To think that people need to stop suggesting marriage is just a piece of paper

[afizzysweet]

if they're in a relationship with joint outgoings and children?

I got married when I was young and married 'for love' and not for any other reason, because I was ignorant to the other reasons. As I've got older, I've realised that with marriage brings a lot of security for women.
Typically when you have children, it is a woman's career and ability to earn money that is impacted rather than a man's. Doesn't have to be, but usually is.

I know many women that have 2 or 3 children with their DP. They want to get married but DPs are saying "we need the prioritise the money for xxxx instead" or just sort of tell them that it's not a priority for other reasons and that marriage is only a piece of paper. These women have had years of working part time because of providing childcare, dropping their career progression for several years because it's not really possible for them with children. In the event of them splitting up they aren't entitled to as much.

I think they've been talked in to an idea that marriage is just a part of the patriarchy by their DPs so don't want to bother now. If that is your feeling and at your core do not want to get married, absolutely fine, but put something else in place so that should yourself and your partner split up, you've got some security and won't be left up a creek without a paddle, and you get your fair share of things - taking in to account things like staying at home to look after the kids whilst your partner has been out furthering his career for years.

AIBU to think this? I have spoken to some of my friends about this when they bring it up, especially a couple whose DPs manage all of their money and not in joint accounts (which I find really worrying). At the end of the day it's their life, but am I the only one who finds this quite bad?

Forget the legal obligations from that point on we were tied with moral obligations.

Unfortunately in the event of anything money, tax, or asset related, moral obligations count for nothing.

Yanbu marriage gives a lot of protection to lower earning or non ambitious partners but then I make I clear I am not marrying someone who earns less than me or is prepared to reduce their earning potential for kids. Consequently I am not getting married, I will happily have relationships but not risk anything that will jepardise my financial security.

It is equally important important know when marriage is not a good option as it is to know when it is.

this.

i was advised to get married “for protection” when I had kids.

however I was the one with the house, savings etc, and was also the higher earner. He’d lost his house and savings in a divorce before I met him and was living with his parents.

it was absolutely not in my best interest to get married.

Well I wouldn't worry really because either those relationships will go pear shaped in the way you describe and they will eat their words, or they won't and you will eat yours.

They must trust their partners immensely, which is great, and I hope it works out for them.

The reluctant DPs described on here who don’t ‚believe‘ in marriage know it’s more than just a piece of paper. That’s why they don’t want it.
If it really meant no more to them than a greetings card, it would be the easiest thing in the world to do for a partner who would like it.

The beneficiary of an insurance policy can be changed at the stroke of a pen, and new a Will can be made at any point.

if the unthinkable is that he decides to up and leave, you can rely on neither of those documents

But if you had significant assets to your name you would be insane to get married because at least half, maybe more, is at risk.

That said marriage is entirely a financial contract. The other parts about promising to love and to cherish through sickness and health as long as you both shall live are completely unenforceable virtually no contract I have seen would allow unilateral withdrawal without financial recompense or break clauses. So for me marriage is nothing about love but a financial tying of finances that is all.

Marriage also makes you next of kin. As a pp said, if your DP becomes seriously ill or dies, it's perfectly possible that their parents will end up making all of the decisions about care, treatment and funerals. Even if they were estranged.

We are not married but our life insurance policy's are to benefit each other . If the unthinkable happened we have each other covered with or without a marriage contract
Insurance policies can be cancelled. Wills can be torn up.

The person who says its OK our life insurance policies name each other! Really?? Are some people so daft that they think marriage is just a bit of paper. If your partner died the parents would be next of kin? You wouldnt be anyone. As a 'partner' you could be the person he met in the pub last night!

When house ownership comes into it its even more complex. I honetly dont know why women have children and dont get married. They then work part time or not at all claiming their relationship is rock solid until it isnt. MN is FULL of threads relating to this.

Just dont have children and give your own job up to live with a man who might or not think of your best interests after you have split up. Big hint - he wont be thinking of your interests.

Wills can be changed within hours. I did this for a relative who was being scammed. We got an interview at a solicitor within a couple of hours they questioned us extensively and a new will was drawn up that day.

If you just want the legal protection then go for a civil partnership instead of the whole farce of getting married.

When house ownership comes into it its even more complex. I honetly dont know why women have children and dont get married

because it’s my house in my sole name, and marriage means he is entitled to half of it. And it’s in z2 london so is worth £££££

that and if I die he will get all of it, and then when he dies his children will get a share, so my kids will end up with less than 1/4 each of a house I own.

and yes I can make a will to leave it to my children, but I don’t trust his ex to challenge it- if i leave it to my kids and he dies, his kids will get very little as he has minimal savings.

@Franklin12 Maybe its a london thing, but the vast majority of my colleagues work full time post kids or have wives that work full time. However, i do not think many would survive without a dual income or an increased equity stake in the house (particularly if raising DC). My MIL did not get a favourable divorce settlement as her ex refused to grant her a get (jewish ritual divorce) unless she gave him £100k. But he was also pushing for her to sell the house and uproot the 4 children and because she was married, she was able to fight back on this and say; i have 4 kids and I am keeping this 3 bedroom house ; it is near their schools, I am primary caregiver. And I have been the primary breadwinner for most of the kids' lives. The house is now 100% hers and is now worth in excess of £700k.

the inheritance tax is a tricky one and I do know people who have married for that reason.

I am married btw.

You are absolutely right. Marriage is not 'just a piece of paper', it is a legally binding contract and can be beneficial or detrimental depending on circumstance.

I have always been a higher earner, and fortunate in my choice of house purchases. I am also a single mum, whose primary responsibility is to my child. I don't need financial support and but I do need to be free to act in my dc's best interests so I will never marry.

But I made an informed decision based on facts and not on social pressures.

A wedding can be whatever the participants want it to be. 1000 people and the Westminster Abbey choir to 2 participants and 2 witnesses off the street.

Not just a piece of paper. It makes it a massive pain in the arse if you want to separate.

Yes I used to write up power of attorneys and sometimes did a first draft of wills for people.

You need to know your rights!

It is important to know when it's good to get married and when it's not.

It probably matters most in the event of an untimely death? As everything else can be undone (divorce, wills changed etc if alive)

I've recently been encouraging a friend who is the higher earner to consider some sort of legal contract or contracts to protect her male partner in the unfortunate event of her death. They have children, a mortgage.

He needs the protection more than she does.

I think they should consider a civil partnership.

Agree

I don't think it's just a piece of paper. I think it's a complex legal contract that too many people enter into without any understanding of what it actually entails. It certainly doesn't automatically offer women protection. It depends on several factors, including who is the higher earner (not necessarily the man) and who has the most wealth. A relative got completely screwed by her abusive husband in divorce - she was not a high earner but her husband was sacked from his job and then refused to get a job for several years. In divorce settlement, she ended up having to pay him money (he claimed he'd had to give up his work for child care - a lie) and he tried to make a claim on her pension. She's had to pay a fortune for lawyers. And he delayed the divorce court process as long as possible as his last bit of power over her, meaning she ended up legally married to him for an additional two years. She would have been in a much better position if she had not married - financially and emotionally.