Why get married?

[Needmynailsdone]

So have been with my partner 16 years. Childhood sweethearts, 2 kids under 2, early 30s. I see a lot of discourse online about why we should be married and why it’s stupid to have kids with someone you’re not married to, but aside from pension / life insurance stuff (which I’m the nominated beneficiary for), I don’t really understand the need. We both quite like the idea of it, it’s just generally not come up yet as we’ve been busy travelling, working on our careers and now the babies. What were your reasons for wanting to get married?

I felt like this too. We became family when we got married, everything felt more secure, before then I was literally just his girlfriend.

To the PP who isn't married and said that they're more than a girlfriend, no you're not. You are a girlfriend even if you're 60 years old and together for 40 years, you haven't made that commitment to each other so you are just a girlfriend.

They also jump in with IHT as a reason, but many people don't have that amount of assets, we certainly don't.

I'm not talking about Nok though.

He dies, I walk in as his ex wife (never divorced) or his parents..... you have no say as a "girlfriend "

It is if you can only be awarded a survivor’s pension or death in service award if you’re married. If you’re widowed it’s a fucking huge financial rationale.

Personally I wanted the commitment between us as individuals and to our relationship, as well as for our DC to grow up in that environment.

Secondly things like death and serious illness are all much easier to deal with when married.

Sadly my EXDP didn't agree, so we split after almost 8 years and 2 DC together.

If I had my time again, I wouldn't have allowed myself to have been deceived by him, and would have kept it moving before having DC with him.

It's also forgetting that while you may be the higher earner, it's usually the women who take the career hit when kids come along, impacting pension contributions, profession etc.

I was the higher earner when we got married. Higher earner when we bought the house. Put more of the deposit in. Higher earner when we had DD. I also have the more flexible job, so I went part time, after taking a year off. I still earn a decent wage, I've had promotions since having DD and stayed part time. But DHs career has definitely progressed more. And it wouldn't have if I hadn't been able to drop hours and be the "default" parent. If I hadn't been willing to step back slightly from my progression, because I could have taken some more positions in the last few years, but it would have meant full time hours and travel, which would mean a totally different lifestyle for DD.

I don't begrudge it, I've done it because it's what I want for my family as much as what he wanted. But if we weren't married and things went south, I'd be the one losing, despite having previously been the higher earner. I could still easily support myself now and in retirement. But that's not always the point.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos

It's also forgetting that while you may be the higher earner, it's usually the women who take the career hit when kids come along, impacting pension contributions, profession etc

But it doesn’t have to be like that. There are plenty of scenarios where a woman earns less than a man and in that scenario it’s entirely understandable that she might want to get married. That’s basically what marriage is for: to protect women who can’t earn for themselves.

But it’s not set in stone that the woman’s career should be the one to suffer. People are so passive about this. If you want to keep your career fight for it. Don’t end up being pushed into being carer be default.

In this scenario it may make sense for the OP to get married but everyone seems to be assuming she will work less just because.

you are young. things can change (very quickly).

I said usually. Not always. But it is the norm.

We discussed it. DH was willing to take the hit. His company, at the time, however was not willing to allow part time hours or flexible working. He's also in an industry where he needs to be on site 99% of the time. I could WFH 100% if I wanted. He's working on becoming senior enough to be able to WFH more but that takes time. He's changed companies to get more flexibility. He's doing what he can.

But for us, in our situation, with the jobs we had and the lifestyle we both wanted to DD, it was my career that needed compromising for a while and his that needed progressing. We will be able to switch, if we want, once he's managed to get himself to the point where he's senior enough that being off site more regularly doesn't matter. We thought about him changing career but the financial hit was much worse.

None of it for us was me being passive. It was a practical and rational decision. But because we're married, it meant I have the safety to be able to make that decision based purely on practical and rational factors. It means I can support him progressing because I know he's made that commitment legally and financially to be a team with me. It means I know that he knows legally he has to ensure we're safe financially should he decide to go screwing around or that he no longer wants me & DD.

It's not why we got married but it definitely makes me feel safer in making decisions as a team that I wouldn't make if we weren't married.

@IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos

It may be usually at the moment: I would like to see the stats. But it’s definitely becoming more normal for a woman to out earn a man and in many relationships it’s the woman who is the breadwinner.

It obviously is case by case and you have to do what suits your circumstances rather than pure ideology.

But I do find it depressing that people default to assuming that there’s something immutable and essential about the woman earning less. Things are changing.

The test is when the relationship ends, which they all do either through bereavement or separation. In the UK, married couples are treated differently from unmarried in both situations, with some variation across the jurisdictions. So it depends which you prefer, and which would advantage you more.

The median woman is better off being married. You might not be the median.

I married for love, but twenty years on have thanked my lucky stars many times over.

Your current setup seems lovely but things can change!

What always blows my mind is that an unmarried man could walk out of the family home one morning and marry another woman, as the law regards him as single. There would be not a jot that you, as his ‘partner’, could do about it.

A woman could marry a man the same day as leaving too, or even whilst they're with someone I suppose.

You can be NOK without bring married.

How?

I've suggested to DD has a civil partnership with her DP if they don't want to get married, as they now have a DC. DD was most surprised that I am still officially her NOK and not her DP.

There are hundreds of posts from women who have been with their partner for 10, 20 plus years had children, taken a hit on their careers and their partner not married has buggered off

The house isn't in their (womans) name. They're left with nothing!

If you are the high earner, and your assets are not going to take much of an inheritance tax hit, then don't bother.

If the house is not in joint names, or youre a SAHM with his DC, then get married.

Only if there's an official written document stating this. Otherwise, it's nearest blood relative or spouse.

We happily lived together for 40 years and had a CP signing 2 years ago purely for IHT reasons.

Of course it doesn't have to always be the woman who earns less. Either of the couple can be protected by marriage. I do think it's naïve though to just think you can continue to earn well regardless. Ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, redundancy are not always predictable. In a married couple the risk is shared.

That's what I was trying to say before. It gives you the comfort you're making decisions together and sharing the impact together. If we weren't married, I wouldn't have gone part time, I'd have felt like I had to continue earning like I did pre-child so that I wasn't left in the lurch if we split or he died. And I would have expected him to have felt the same if the roles were reversed.

@KiraNerys1 or don't rely on someone else for your or your child's financial security?!

The main reason we were married was dueto beliefs. As Christain’s ,marriage is the ultimate commitment shown in front of your family, friends and God. We promised to support each other and our guests promised to support us. Having made those promises and being reminded of them, has made of marriage stronger.

Well absolutely, but I said ‘man’ because it generally seems to be women that are left high and dry or holding the baby.

Anecdotally, I think this is quite common. Higher net worth couples hitting the age where one thinks of one's mortality, and realising they like the legal landscape for bereaved spouses/CPs more than they do for unmarried cohabitants.

Not true. I work in the NHS. My partner and I are each other’s NOK on records. (I have checked).