Do you think there’s a difference between a husband and a partner?

[YaWeeFurryBastard]

Obviously we all know that legally there’s a difference! But do you feel there’s a difference in commitment/ a social difference?

For me, I felt a difference once we mere married and a greater sense of “permanence” and security, but I know others feel no difference at all!

YABU - no difference between the two except the legals
YANBU - a husband is a more committed relationship than a partner

Oh, this is and endless one!
For me, I wanted to give my then partner the full legal status, for him to inherit anything I own if I die, for him to be my next of kin... and to show that commitment on a special day, in front of our families and friends.
But, when meeting and talking to others, I do give to their partners/ fiances/ spouses the same status/ meaning of permanence. If it is boyfriend/ girlfriend, then I treat them the same, but depending on the age, I think of them as more or less likely of being permanent (not that makes a difference on whether they are invited to anything).

I married DH after 13 years - to my surprise it feels different - in a good way

Of course you can. To suggest pensions as a reason to get married is ridiculous. It took me less than 5 minutes to do mine.

Back when I got married, my partner, despite being my child's father, didn't have automatic parental responsibility until we got married. He was on the birth certificate and I'm not saying he wouldn't have got PR if I'd died, but something about not automatically being his child's default carer in the event I died, made me feel very uncomfortable.
While I agree that marriage is an insurance policy, it is also a public and legal declaration that your spouse has your back, will protect you legally and is 'all in'.
If my husband had not wanted to marry me, I would find it hard to trust that I was really his first priority. Talk is cheap!

No. After reading the marriage threads on here and what goes on. People may think so though.....

It depends on the pension. Military survivors’ pensions are only available to spouses or civil partners. When I was nominated I had to supply our marriage certificate.

The thing is, a will trumps a marriage certificate anyway.

There are two conflicting issues here though - it depends if you are talking about division of assets in a split or a divorce. And its really easy to protect both people in event of either, with a little common sense.

First, don’t be a SAHP unless you are independently financially well off. It’s leaving you financially vulnerable regardless of your marital status.

Second, make sure your name is on the deeds of any property or tenancies. Then, you have legal rights to remain. Make it clear in your will what should happen to any assets from prior to marriage (I’m of the opinion that anything obtained prior to marriage is NOT a joint asset and I’d be leaving this to my children; however this doesn’t apply to us)

Next, have LPA to allow your partner (or anyone else - even a friend) to make medical decisions for you should you be unable to make them yourself. This is useful for married or unmarried couples.

LPA also allows any named person to make financial decisions for you.

Name someone on your pension as a beneficiary. This can be literally anyone you like.

Have a will in place with your wishes at to what happens if you die.

You are no better protected if you are married than if you take these steps in a long term relationship.

And to use the “wills can be changed” argument - of course they can. If I owned my property in my own name and I died; the property would go to whoever I named on my will. However, as the property is in both our names; my partner becomes sole owner.

The exact same is true if we were married. I could theoretically leave my house to, for example, my parents, and even if I married my partner, it would still be my parents house (unless my partner is also on the deeds)

Basically, a will is significantly more powerful than a marriage.

Marriage was a commitment one step too far for my partner, but we did manage 19 years together (split up after second child coincided with midlife crisis)

Someone once told me staying together while not married was a stronger commitment because you didn't have a piece of paper to hold you together, just the will to stay together.

I didn't enjoy splitting up, but at least it was easier than arranging a divorce. I was in the fortunate position of being independent, earned more and better with money than my ex.

Okay - but we were specifically talking about NHS pensions.

Is that definitely still the case? My friend is a military partner and in a LTR cohabiting/home ownership with kids and not married, it seems discriminatory. A quick Google shows that isn’t currently true of two different veterans pensions schemes (afps 05 and 15) which I believe are the most up to date. I hope that practice dies out.

It’s certainly true for us. We couldn’t find our marriage certificate and had to fork out for a copy.

I'm not totally sure a will is more important than a marriage - a marriage invalidates a pre existing will! And it's hard to cut out a spouse - they would have a right to challenge an 'unfair' will.

And while you might consider pre marital assets to not become joint on marriage, again this is a grey area. A house that becomes the marital home for example.

Yes you can get paperwork drawn up to give a naked person the power to advocate for you, but wouldn't most people just trust their spouse to know and ensure their wishes were adhered to?

Naked? Yeah you could do that but named is probably better

It's easier for a spouse than an unmarried partner to challenge a will. Marriage makes it harder to prevent the person you're in a relationship with from having a claim on your assets. Obviously whether this is a reason to get married or avoid it like the plague depends on one's perspective.

I feel such a sinking feeling when women talk about feeling more secure and having a sense of permanence when they get married. Because they don't-it's just an illusion. What makes security and permanence is the relationship, not the certificate.

Yes, ultimately it's the quality of the relationship that matters while you both still live. But things can go pear shaped pretty quickly in the event one partner dies and they haven't been super organised first.

I think a lot of this hinges on why a couple haven't married - there are too many women in relationships, thinking of themselves as in a partnership and bring fully committed to a man who is much less committed. We all know of women who have been in long term relationships but not married, it all goes tits up and he's married to someone else 5 minutes later!

Where the marriage contract is most significant is after the relationship ends, either through separation or death.

Everyone will think differently about this. My opinion is that it kind of depends if you marry a good one 😆 Personally I felt just as committed to my dh before we married, but the feeling of security has grown ever since in a way I can't quite articulate, probably because of the social feedback etc. Logically I know that marriage isn't essential to be committed to each other and people are often not even then, but still, I really am glad I married him!

I'm currently going through a divorce and it makes me feel sad that I'll likely never have a husband again, that I won't ever be someone's wife again. To me it's indicative of permanence and stability and yes a certain "standing" in life. I'm the much higher earner so it didn't represent financial stability for me - perhaps more an emotional stability to be married? It makes me cringe to call someone a partner or boyfriend at my age if I'm lucky enough to meet someone in the future (I'm late 30s).

Together 16 years engaged 7 years recently got married as have two small DC. Wanted us all to have the same last name and some more security for mr. Regardless of this yes I think it is more then a piece of paper we feel a renewed mutual respect/ appreciation of each other and it gives a fresh and permanent motivation to fight the challenges of life together. Although if I didn't have children I probably wouldn't of bothered as a partner was just the same as a husband on my eyes but now we have tied the knot I will admit our family and relationship does feel more complete

We were speaking specifically about a will being changed without the other partners consent, so this would not be a pre-existing will.

The previously owned property is irrelevant in my current circumstances (we met at 20!) however if I ever find myself married to someone else; they would absolutely not be getting this house - I am unable to have any more children; and this home is for my children; so I would absolutely do anything in my power to ensure that nobody could withhold this from my children (including leaving it to my current partner, who would also have our children’s best interests at heart)

And no, LPA is not just for cohabiting non married couples. Seriously, get one and make your wishes known. You can only apply for it prior to actually needing it! And it takes around 6 months to come through. You can’t apply once you lose capacity.

Presumably you are just going through the honeymoon stage given the “newness” of your marriage.

So I feel that marriage is more permanent. Yes I am a Christian. Yes we had been together a year before we had married- one very intense brain injury, him nearly dying several times helps you know what you feel....
His parents made us have a prenuptial as both of us have our own assets going into the marriage- I earn more, he has more money and is the stay at home parent.... he has a LPA- however it is his dad who is his LPA (haven't remembered to update it)
However we have made a commitment to each other and we both know however much we annoy each other- that we love each other (I mean changing diapers, helping him learn to walk, talk, shower, order in a bar, learn how to make a sandwich etc does talk). In my line of work lots who aren't married and have a brain injury don't stay together....

@SquidwardBound you are so right that women keep being told that marriage "protects" them. It really annoys me.

If you're a high earner, have inherited or will inherit, if you own a property and he doesn't, if he's a gambler or gets into debt - then you're in trouble. If you have kids from a previous relationship and you die and don't make sure your will leaves your estate to them - it all goes to the new husband. Marriage does not protect anyone - it's a contract that should work for both.

Many women just want the dress, the party and the social glory of a wedding. "Oooh the dress, the bridesmaids. Oooh he loves you - you've been chosen.....Hey the photos, the ring - oooh let's see..."

Well given I’ve heard more than a handful of people on here describe the bloke they’ve been seeing for 2 months as their partner, then no I don’t see it as equivalent to marriage at all.

Been with dp for over 30 years.
Never wanted to marry .
All financial side of things are water tight.
The children are happy and I honestly can't think of a single reason why getting married would of made a difference!