I don't really understand getting married

[Springisnear4]

I don't really understand the point of it other than it being a party and you get presents. I know some people do it on a budget but generally you spend loads of money, is it about showing your love to the world? I don't know, I don't get it.

The point is that it provides protection for anyone who takes time out of work to raise children if the parents later separate.

If you are married and get divorced, assets (property, pensions, other money/investments) are legally owned by both parties and the SAH contribution will be recognised in any settlement.

If you aren't married and separate, the parent who stayed at home and didn't earn and contribute to their pension would be entitled to child support and a share of joint property such as the house, but no compensation for lack of career or pension.

Well that summed it up nicely......you did make me smile Zafira 😂

If we talk about it purely in practical terms. It’s give you legal protection, for the one who gives up / reduces work etc when children are had. There is no protection when not married. One person could save a million, the other would not be entitled to a penny if they split. Married, they would be.

I understand it's important if you're older, as death benefits are quite different for married people and single. Inheritance tax is not payable by legal spouses.

We got married 44 years ago 5 months after meeting purely because we were madly in love and wanted to be together (we didn't want to live together).

We had a very small wedding which cost practically nothing as we had no money. We wanted to just go to the register office with our parents and siblings and then go for a meal but got pushed into having a reception by DH's mum. We didn't particularly want any presents although the ones we got were much appreciated.

We got married because we loved each other and want to spend the rest of our lives together. The legal and practical aspects never even crossed our minds.

44 years on and we are still very much in love and very happy

It's such a shame they never invented some kind of engine to search the Internet with when you're looking for information isn't it?

Other than insurance for a SAHM there really is very little point to marriage nowadays.

There’s also the small matter that if you have reasonable assets marriage means a significant saving in inheritance tax.

Marriage effectively creates a contract between two people to share all financial resources. Prior to some relatively recent law changes this was achieved by making the woman effectively the "property" of the man and women couldn't do anything like open a bank account or take out a loan, which has thankfully changed.

However the contractual pooling of resources provides stability in several ways -
If one member of the partnership is going to focus on raising children for a few years their earnings potential will massively decrease. That's an incredibly risky thing to do as it could mean poverty for the rest of their life without the support of a partner who has not had their earnings potential damaged in this way.
Life includes various disasters which can strike anyone - redundancy, bereavement, cancer etc. Locking into a partnership that is committed to being together "for better or for worse" means you face these as a team and are therefore stronger.

Marriage is valuable because the "in love" part of any relationship will always fade after years of comfortable familiarity and when life hands you the most difficult challenges you are unlikely to still be "in love". People are fallible. Things fall apart. Sometimes the fact that you know you made a legal commitment is the only thing you can hold onto. Sometimes even that isn't enough and divorce happens but at least when it does happen the commitment to share resources still holds and the assets of the partnership are divided fairly between the two people.

1. Its a legal contract, there are protections and rights in the UK associated with marriage, including inheritance implications.

1. Socially, its a public commitment to the permanence of a relationship, for better or worse, in the absence of other ties like shared mortgages or children. Its very telling when someone is reluctant to enter into it. Totally understand people who don't want a big wedding, but to go and get married in a registry office is not an expensive thing.

That's a very simplistic view. Women have to have career breaks to have children in the first place. With increasing childcare costs, women then often are the ones who take the job that fits round the family, rather than build the career. So not the same opportunities to 'protect themselves financially"
Also I suggest that anyone who doesn't understand the impact after death googles Sandi Toksvig talking about gay marriage. The same situation applies to heterosexual marriage too.

It's a legal contract that protects both parties. Over the marriage, assets are built up. Houses and cars and businesses can be bought and developed. If the marriage ends the marital assets are split up 'fairly' between the parties involved. If you live with your partner and split up it isn't as simple. If the house is in your name you can often keep it and they have to move out and start again. If the car is in your name you can keep it. If the business is on your name you can keep it. If the savings are in your name you can keep them. People can be left with nothing.
It also protects in case of death. If your partner dies and the house is in their name the house goes to their next of kin unless they have made a will stating otherwise. If decisions about their medical care are required at the end of their life, their next of kin will be consulted, not their unmarried partner. There are countless other implications of not being married that can be mitigated against with the right legal preparations or you can just get married and get all the legal protections automatically with your 'just a piece of paper'.
It's also a statement to each other that you both intend to make a life together.

It’s a legal contract that provides protection to the spouse who sacrifices their earning potential / gives up work to do all the domestic labour.

For some it’ll be tradition, the right thing to do, only thing that signals proper commitment and it’s a religious ceremony.

Marriage isn’t something I am bothered about but I absolutely understand why a couple would want to.

For us it was about being married, not getting married. Which is why we buggered off and did it in a registry office with two randoms pulled in as witnesses.

Other than insurance for a SAHM there really is very little point to marriage nowadays.

There's still a massive social perception that marriage is a higher form of commitment. If an unmarried couple with children announce they are separating, you will still see plenty of people shrug and note that they never actually got married.

Among some middle & upper classes divorce is still quite frowned upon. DH works with a lot of minor landed types and a huge number of them are married but unofficially separated, but they don't divorce.

But you have hit on something quite important here: Other than insurance for a SAHM there really is very little point to marriage nowadays.

This is a daft take.

Marriage is a legal contract, and it puts both parties in a different position in relation to both each other and the state than unmarried cohabitation does. There are lots of ways this makes a difference. You can't possibly say there's little point in any of them without knowledge of a particular couple's circumstances and priorities.

I saw Sandi Toksvig talking about gay marriage.

She was talking about two men, I'll call them A and B. When they got together A's parents disowned him.

20 years later A was in hospital, coming to the end of his life. B contacted his parents.

The parents turned up at the hospital, had security remove B, refused permission to visit and also banned him from A's funeral.

They could do this because they were next of kin, not the person he had loved and lived with for decades.

@OpusGiemuJavlo

However the contractual pooling of resources provides stability in several ways -
If one member of the partnership is going to focus on raising children for a few years their earnings potential will massively decrease. That's an incredibly risky thing to do as it could mean poverty for the rest of their life without the support of a partner who has not had their earnings potential damaged in this way.

This is correct and it works well if the breadwinner is the man. But the economics of it have changed in recent decades and the elephant in the room is that it only really works when it’s the woman who stops working.

Because a vanishingly few men are ever prepared to do a proper job of caring for children and the home. Men in general are terrible at this and resentful that they have to do it. (Yes NAMALT etc but in general).

So in practice if you have a working mother and a non working or less actively working father as is becoming more common, you almost invariably have a cocklodger situation. The fathers almost never do enough of the “wife work” to justify being “kept”. Marriage simply entrenches the financial protection of a man who is not “earning” it and undermines the woman’s assets. It’s a massive transfer of value from a working woman to a non working man. Given that the women are usually the ones who end up caring for children post divorce it’s also incredibly risky for the children.

In this situation marriage is a thoroughly dangerous idea: it’s a cocklodger’s charter.

The approach to marriage should therefore be pretty binary if you are a woman. SAHM: absolutely essential. Working: don’t touch with a barge pole.

As others have said there are many reasons it does offer more legal protection to both people.
For children gives automatic rights to dads in the worst case
It makes someone an automatic next of kin.
Tax wise - tax relief if basic payer and 1 isn't earning above 12k.
Money wise things can be cheaper - insurance used to be if married.
Inheritance tax

From a personal perspective I'm married because I wanted to show that ultimate commitment. Before I met my husband I thought it was a expensive bit of paper and what's the point. That changed with him.

Why did you want to be husband and wife?

35

I got married because I wanted more security for myself and my children, and to make a commitment to my partner. I had a wedding because I wanted to celebrate making a new family with my family and my husband's family. They never get together, and that way they could all meet and have a great time together. It was very informal and we didn't spend 2 hours taking photos like some weddings I've been to, so we really got to spend time with our guests.

Marriage is increasingly a millstone around the neck financially for women and it rarely makes them happy.

@Thepeopleversuswork Can I ask how you know this please, as it sounds interesting? When you say "rarely" what sort of proportion are you talking about?

If I were you OP, I'd have a read of the Relationship's board here on MN and then I think you would have a better understanding of the point of marriage. Especially if you are planning on having children and taking a step back in your career to raise them.

You're confusing weddings and being married. Getting married doesn't necessitate a wedding and is a smart thing to do for security reasons - in the right relationship of course.

Why did I want to get married? Act of commitment. And legal protection esp as an immigrant to my husband’s country.
Don’t confuse marriage with a wedding.