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?

I've had 2 children without being married, it's never appealed to me. To me, it's meaningless.

But I made sure I was the higher earner and my house remained mine.

@vivainsomnia and I assume these great men that are oh so frustrated with their wives looking after the family home and children would be more then happy to take on part of the household responsibilities and childcare once their wives go back to work I am sure.... not...

Marriage is definitely a good thing if you plan to have kids/have a career break etc

However, as a single mum I'd say the first priority for younger women should be to be financially independent/have a career and if cohabitation makes more sense then do it.

sweetbambi · 22/04/2022 11:51
@vivainsomnia and I assume these great men that are oh so frustrated with their wives looking after the family home and children would be more then happy to take on part of the household responsibilities and childcare once their wives go back to work I am sure.... not...

My response to that is those women chose v badly. You can have your piece of paper to be married to that and get your entitlements - but why would you want to.

@LuaDipa

tbh instead of advocating threads on the financial benefits of marriage if you’ve given up a career etc., I’d be much more in favour of threads addressing the fundamental causes of this and educating women around it - including their own behaviour. Stop opting out of the workplace with short term thinking about the value at your salary today vs lost income/promotion opportunities and pension contributions. Demand equal pay so we’re not constantly hearing about giving up a job cos DP earns more than me. Educationally women perform as well if not better than men so there is no need for it. Stop assuming men won’t do their fair share and accepting it.

Marriage for financial security in these cases is a sticking plaster for far deeper issues.

and I assume these great men that are oh so frustrated with their wives looking after the family home and children would be more then happy to take on part of the household responsibilities and childcare once their wives go back to
Well a few do childcare drop off and pick ups and never showed issues with doing their share of coffee making and clearing out in the kitchen, but I'm of course at home.

Still as already mentioned when I went back to work FT, I made it clear that tasks had to be shared, end off. Then again, OH was good around the house before we had kids together.

Don’t get caught out by iht. There’s no way to replicate that tax advantage if you have a larger estate. Know so many higher income couples who quietly get civil partnerships when the reality of the tax situation on first death sinks in…Remaining unmarried is a very expensive principle to hang onto! I’ve had clients get quite angry when that is explained.

Yep, marriage provides a whole host of benefits and protections.

-All assets are automatically owned jointly, so if one dies you would automatically inherit your spouse's share of the home, for example.

• Marriage allowance can save you income tax.

• If the parents aren’t married, only the biological mother technically has parental responsibility of the child.

• When you get married, your previous will becomes invalid and your entire estate it automatically left to your spouse. If you’re not married, your partner won’t get anything if you die, unless your will specifies that they should.

-When you’re married, you may be entitled to your spouse’s State Pension after they die.

-If you separate and you’re not married, you’re not entitled to anything you don’t jointly own. It can be difficult to prove joint ownership.

When you sign the marriage book, it's the equivalent of agreeing to an oath.
This gives explicit legal obligations as well as qualitative features.
Obviously, people break these oaths every day, both in the marriage and then when these are challenged via the divorce courts.
Marriage is extremely important.

When you’re married, you may be entitled to your spouse’s State Pension after they die

I don’t think so. I’m a bit dubious about some of the other points too.

No, DH died, I get nothing from his state pension

This is a good point for those with money and expensive houses. DP and I have discussed the potential for a quiet ceremony if we ever reach that point for financial reasons, but it’s not currently a worry for us; nowhere near enough money!! 😂

@VeneziaGiulia45

It has some tax benefits for sure but you’re listing things there that aren’t true re. parental responsibility and state pension. If the father is on the birth certificate he also has parental responsibility. Where are you getting this information from?

You’ll also have to pay inheritance tax, which spouses don’t

A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth. A father automatically has parental responsibility if he’s married to the child’s mother. If not, he has to gain it by being listed on the birth certificate.

I think you’re confusing getting married with having a wedding

DH and I got married for many reasons - including public declaration of our commitment to each other, but also because if one of us became very ill / incapacitated we would want the other to be our legal next of kin and make decisions about our care. It may sound doom and gloom, but neither of us could think of anything worse than the other becoming seriously ill and my / his parents being the ones to legally make the decisions when we have a life and home together and have had conversations about our wishes.

DP and I both carry cards that declare each other as next of kin for the purposes of medical decisions. Next of kin in the UK for unmarried partners only has legal implications in the event of inheritance and funeral issues, which can be solved by a will. Hospitals will treat unmarried partners as next of kin if the patient declares that. Hence why we both carry cards.

Because the risks of childbirth are still borne by the woman, and lower earners usually took care of the family.
It’s very rare to find lower earning SAHD. They still expect women to do all the work.

just my experience.

I completely agree with a previous poster who said that government forms etc have you as "living as married" so I do think it gives people a false sense of security.
I also think programs like married at first sight and dont tell the bride dont help. It's all about planning the wedding and nothing about the marriage.
It needs to be more widely known about the legal side of co-habitting verse marriage.
For me as well it seems like such a hassle to get married. Despite the fact I'm divorced the registry office still need my dm passport because my passport is still in my old married name and I was born after a certain date. Its ridiculous.

In a legal sense, marriage is a piece of paper.

It just happens to be a very important piece of paper, in the same way that your birth certificate, passport and title deeds to your house are important pieces of paper.

The legal effect of this piece of paper is that neither of you can get out of your relationship without the involvement of a court, which has the power to decide how your assets are to be shared.

I think marriage is a very optimistic thing to do, the idea that you are betting on your relationship working out. Of course if you don't have two pennies to rub together and you are marrying someone very wealthy, your reasons may be different. But I don't think that happens as often as we are led to believe.

I find it very disheartening when men who have willingly had children and built a life with their partner don't want to get married or think it isn't a priority because it's "just a piece of paper". It's a piece of paper which gives your relationship legal status, and which gives you mutual rights and obligations towards each other. If neither of you want to get married then fine, whatever. But if one of you does and the other one doesn't, the one who doesn't shouldn't be willing to build a family together but not sign the "piece of paper". To me that signals a lack of commitment.

@Whatsthestoryboringglory there are other implications for us including DH's death in service payments etc, the house, separate savings that we had. There are also government payments only available to bereaved spouses, not partners. I had seen it quite a lot at work, where women discover they aren't entitled to financial support because they weren't married. Marriage for us is about the commitment to each other, but also the legal protection if one of us dies suddenly (as we have seen in our own families).

Absolutely, and you’ve done the right thing for you both after looking at your options (and because you wanted to be married!).

My work allows nominations for death in service (nhs) and we have mirror wills and joint life insurance, co-own our house etc, joint savings. So we are ok as we are currently.

I think what this thread shows is people need to understand their options, and make good decisions for them based on those options. It’s very sad when people are left in hardship when they didn’t need to be.

Up to a point. It's not possible to replicate all the protections and provisions of marriage/civil partnership outside of those institutions though. Cohabitation agreements are a good thing in themselves but they're not going to provide the same protection when it comes to eg IHT. Parties can only agree a certain amount of things between themselves, they can't get the state to treat them a particular way.

@VeneziaGiulia45 Yes I'm quite aware of that which is why I posted it, not entirely sure you knew given the wording of your PP.

Think we can assume that in a co-habiting relationship the father of the child is highly likely to be listed on the birth certificate so whilst there are some legal/tax benefits that can't be entirely replicated outside marriage, best you stick to actual facts.