Apparently I'm "old fashioned and anti-feminist"

[MVDC]

Because I told my friend who's thinking about TTC that she should seriously consider getting married first, even if it's just a register office job.

Apparently that makes me puritanical and woman shaming. Have directed her to the 4 threads I've read so far this morning where women had kids unmarried and are now getting completely screwed by their partners as the relationship breaks down.

I'm really, really angry. Not so much at my friend as at society who's convinced women that "cool girls don't need marriage" and I'm just... My coffee isn't Irish enough.

If she valued your opinion, she'd have taken it on board regardless of whether she agreed with it.

Find better friends OP.

There’s no legal basis for that. In fact nhs policy should treat partners the same as spouses.

It's not just incase of marriage breakdown.

I'm currently working out my DF inheritance tax liability and due to him being married I'm able to reduce the value of his assets by £300k by using DM's unused allowance.

That wouldn't have been an option if they'd never married.

That means we move from being liable for IHT to not being liable.

Parents were saying things that could only be interpreted as you're not married fuck off btw. I realise it could read like the hospital said that!

I thought this before DP died during my pregnancy and I suddenly found myself in a difficult legal and financial position as my unmarried status meant I wasn't eligible for certain benefits that would have been very helpful, plus I couldn't put DP's name on the birth certificate.
(I think rules have since changed for some of the financial aspects, though).

If DP hadn't, thank goodness, made a will, I wouldn't necessarily have received anything. I might have ended up without a home.

I think it's probably not black and white. You'd need to look at all the pros and cons before deciding.

"There’s no legal basis for that. In fact nhs policy should treat partners the same as spouses."

Well they very much didn't. Had the partner known that or been supported in any way perhaps things would have ended differently.

You do hear some horror stories of unmarried couples when one dies. One woman in her 60s was kicked out of her home and business after her partner died (they ran the business together -a farm - but everything was in his name). Not married, all went to his kids. They kicked her out. She lost everything. Her partner, her home, her livelihood. Absolutely everything.

I think it would have been good to have suggested this, and discussed it, but not told her to do it. I would say 9/10 on this site, and in my friendship groups, it would have benefitted the woman to be married, because of the salary/career sacrifice of even that six months of maternity leave that then seems to send women on the part/time, lower earner trajectory. If you are a high earner or not the primary carer, definitely worth thinking twice, I have one or two friends in this category and I myself would not marry again to secure my assets for my children.

Surely the issue is more how you approached it, telling her what to do, rather than asking her about it, but then people are notoriously prickly about these things, I once suggested to a friend she didn't marry a man she wasn't in love with and she bit my head off!

What is the definition of partner though? How are medical professionals expected to decide who is an actual life partner and who is simply boyfriend of the season...? Any dude who shows up at the hospital can declare he's your partner, including a casual bf of 3 weeks, an abusive partner you are recently separated from etc

Just to illustrate how things can change. When we got married I was marginally the lowest earner but I had more assets. In the course of our working life our salaries leap frogged each other several times. When I inherited I had the most assets by quite a margin, when he inherited he overtook me.

Marriage benefits us now because both our survivors’ pensions are dependent on marriage/civil partnership and it minimises inheritance tax liability. As a legal contract there have been times in the last 22 years when I would have benefited more and times when he would. Currently - and probably permanently - it’s my turn to benefit most.

It’s actually a really interesting issue. Because there is now no shame in having children before marriage (which is obviously a good thing) people seem to have forgotten that it’s a really huge commitment. Marriage was always seen as a big commitment, and still is, because it is ultimately a very public declaration of commitment, as well as having legal standing. So, in a way, it did stop women being left holding the baby…. Obviously there were still lots of women who were left abandoned by their husbands - but there were not many women intentionally having children with men who very clearly had no intention to commit to them!

I was just about to ask that question?

That’s actually not true in Scotland as there are limited spousal rights on moveable property. I was talking about iht anyway- as I never wanted to leave my money to him anyway it didn’t matter. I wanted it to go to my children

It is much more straightforward for pensions and death benefits as well if you are married. @SignOnTheWindow I'm so sorry your partner died when you were pregnant, that must have been terrible. It sounds like you had thought it through with the will though which is fantastic- you can get most of the same advantages through making wills, making your partner your pension beneficiary, life insurance etc, but it's very hard to cover everything and my guess is that most unmarried couples don't do all this life admin and don't find out til too late. The widow's benefit is only available for married couples I think, which is about £2500 over two years and I'm sorry you didn't receive that.

There are lots of very complex issues surrounding marriage and perhaps OP has overstepped but let's be honest: if OP's friend were against marriage for political reasons she would enter a civil partnership, and if marriage is not in her favour due to considerable wealth or other assets she will already have taken professional advice on protecting herself, and in both cases she would simply say so. The simplest, most obvious, and most likely explanation for this specific outburst is that OP has touched a nerve relating to something within her friend's relationship.

No one has any legal right to make medical decisions about you without a poa.

Husbands can be abusive too and often are.

My husband also had an insurance policy he'd forgotten about and so I only received that from being his married widow. Ditto all those small pensions you forget about when you work in lots of places. Makes it so much easier. The amount of money from those being given automatically was life-changing. you should still change them manually though if you can, as you can distribute pensions/lump sums how you like, so give some to your kids or whatever. Everyone should check all their pensions/life insurance/other insurances to make sure their loved ones are the beneficiaries, and it's easier to make a claim if this hasn't been done if you were married. Wills the same.

You may have hit a sore point.

But...did you really direct her to mumsnet and then start a post about her?????

If a woman is herself financially secure, and is confident of being so in future, babies or not, that’s one thing.
If she isn’t, and is going to be dependent on the man, especially after a baby, that’s another.

As for marriage in itself, I know personally of one case, and have heard of many more, where the woman would like to get married, but the man keeps saying he doesn’t believe in it, or, ‘It’s just a piece of paper’ - but after 9 or whatever years he’s off with someone else, has miraculously overcome his objections, and is married to her within a year.

Same here. My DH was a SAHD for fifteen years. Marriage protected him and it was only fair that if I had fucked off into the sunset that he should get some of the assets he had supported me getting for the family by his role of caring for our DC, being a DIY god and getting postgraduate degrees. I had dragged him across the world several times by taking jobs abroad, so he didn’t really have the opportunity to work while being a SAHD.

Now I’m a disabled and not working SAHM and he’s the one with the career and higher income.

Our positions have reversed. Marriage/civil partnership is truly about the long term.

I am only saying my view point from my own circumstances but wouldn't be the same for others. For example a lot of women who reduce their hours/ stay at home after having children and reduce their earning potential and pension would obviously be better off being married. But for me I'm better off without at present.

@SueVineer - my partner's pension terms changed from "goes to nominated person" (me) to "goes to spouse" with "option to consider pensioner's request" i.e. didn't have to pay out if not married, could avoid it.

So after god know how many years we got married.

I didn't want to get married for political reasons - patriarchal bullshit institution. However, there's civil partnerships now, so the same instances don't apply.

Not true. It doesn't need to be an 'unusual' pension scheme.

The vast majority of defined benefit pensions that are being paid out will, when a pensioner dies, continue to pay out a percentage of that pension (often 50%) to their spouse or civil partner for life. This definitely isn't the case for non-civil partners, boyfriends, girlfriends etc.

As a PP pointed out, this is what civil partnerships and then same sex marriage were so important for gay rights.

Also, when someone dies, part of their state pension may be payable to a surviving spouse or civil partner if the survivor doesn't qualify for a full state pension in their own right. This will apply mainly to older women.

@SueVineer

you are correct that no one can make medical decisions on behalf of another adult unless they have POA (and everyone should therefore set up a LPA asap - different thread)

BUT

1. mental health is different and the “nearest relative” has defined legal powers and this cannot be changed by an LPA
2. in the (brief) period before the birth is registered (or a court order obtained) an unmarried father does not have legal parental responsibility.
3. healthcare professionals will try and consult with relatives before making any major decisions about unconscious patients without LPAs and really do take these opinions into account . They will consult with unmarried partners if they are aware of who they are but that depends on the relatives “remembering” them. There’s a bit on most DNACPR forms for “discussion with family” - the hospital staff have no idea who your chosen family are other than those you are related to or have made legal ties to
4. its not just about decision making- If there is room for two people at your dying partners bedside and his evil mother says that’s me and his dad, it’s really a bad time to be trying to prove your not “just some fling” but a life partner - easier proved if you have kids, easier still if your married
5. In other counties (that people go to on holiday) the NOK has a legal role
6. not healthcare but the bit that comes after - disputes about funerals sadly are very commonplace, being excluded from your partners funeral must be horrific

I think that was good advice. A lot of people in the UK think that there is such a thing as a "common law" legally binding relationship, which is just like being married. There isn't, and if you're not married to the parent of your child, your situation re: maintenance, property, and inheritance is different. If she's much better off than him, I could see the point of not marrying as she would stand to lose more at divorce.
There's nothing anti-feminist about looking out for yourself and your children.