad all round really but we can’t rely on mumsnet should be a social responsibility to make sure everyone knows the facts so they can make a fully informed decision based

No focus on being financially independent and having a job that supports and they enjoy.

Many married some are pretty vulnerable.

Why should they be deemed to be legally tied after X amount of years when they’ve purposefully not married to avoid this?
Someone having a legal claim on your house should not be on an opt-put basis.
I agree.
Why should countless people lose the ability to happily cohabit without being legally tied just because others don't do their research?

@MySecretHistory

Or one to recognise common in law arrangements might be better?

I would really oppose this.

This essential means that People can not choose to live together, unless they are happy to share all their assets and tie themselves together legally.

Not everybody wants to legally tie themselves to their partner. Why should they be forced to live alone, if they don't want to?

Id prefer some sort of legal agreement we can sign as partners that give similar legal and financial benefits but without being 'married'. I've been with my partner 11 years, we have a child, both work, happily signed a mortgage together.. but I don't want to get married, it's just not for me. I guess we could do it without anyone knowing, purely for the legal benefits, but it would be nice if there was an alternative.

As someone who was on a relationship of over 20 years whose partner died very suddenly, my issue is with the the current law. We did not want to marry because of of what it currently represents. A legal union we would have been ok with, civil partnership was is not available.
Also we need to consider that society has really changed. Whilst one person may want marriage and security, it takes two. Surely the law needs to change to reflect this? The law does not work for children in 2021. Maybe this is what we should be fighting to change.

@Aching1536 civil partnership? Wasn't there a case recently where a heterosexual couple won the right to a civil partnership?

But that doesn't address the root cause of why so many women are f'd after they have children.

@squee123

I totally agree. It should be on the school curriculum too.

People don't realise that there's no legal recognition of a common law marriage and it has all sorts of implications, financial support, tax, property, inheritance, next of kin etc

I tried to tell a friend of mine that there was no such thing as common law and she wouldn't believe me. In fact she insisted I was wrong. She may have been getting mixed up with a tenants in common arrangement but I couldn't be bothered arguing the point.

I tried to tell a friend of mine that there was no such thing as common law and she wouldn't believe me. In fact she insisted I was wrong
Common law still persists in some circumstances. For example there are still some pension schemes that use this terminology to recognise cohabiting partners.