To think that marriage is an outdated concept?

[YourAgileUmberPoet]

In today’s world, marriage just seems like a piece of paper that doesn’t mean anything anymore. AIBU to think that marriage is outdated and unnecessary?

I suspect you're probably right re sleepwalking. Purely because marriage is a process that has to be actively engaged in. It's an extra trigger. Obviously lots of people still do it without finding out the legalities, but it's one more trigger process than doing all the same things except getting married.

You've met some crap families, sadly.

Also gives rights to widow or widower.

Well, that's the most sensible post I have ever seen you make.0

Both civil and religious (Christian or Jewish) marriages are legal in the UK. You do not have to have a religious wedding, you can have a civil marriage - which is not the same as a civil partnership but which is recognised everywhere in the world as the legal contract of marriage.

Marriage/civil partnership is just a piece of paper but one that stops a lot of other paper.
We got a civil partnership because I was fed up of doing paperwork to make my partner a beneficiary and not my parents for my pension, life insurance X2 etc.
It took 20 minutes for the service, 30 minutes to register intent and cost £100. We also spent £30 on a new dress for me and £150 on an unnecessary but lovely lunch with our 2 witnesses at our favourite restaurant.
Most people don't know we have done it but now he's my legal next of kin and defacto beneficiary alongside our daughter

Having recently separated from a partner of 18 year but who I was not married to I found Marriage - Divorce provides a framework for separating assets and agreeing support for children. I spoke to so many legal people who basically said there isn't a framework and even agreements we could write would not be legally enforceable in the way they would be if we were married. We remained amicable(ish) and worked it out it helped financially we were probably at the same level but IF you have in anyway sacrificed economically to be with your partner/ have children I would suggest you get married or do a civil partnership .

@bifurCAT And why should the lower earner not be protected? They are presumably the lower earner because they have given up a career/job to raise children etc. As to the higher earner, usually the man, if that earner is a man the advantages he gets out of marriage are: support at home for his career, someone to take care of his children, a longer life, because men who marry on average live longer than those who do not (this does not apply to women).
Good deal all round by the looks of it, esp if you are the man in the marriage.

Thank you for sharing your unhappy experience. But it does support the fact that marriage protects the weaker partner, and this is usually the woman. In that respect marriage works in favour of the majority of women.

If the OP does think this supports their argument they are illiterate.0

The reason marriage confers rights to e.g. spouses' pensions is because marriage is a provable legal contract. Living together for ten years is not a provable legal contract and thus cannot be used to confer rights of any sort. It doesn't discriminate against the unmarried, the unmarried choose to be discriminated against when there is a simple and easy means of avoiding discrimination.
And what's archaic in making a commitment to a life-long relationship, which also confers rights if the relationship fails?

I also loved being married to my late DH. And being married has saved me a great deal of grief and money on becoming a widow that I would have had on top of grief at his death had we not been married.

Because its a pension specifically for the Spouse.
When a couple are married they share a household and its expenses. If one dies the remaining spouse has to cover those same expenses by themselves, at least for a while if they need to sell the marital home and downsize.

So it makes sense that there is financial support in place for the widow/er.

If you want your children to be provided for surely that's what Life Insurance and Wills are there for?

It's a pity you feel your divorce settlement was unfair on you, but presumably your DH was a SAHD while you were the major breadwinner so his career suffered?

@bmw6 no he wasn’t a SAHD - he worked but he earned less than me and preferred to waste money on booze and other pursuits which destroyed the marriage. I was careful, hard-working and the saver and my savings were duly awarded to him.

Believe it or not, a lot of women are in the same situation, working to support the family and looking after the kids while they are lumbered with a deadbeat partner. It’s not always the case that people have the luxury of a stay at home parent.

No, I don’t take the point about the spouse’s pension. It costs ME more to be a single person household (and support my kids) right now, never mind later! And of course I lost savings in the divorce.

And now I won’t be able to give anyone the benefit of the spouse’s pension because the big sky fairy and the courts decided that if you go to church and a man wearing a dress (or other official) says some magic words you are entitled to more privileges. I was married….so why shouldn’t I nominate someone to get my pension? I paid in the same contributions as married colleagues!! I now choose to be a free woman not tied to a marital contract.

In fact with a defined contribution scheme I can pass on the pot to my kids or anyone I wish, but not with the more old-fashioned schemes. That is, at least until the coming Budget.

My kids have birth certificates - that’s a provable legal relationship. If I could with this particular pension, I’d leave it to them as direct blood relatives. I don’t have a partner.

There’s nothing like being a smug married. Don’t take your situation for granted though, anything could happen!

These days most women can't afford to stay at home so that arguments void. Personally I earn more than my DP, we have a child together. I don't see how getting married will benefit me as I went back to work FT after mat leave.

Your children can be assigned your DB pension if they are under 25 or financially dependent on you due to disability etc. The law around DB pensions is about provision for those who financially depend on the deceased, which as previous poster said, a spouse or civil partner or minor child would - you don’t earn all the benefits of a DB pension unlike a DC one (which you can assign to anyone) so it’s unreasonable to expect an employer to pay the benefits for a life lying of somebody of your choosing who wasn’t financially reliant on you.

Nah, it isn't void. This article is a year old but the figures aren't likely to have changed that much, and it says there's over a million. We presumably all know most are women?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/19/jeremy-hunt-stay-at-home-mums-work-parents-employment

This is before considering all the women who are in work but have had their earning capacity impacted by maternity leave, by previous SAHPing, who work part time, who have greater caring responsibilities.

That's not to say marriage would benefit you specifically, but we already know that women earn less than men as a cohort. There's no doubt whatsoever about this.

@LemonPeonies you and I are just a little ahead of the curve. There is a big change coming as more women earn more (and have to keep earning) in the years ahead. The idea that someone should be rewarded for not working is going to start to look immensely dated fairly soon.

I'm saying for circumstances like mine, which aren't that uncommon. If women choose to give up work/ lessen their hours then in the event of a split they probably are better off married. Perhaps it's a certain demographic, the man would have to be earning quite a lot for the woman to be able to stay at home and reap the benefits.

Not really. Lots of low income families have a situation where one parent has to reduce their hours or stay at home due to there not being suitable or sufficient childcare, for example. Especially when there are additional care needs.

Marriage is a great insurance policy for the partner (usually the woman) who sacrifices the most for the family.

It's like travel insurance. You don't have to buy it and you hope never to have to use it. But it's (usually) better to have it.

I suspect (but do not know) the reason that we cannot leave pensions to children rather than spouses is two-fold. 1. Some spouses would leave pensions to children instead of spouse out of spite etc, leaving usually women without the pension. 2. Children live longer than their parents; inheriting pension rights would cost a great deal of money I suspect pension providers do not want to be involved in that.
I wasn't being smug, but factual. I have been divorced and got half of everything for the most part...and I have forgotten it, it didn't matter. My second husband has recently died, so the worst has happened. I am not financially deprived because of his death, however, only of his dear presence.

Oh yeah it'll be the life expectancy thing. People's kids can usually be expected to live for decades longer than their spouses.

But with a DC pension the pot can be left to kids!! Or anyone in fact.