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?

@RomeoOscarXrayIndigoEcho I'm a bit ignorant here, what exactly is the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership?

It’s when the relationship ends that it comes into play whether that be death or it ending.
A married person with no morals and all the assets in their name is obliged by law to share those assets. An unmarried person with no morals can walk away with them all.

But I would also argue it does show greater love and care for your partner to marry them. I want my husband to be able to organise my funeral with no disputes with my family I want him to feel secure that he has financial protection if we break up. What if we went through a bad patch and I changed my will or took him off my life insurance in a fit of pique and then never bothered to put him back on. We have a reasonable amount of assets and inheritance tax would come into play. I want him to have that money to enjoy a comfortable life not the government.

I have 2 kids with my DP. I own the house in my own name. Have always budgeted with one budget with DP in the picture and one budget without him. Not because I have concerns that our relationship won't last (together 15 years) but because it's sensible when you aren't married and don't know what's round the corner.
Pension, in work death benefit, Wills, Powers of Attorney etc are all set up. We have a simple life so there's not much more to be considered.

To think people think I'm stupid for not being married is really depressing. I'm not an idiot. There certainly needs to be more awareness around the law, benefits etc but women can educate themselves in this if they choose to do so and may be better off without marriage.

100% agree. I am embarrassed for people who say this. Are they really that deluded and obtuse?

@xfgdhfgnhkk007

A civil partnership comes without the patriarchal baggage associated with marriage. It's not about property (the women) passing from father to husband.

It's more about the legal joining of 2 independent and equal people.

This is my interpretation BTW.

For all intents and purposes a civil partnership is just like a marriage.

I married before civil partnerships were legal for heterosexual couples. I'd probably choose a CP now.

For me being legally joined was important. Marriage was the best option at the time.

A family member and her partner always claimed it was just a bit of paper.

He's fucked off after 25 years together and left her completely up shit creek.

If they had married she'd have rights to half the extremely fortunate financial position he now finds himself in.

As it stand she has no rights and even if by some act of benevolence he does decide to give her what she is morally due...she'll be taxed on it, when she wouldn't have been if had been the splitting up of assets due to a marriage break up.

Argh!

It's not a piece of paper people. It's a valuable legal and financial contract...with a little bit of love in the mix for good measure.

And civil partnerships come with the homophobic baggage of a government to spineless to open marriage up to gay couples, rather giving them the consolation prize of civil partnership. The history of both legal unions in the UK aren't glorious.

I never felt the need to get married. To me it is just a piece of paper. I don’t and didn’t need the security of marriage.
what annoys me slightly is the narrative that it’s just men who don’t want to get married, that’s not my experience at all. Most of my unmarried friends aren’t bothered either.

Agree with @LazyYogi. Choosing not to be married does not mean you're stupid. I find it equally depressing that hardly anyone is mentioning love when talking about marriage!

I feel there's still some legacy shame with having children out of wedlock. It wasn't long ago when thousands upon thousands of women were forced into having their babies adopted simply because they weren't married! We have a choice now.

Not everyone feels the need to be protected, they have their own money and assets. It seems backward to suggest there are all these stupid women doting on their partners and waiting patiently to be protected by them in the form of marriage.

I'm not anti marriage but see it as a massive celebration of love rather than a contract tying two miserable people together do life for financial reasons

I am amazed at the number of people who have children without being married. I feel like some kind of doom monger warning them what can go wrong. (I've been dumped in middle age for a younger OW but we were married - so he had to face up to his responsibilities first)

A man is not a plan, ladies.

Yes, its a legal and financial contract. Typically this has protected women, especially those that have children. However as things change, with women working full time and increasingly becoming the breadwinner, I wonder if women will stop wanting to get married to protect their assets or if the financial element will be more closely looked into. As more women realise that the man they chose to be the father of their children hasn't stepped up and they are better off without them they may choose not to marry, divorce can be costly. I do think the value of marriage has fallen and will continue to fall.

Frequently we read on here that when divorced the father doesn't step and pay for his children so in many respects how has the marriage benefitted the woman?

Ultimately it is a legal contract between 2 people. Whilst there are benefits e.g. passing assets tax free upon death, it does depend on your circumstances and there other 'pieces of paper' (some of which are still needed with the marriage certficate) can fill the gaps.

I hate it too, it is anything but.

I left my "it's just a piece of paper" EXDP after being engaged for 5 years, having had 2DC. Not only was he dishing out this sort of claptrap, along with we're common law anyway, he was emotionally abusive and did so little around the house, I began wondering what the point of him was. I left at that point.

He also had an EXW, and SC from a previous relationship, and the uncertainty around what would happen if he suddenly died was too much for me to accept the risk of it coming to pass.

This is like when men say "age is just a number" to bang a 20 year old. But strangely it does becomes a barrier to dating someone of their own age!

I agree marriage isn't just a piece of paper, which is why I have zero interest at this point in marriage.

But I agree that if someone is sacrificing their career or earning power to raise kids it makes sense to have something in place, whether it be marriage or something else. I would never put myself in such a vulnerable position without provision in place, love be damned, and I'll teach my children (whether boys or girls) to do the same.

Legally none.

You have it exactly right. In addition neither of us wear a ring or viewed as "belonging" to anybody. We did it 6 months ago and only 3 people know.

You're right of course but I've always thought that part of the problem is that if it was presented as it is, a financial contract that ensures a transfer of resources, men would be even more reluctant to go ahead with it whilst women would continue to bear their children.

This also annoys me. A few of my husbands friends asked him (infront of me) why he was bothering to get married when it was just a 'piece of paper'. Several of them have specialist qualifications so I asked them since 'they're just pieces of paper' would they be happy to shred them ... and their house deeds ... and car ownership documents etc. Funnily enough those were pieces of paper they wouldn't want to part with 🤷‍♀️.

Circumstances can change, for many reasons one might not even think of. I was the higher earner for the first 20 years or so, but then the tables turned. But we were always a team, both financially and otherwise. We married young and never thought about whether anything was his or mine. I think many women sell themselves too cheap these days.

If people want to live together without getting married they can have a co-habitation agreement drawn up. This is a legal document that protects both parties ;

www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/public/for-public-visitors/common-legal-issues/moving-in-together-getting-a-cohabitation-agreement

I’m not married and have DC. Partner of 25 years. No intention of doing so either.

Appropriate legal docs are in place and I’m wealthy enough in my own name (because I’ve always worked).

Detest these threads. The tone is always highly patronising. I’m not some stupid little woman who needs rescuing and this explaining to me. We are a team who did things 50:50 including childcare and job sacrifices. I’m not giving up my career for any man and skivvying after him, so don’t need a piece of paper to retrospectively save me from poor choices.

It's about knowing what you're getting into. Married or not. If deciding not to get married and your partner fucks off after 25 years you don't have to be screwed. Same with having kids without being married. Similarly you can't just get married and then be surprised that you have responsibilities.

As long as people make informed decisions then all of it is equally good/bad idea.

That’s great but it’s clearly not the case for the many women on here starting threads who have children with a dp, have gone part time or given up work completely and are unaware that they have no legal protections.

I’m not necessarily pro marriage, although it’s worked out well for me and I have benefited from it as a sahm. When dh and I married many years ago neither of us had any assets to protect. If we were to separate now I would be in a very different position and would not marry as I would have more to lose than to gain. I’m very fortunate that my exceptionally independent dm always drummed into us from an early age that while there are decent men, you can’t rely on trust alone and it is essential to protect yourself always - whatever that means. There are many people who don’t understand that marriage isn’t always mutually beneficial as well as those under the mistaken belief that common-law marriage affords them rights.

While I understand the nuances there are so many people who don’t. These threads should be patronising but it’s clear that they are not and that financial education is vital to many people, particularly women, who sacrifice their careers then find themselves with nothing at the end of it. Knowledge is key in these situations and I think it’s essential that we empower women with the right information and then they can make an informed choice. The more threads like this the better imo.

I guess it is just a piece of paper in some senses, which is why I'm all for people with kids and commitments popping off to the local registry office on a Wednesday morning to get the paperwork sorted rather than shelling out ££££ on a 'special day'.

The children themselves might not be (sadly) but women who stay at home for several years raising the kids while the dads go out and get promotions, only to swan off later on, are screwed
You make it sound as if all women are sacrificing their career just to make thei husbands happy.

My experience and indeed what we read all the time here is that it's the woman who makes the decision to be a sahm or work very PT because THEY want to be around for their kids and could deal with someone else raising them.

In my experience, most women who go back to work do so because they indeed have a career. Sahm are much more likely to have lower level of education and/or be on the path to a career.

I have also worked with a number of fathers who complained that they wish their wives to go back to work but they refused.

Family situations come in many forms and rarely are women forced not to work to protect themselves financially rather than relying on the money earned by their partner in case of divorce.

The whole 'I sacrificed my career that would have led me to be well off, only and pure so that my husband could earn a lot, against my wishes' is very much a minority.