To not see the practical point of getting married?

[Queenofswords88]

My partner and I are in our thirties. We’ve been together many years and own a house together. We’re also hoping to have a baby together (currently going through fertility issues / treatment).

We’ve talked about marriage plenty of times and he’s always made it clear that he would marry me in a heartbeat if it’s something I wanted to do, but it’s not something he cares about enough to push for. I’m not convinced marriage is for me, for various reasons including expense/stress of a wedding and a feeling that the institution is outdated/anti-feminist.

My partner works full time in a good job. I earn significantly more than him even though I work part time in a flexible role which would accommodate having a child. I have more in savings, pension and investments and more equity in the house we share.

I hear a lot of blanket advice, especially on Mumsnet, about it being essential to get married before having a child. In my circumstances, I can’t think of a single practical reason why that’s the case. AIBU?

Marriage doesn't really impact much until sht hits the fan and then you'll realise how important those legal protections are.

If you're earning more than your partner but a fair bit, wouldn't you want him protected in the event that you split? For you to have a legal responsibility towards him as a relative, rather than solely a responsibility to your shared child? Wouldn't you want to ensure if you split, he is taken care of? That he has a right to a share of the assets you've built, together?

It doesn't have to be expensive, we got married for around £400 including all three rings and the ceremony and dress. And it's only anti-feminist if you want it to be. It can be, should be, an equal partnership.

I can’t think of a single practical reason why that’s the case

Seriously? For financial security. If something happens to you as nok he inherits your estate, pension, death in service payment (if you have one) If not he could potentially lose your house. And vice versa. Wouldn't you want to ensure he's looked after if you weren't here as opposed to your siblings or other nok

If one of you is involved in an accident or is unable to make medical decisions it would fall to your parents or siblings.

You dont need a wedding. You can just go and do the paperwork on your own or with immediate family and friends.

Inheritance tax for starters. Spouses don’t pay IT on money inherited from their partner.
Spouses are also each other’s NOK automatically.
Loads of other benefits too…

Thanks for this, it’s actually really thought provoking.

In terms of making sure my partner were taken care of if we split, I think that should be covered as things stand. We have a declaration of trust setting out how we would fairly split the equity from the house and we have joint savings which would be split 50/50, as well as our own savings. Although I am lucky enough to earn more, he earns a good salary on his own.

There are tax advantages to being married (and as first post mentions why can’t you just legally go get married and not have the expense of a wedding). Like above said when things go wrong it’s often a simpler process to deal with if you’re married rather than cohabiting e.g. if you died unexpectedly it’s far simpler as a spouse to sort the estate, inheritance and property rights. Plus there’s benefits to pensions etc. Sounds rather morbid but it’s just a sad fact that things could be much harder in a crisis when you’re a partner over a spouse.

If you don’t want to have a big wedding/marriage then why not get a civil partnership instead? All of the same legal protections but none of the religious/institution bits

Well for one you would have to pay inheritance tax on your home if your partner died before you.

Do you think same-sex couples would have spent decades fighting to be legally married if there were no practical benefits?

Our wedding cost about £200. Two witnesses and a nice lunch afterwards.

Or don't get married, opt for a civil partnership. We would have, if they'd been available for straight couples when we married.

Good point re inheritance tax, but at the moment we wouldn’t reach the threshold to pay it anyway. Might be something to consider further down the line.

I’d completely forgotten about the NOK thing tbh - although I assume you could sort that with some kind of power of attorney or something if you wanted to without having to go for full fat marriage.

You don’t need a big wedding - mine cost £70 at the registry office

Just get a CP for IHT reasons if nothing else. From April 2027 pensions are caught so anyone with a modest pension fund needs to make sure they have legal protection otherwise you will lose 40% of it and the recipient will also pay income tax meaning around 70% of it will be lost. That’ll be £100,000’s for a lot of people.

Marriage is for love. To shout from the rooftops that is your partner, in front of family, friends and the world. Include God if you are a believer. And it is a solid legal protection for when things do not ho as planned: accident, premature death, split.
You do not need a party. You can get married for £30 or so ( that was the price long long time ago! Before inflation. But it will not be more than £100)

Personally I wouldn't get married again. I had to pay my ex quite a big settlement that could have been used for our kids. I don't feel I was in any way protected during our divorce, I'd have been better off just able to walk away and leave him to sort his own s**t out after what he did.

Power of Attorney and Next of Kin are two completely different things.

A lot can happen in a lifetime OP. Your relative earnings may not follow current patterns for ever. Redundancy, disability, death can all be utterly unpredictable. You may not feel like you need the benefits now but that may change in a moment. Having children in particular can throw curveballs. Plan to go back to work full time? Sure, but will that change if you have a child with a disability?

As others have said a wedding and a marriage are not the same thing. Civil partnership also an option.

Marriage is a legal & financial agreement which would protect both parties re split/inheritance/medical nok/tax advantages etc.

the marriage can be signed & sealed in a short trip to a registry office in jeans & tshirt. Probably need a couple of witnesses.

weddings are the PR side of marriage- up to you if you want to go down that route or not.

Marriage is a business contract, a very sensible one and probably the most important and impactful one you'll ever sign. I don't see how that can be anti feminist. It's not just about you either, it protects any children you may have - which you could say is actually pro-feminist.

I agree with the view that it’s meaningless until everything goes wrong. Then it becomes very meaningful.

If you don’t do it I would take independent legal advice to ensure you’re as protected as possible if that happens, particularly if you’re planning a family.

On the expense and stress front, getting married can cost a few hundred quid, so that’s not really a reason not to do it.

And it’s as feminist or anti-feminist as you make it. I know a lot of unmarried couples who aren’t in what I would describe as “feminist” relationships.

Just ask any solicitor. If something happens to either of you, your estate goes to your spouse, not siblings, parents etc. You are not the legal next of kin, so if he was in a coma, his family could step in and direct his medical care, and if he died, organise the funeral and exclude you. It is for your protection.

Tbh yes if there were enough practical reasons I think we probably would just get married simply/cheaply or go for a civil partnership. I’m just not convinced there really are enough reasons.

Re the house if one of us died - I think wills to transfer our share to the other person plus insurance to pay off the mortgage if we died unexpectedly covers it?

This, you never know what is round the corner for either of you. This was me, working full time, happily married and wham, life changing medical diagnosis, horrendous ill health and I haven't worked for 20 years plus. I know that I am protected legally to monies I did not earn, ie Dh's generous work pension pot.

Also see many posts on here including today asking about a pension where her Dh out earns her. She can only work part time due to having children with disabilities. You have to be prepared for the curve ball, the plot twist. Being married makes thing far more easier. There are lots of deathbed marriages, IHT is one reason.

You don't need a huge wedding, a one day party. We spent very little on ours, our honeymoon cost more because we wanted a lovely holiday.

Legal marriage is ultimately about property and tax, anything else is window dressing. A weekday Civil Partnership is really cheap and straight forward. You may have a higher level of property and savings now but you don’t know what they future holds and if you intend to have a child and ensure you are both equal partners then a CP makes sense. Having said all that I can understand why people don’t do it but also I’ve seen too many people absolutely reeling from the effects of not having any legal status when one partner dies or is seriously ill in hospital. How do you get on with each others parents? This is the main reason my partner and I got married. Neither of us could bear the thought of the, having any input about one of us in the event of serious illness, funerals and so on, as if you arnt married it will be your nearest living relative that can pull rank legally if it got to that. Really the law needs to change to either recognise co habitation or deal with with assets in a better way like in other countries. But yes good point about gay marriage. It was never just about the wedding, it was about being legally recognised at crisis parts of life as much as anything. Plus tax is a massive one. You get hammered if you arnt married. Yes you can legal your way around it but it’s expensive. As any lawyer and they will tell you it’s the cheapest most effective way to ensure your money doesn’t go to the state on death.

Marriage doesn’t have to be anti feminist. As an institution it may have had those origins, but it’s also changed immensely as an institution since its origins: you no longer have to be heterosexual; it no longer has to involve religion; it no longer has to last forever, and you no longer need any reason beyond “I don’t want to be married anymore” for it to not last forever.

Yes, you can emulate many of the legal benefits of marriage through things like wills, POA, agreements around property etc, but marriage fixes a lot of that paperwork in one step.

I’m sure you can get round to with trusts, contracts, wills etc (though I think inheritance tax would always bite) but in reality marriage or civil partnership is just much more straightforward.

And that’s what it is - a contract. But just one binding contract to cover everything.

It gives you both financial security.

Go for civil partnership if you dislike the idea of marriage.