Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

for thinking marriage is special?

254 replies

WashwithCare · 10/01/2010 22:30

I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons, or that it shouldn't be permissble to end a marriage - sometimes marriages fail...

But to my mind, marriage confers a special status on a relationship with a loved one whom you have chosen to consciously make a public commitment. It doesn't matter how long you cohabit, you didn't do that - you're not married.

I have had a number of long term bfs, some of whom I lived with. I didn't marry them for good reasons. I would hate the thought that I would be legally bound to them in ways I did not agree to simply by living with them.

I don't believe cohabitees should gain automatic rights, however long they live together. After all, there is a simple process and legal framework already in place if you wish to confer this on another person - you can marry them! Do others agree?

OP posts:
seeker · 11/01/2010 19:05

I think anyone who is in ANY sort of relationship, married, not married, busines...who does not put something down in writing - wills, joint mortgage, whatever - is a fool.

I also think that a parent who gives up work/career to look after children has a right to a share of the other parent's assets. After all, he or she gave up the opportunity to acquire assets of their own while making it possible for the other parent to carry on acquiring them!

blueshoes · 11/01/2010 19:09

seeker: "I also think that a parent who gives up work/career to look after children has a right to a share of the other parent's assets."

Even if the parents are not married?

marantha · 11/01/2010 19:26

seeker I do NOT believe that a cohabitee (marriage is different) has any right to a share of the other parent's assets at all if they gave up work to look after their child.

If we go down the road of unmarried women being able to claim "compensation" because she had the luxury of giving up work to look after her child, it won't be long before some smart lawyer argues that the working male should ALSO be entitled to compensation for the fact that by going out to work he missed out on vital time with his child.

An unmarried mother is "paid" at the time- a man paying for to stay at home with the child- she should not be paid twice.

lal123 · 11/01/2010 19:35

lol - we got engaged 3 months after we met - my Mum said not to rush into anything and here we are 16 years later no closer to getting married.

Petitioner · 11/01/2010 19:42

WWC-

Marriage is special to me. I was married for over 20 yrs. It conferred a sharing attitude to finances and a commitment to bring up children together. Well I shared my finances......and we are sharing the parenting in theory...

The reason I won't marry again (I don't think) is because I don't wish to confer any automatic rights over my and my children's financial security.

Relationships are not about finding someone to financially support you surely? I work to earn a living. Earning a living by sleeping/eating with a man seems wrong. I can't believe women think in 2010 that this is the norm!

If you have children and you want a parent to stay at home I would need to discuss and agree the length of this career break/who does it and what impact it would have on each persons finances. It would be very unnatural for me to live off a man

(Personal view only and I know lots of people who cohabit and have a better relationship than my ex marriage)

Georgimama · 11/01/2010 19:44

I fully accept that some (most) people in cohabitee relationships are every bit as committed to each other and a joint life together as me and my husband. However I am really against the idea of cohabitees acquiring legal rights similar to those given by marriage because I think you should have to expressly opt into formal legal relations of that kind - either by marrying, a civil partnership, or by deed/will/contract. I don't think this is something the state should be allowed to foist upon you.

DH and I lived together for 3 years before we got married and I would quite expressly not have wanted us to have quasi-marital rights over each other by virtue of shacking up when I was 19. Equally I would not want my son when he is older to find himself de facto "married" by moving in with his girlfiend for 6 months.

bruffin · 11/01/2010 19:47

If you see marriage as a shackle then you are definitely in the wrong relationship

Georgimama · 11/01/2010 19:51

Me? I don't see it as a shackle. But it does give serious legal consequences that I wouldn't have wanted to acquire or give before I was ready. Is that really so strange?

ButterPie · 11/01/2010 19:51

If they brought in co-habiting rights equal to marriage rights, what would happen in these situations:-

  • one of those polyamourous relationships where three or more people live as if married?
  • two people already living as flatmates start dating?
  • Girlfriend gets evicted for whatever reason, kips in short term boyfriends house until she can find somewhere else? (this happens loads)
  • Boyfriend starts staying over at girlfriends house more and more but without ever actually deciding to move in (this also happens loads, eg when I was 17 my boyfriend stayed with me at my parents house most nights, just because he happened to be there, at what point would we have been "co-habiting?")
  • Husband leaves his wife and sets up home with new girlfriend but without ever divorcing his wife - would he, in effect, be married to both?
ButterPie · 11/01/2010 19:56

I must say, I am not actually married to DP, but we have two kids, have lived together for years and I have changed my surname to his (as a stopgap towards getting married) and I sometimes call him my husband for ease of explanation when talking to people. We are going to get married though, to tidy things up legally and because I'm an old romantic

NotAnOtter · 11/01/2010 19:57

personally i think 'Mrs' sounds so staid

ButterPie · 11/01/2010 20:00

I will probably still use Ms, but will maybe use Mrs if I need to impress somebody old

MillyR · 11/01/2010 20:10

My brother has been married to his wife for 8 years. He lived with his wife for one year, and then moved in with the other woman and her daughter. He has been living with the other woman for the last seven years. On MN I refer to the OW as my SIL, because she is as far as my are family concerned.

So marriage can just be a piece of paper that allows people to get money off someone; it isn't always special and it isn't always love. It certainly isn't a guarantee of love, especially as many people get married for the wrong reasons.

MavisEnderby · 11/01/2010 20:16

Well I suppose marriage is special if it works.Likewise co habiting.

As a co habitee in a 15 year relationship I also see that as special.We may not have the ring and paperwork but a house and 2 dcs and a will make it an equivalent to me of a marriage.

I don't see why it is all such a big issue,tbh.

lovechoc · 11/01/2010 20:21

IMO many people think marriage is a shield, a kind of protection from being hurt.

NotAnOtter · 11/01/2010 20:28

mavis i agree
I find my married friends (most of my friends!) are the ones who have the 'unmarried' issues with me and dp
they quiz us as to 'why not?' they 'self-correct' when accidently referring to dp as husband or me wife

i see nothing different
i feel nothing different and therefore don't really 'get' the issue

legally etc is another thing but i don't think most people actually get married for legal reasons? do they? isn't it more lovey dovey?

lovechoc · 11/01/2010 20:31

not lovey dovey reasons for me. I got married for legal reasons actually. I loved and still do love DH, even as a partner before the marriage. But we mainly did it for legal reasons unlike many couples.

lovechoc · 11/01/2010 20:33

oops, that was confusing! what I mean to say is we already loved each other, but the main motive to get married was for legal reasons.just hope that makes sense!

Georgimama · 11/01/2010 20:41

I got married for both, but principally legal reasons - I had already decided to live with my now husband because I loved him.

I agree that a lot of people (well, women) get married because they want a "big day".

lovechoc · 11/01/2010 20:44

it definately wasn't for a 'big day' that we got married - considering it was done at a reg office, but I appreciate many women do just get married to wear a lovely frilly white dress and agonise over the colour of chair covers, the flower arrrangements etc.

wubblybubbly · 11/01/2010 20:46

I always said I wouldn't get married but once DS was born I thought we should do, purely from a legal point of view I suppose. I would've been quite happy to pop into the registry office and sign the papers, in just the same way I signed the papers when I bought my house.

Love and romance are an entirely seperate issue for me. People aren't always in love when they get married and just because someone doesn't want to get married doesn't mean they're not in love or committed to each other. I didn't prove to my DH or to anyone else that I loved him by marrying him, I prove that every day in the things I do for him and our family.

I didn't change my name and I still use Ms. Some people think that's weird but I can't see the point of going to all the hassle of changing my name if I don't have to. It's done me okay so far.

hocuspontas · 11/01/2010 20:54

As a long-term co-habitee I agree that there should not be any automatic rights etc. I like the idea of 'opting-in' though. And having to 'opt-out' when the relationship ended. Not sure if we would be interested but it would be something to explore.

But I would like to see the same opting-in rights awarded to long-term relationships of any sort - single sex, friends, siblings, parent/child. If you move on to another relationship or marriage you have to opt-out of the 'relationship' you are in though. I'm thinking here of people who live together for 50 years or so really - not youngsters!

Haven't really thought this through though so don't flame me!!

Wastwinsetandpearls · 11/01/2010 20:58

I have been with my dp for almost seven years, I am totally committed to him as is he to me. We have had good and bad times and come through them stronger. He is a wonderful father to my dd from a previous marriage, he has supported me through my illness and in difficult times when lesser men would have run for the hills. When he walks in the room my heart flips and I cannot imagine a more honest, decent man.

He loves the fact that I have made him a family man and I hope that one day we will have a child of our own.

I have nothing against marrriage but as a Roman Catholic I cannot be married again. That does not mean I am less committed to do because we are not married. The exact reverse actually, living with dp has meant that I am cut off from my faith but I would readily give anything up for him.

I would happily sign some form of legal agreement binding us together and have suggested to dp that we simply nip to the registry office to sign the papers.

NotAnOtter · 11/01/2010 21:06

hope you are all wathcing bbc2 NOW

Wastwinsetandpearls · 11/01/2010 21:08

I just thought the same NotanOtter, my post has made me feel all squishy though so I am off to do some more babymaking.