Marriage?

[NotMarried]

I have been with my dp for over 10 years, we have a dc who is 3 and hope one day to have another. We are reasonably "solid". Our relationship is by no means perfect - who's is? - but we are committed to providing a loving, stable and respectful environment for our family in as much as we can.

I have a very romantic notion of marriage and in some respects feel that my time has now passed. There are no more butterflies and the swooning has long stopped - I will never feel "swept off my feet".

I have been reading a few things on here that make me feel that I should be married in order to protect myself and my dc should anything happen to my dp. Legally I own the house with my dp so that is not an issue. He has life assurance of which I am the "benefactor". What other things do I need to consider? Neither of us has a will.

Really, I feel "wrong" getting married for "legal reasons" but at the same time realise I'm not going to get married to anyone else for "romantic" reasons. Considering the above, do I need to get married - am I fool not to?

It is quite possible that if you do get married you will be surprised by how emotional you feel during the ceremony even though you think you have missed the big white dress thing.

tbh darcymum I know that I will be blubbing head off ... just want to make sure am blubbing for the right reasons rather than OMG what am I doing!!!

Hi, NotMarried, Listen as a woman who is just about to get divorced, I realise that marriage ain't all it's cracked up to be, however, I STILL see that there is need for it in society.

Look at it this way, unless you and your partner declare to the "authorities" that you wish to be seen as a couple for life how are they supposed to reasonably know what you and your partner's intentions are towards another?
They're not psychic, you know.

You say he and you are devoted to each other, but the authorities don't know that, do they?

So, yes, that is the BEST reason to marry there is- to make absolutely 100% certain that should your beloved be taken ill you can say with absolute authority, "I am his wife. I get to make the decision".
Not romantic I know but that is life.

I guess a lot of people may say, "well they've lived together for x years with a child" but so what? It could be that a couple are leading separate lives and only communicate for sake of children.
What I mean here is that UNLESS a couple sign that bloomin' "we are a couple" (i.e. marrying) contract, there will always be doubt as regards the nature of their relationship.

I don't want equal rights for unmarrieds. It would mean that if I were to live with a man again, I would have the government breathing down my neck treating me like I'm married when I don't wish to be.

If you want rights, get married!

sorry to hear that your marriage didn't work out marantha but it does serve to prove my point that couple who are married are not necessarily any more than committed than those who aren't - you have to take each relationship on it's merit no matter what their status is or isn't in law.

you say "It could be that a couple are leading separate lives and only communicate for sake of children." it could be yes but this could also be said of married couples too, again, each relationship has to be taken on it's own merit.

What I am trying to say is that marriage should be for it's own sake and that "rights" should be completely seperate from this. That's all. Not much to ask in this day and age is it? Or is it?

But what about those people who don't getmarried because they don't want the rights (and therefore responsibilities) of marriage? At the moment there is a choice - cohabit, or marry/civil partnrship. If unmarried co-habitees have the same rights as married it takes away their choice to simply co-habit with no legal ties.

NotMarried.
Please, I think you are being a bit optimistic here- the courts do not have the time to discuss the "Ins-and-outs" of every relationship.
Can you imagine the scenario where a female stood up and said, "In return for sex, he promised to buy the eggs".
Any judge would tell her-in the nicest possible terms- to go away and that he had no way of knowing what was said in private.
This would be totally reasonable of him.

This is why the marriage certificate means everything- the couple stated in black-and-white that they wished to be "united".

Like I say, if you wish the same rights as married people, get married.

I am sorry but you say you wish to have cohabitee rights- do you not realise that cohabitee rights are marriage by default?
IF you believe in cohabiting rights, you believe in marriage- so why don't you just marry for heaven's sake!

Drusilla is absolutely right.
And I'm sorry, OP, I am not prepared to have my right to live with a man again free of legal ties because certain people can't be bothered to get married.

This has NOTHING to do with committment as I am sure you and your partner are devoted -far more than me and my hubby (ex)-but a case of being able to CHOOSE which relationship suits you best- i.e. a legal one where you have certain rights OR a non-legal one where you take your chances.

Sorry, that should be: "have my right to live with a man again free of legal ties TAKEN AWAY FROM ME"

The whole idea of "cohabitee rights" though fair on first glance, when studied further are far from fair as it strips away the individual's choice i.e. the fundamental right to choose to legally tie oneself to another.

In other words, shack up for a few years and you'll be married -like it or not!

I pointed this out to my soon-to-be ex mum-in-law who moaned how unfair it was that a woman who lived with a man for 20 years was not legally recognised as a "partner".
She soon shut up when I pointed out that had "cohabitee rights" been around when her daughter was young, the young man her daughter shacked up with for a few years prior her getting her place in Oxford would have been entitled to try to get some money off her daughter on account of them Living together- my mum-in-law soon went quiet on the matter!

"Also bear in mind you are not your DPs next of kin. If he were seriously injured or ill for instance and decisions re life support had to be made, then his parents (are they still alive?) are his next of kin and would have the right to make those kind of decisions. "

This is not actually the case under UK law. Nobody can give or withold consent for medical treatment for another adult, whether married or not. In such a scenario the doctors would act "in your best interests" if you were unable to make your feelings known.

True, DaisymooSteiner. The old "partner"- had- an- accident business is a red herring.

point taken re any old person who happens to be living with another having claim over finances of other if not married under co-habitee rights.

I just think it is so unrealistic to PROMISE another person that you will love them forever - dc aside. If I get married I am making that promise.

NotMarried Well, I can hardly argue with you about that!

But don't you see- and please think about this before you dismiss it- marriage in ITSELF isn't really about committment, love, or big, flouncy dresses, or keeping Pronuptia in business (!) it is a LEGAL document where in the eyes of the law you're saying that you wish another person to be "next-in-line" should you die.

Obviously, it goes without saying that those who do this are -usually- committed to each other but it's not always the case.

It's about making your position clear so if the worse happens (death of loved one, hubby going off with someone else) a woman can stand up and say,
"Hang on, Mr Judge, this man made a promise to me to support me while I was off work looking after our children. We are legally a couple. Here is the marriage certificate to prove it".

Cohabitees cannot do this because, realistically, they have no proof. A judge can't be expected to know what a couple said in private. People will downplay the seriousness of a relationship if against the wall and committment is hard to define.

This is why, imo, women who DO wish to stay with a partner for life and have children is better off wed.
Unless, of course, she is rich and has no worries about being destitute or poor.

Sorry, OP, in the eyes of the law you are just "any old person" in relation to your partner.
And I have to say that UNLESS you and your partner get married, this view is entirely correct.

It is not for the law to decide a couple's level of committment/devotion - it is up to the COUPLE themselves to declare it.

That is the only decent way in a TRULY fair society.

Ah and there in lies the rub ... you say

"Hang on, Mr Judge, this man made a promise to me to support me while I was off work looking after our children. We are legally a couple. Here is the marriage certificate to prove it".

I say marriage is about promising to love and cherish

I shall mull it over whilst on holiday

so long and thanks for all the fish

There is nothing to mull over, OP, marriage is a legal contract. Like it or not, you can take it or leave it.
But, if you leave it, don't moan about how you're not treated like a married person should you and your partner split. Because, if it were down to me, cohabitees would be seen as complete individuals in their own right and would not be able to bleat to the authorities for "maintenance" from their partner in event of a split.

And, guess what, the law agrees with me and calls for "cohabitee" rights have been cast aside time and time again.

Long may this continue. Cohabitees have no legal relationship to their "partners" and nor should they have. Ever.

DH and I have just got married after 15 years together (DS is 7). We did it with just the 2 of us at a register office, with very simple words and no readings, music etc. It was very easy. Although I must say I was delighted and excited and know that I never want to be with anyone else, so maybe that made it an easy decision. You don't sound so convinced... so maybe it's best not to marry, but get the loose ends tied up with legal documents?

Guess what Marantha...the more I think about it, the more I think I actually agree with you.

I want people to be protected, but I want liberty more. With liberty comes responsibility.

We really need some public education wrt living together law.

We also need to really think about what we're doing before we make babies with people. And yes, I know it happens when we prefer it didn't.

Trouble is, first time parents have no idea what is really involved in raising children. So it's easy to say, oh whatever, we'll just deal with things as they come up.

This, combined with an assumption that the law will protect us (because we mistakenly think it should), makes for very dangerous situations.

slouchintowardswaitrose,

I, too, believe that there should be some education about living together law (i.e. that there ISN'T really any), however, this won't happen because:

a, Most people cannot get their heads around the fact that marriage in an OBJECTIVE sense is purely a legal matter, they have it tied up with SUBJECTIVE things like romance and committment. Therefore they cannot see why they should have to marry if they are committed. Or why they shouldn't have the same rights.
Although I do have a principled objection against this call for cohabitee "rights" it is on a more "down to earth" reason that I object to it so strongly, namely in that I (selfishly, I admit) do not wish to be tied legally to a man ever again. I have my reasons for this.

b, How can the dwp and other state agencies continue with calling people "Living as married" when legally they aren't? People might start getting a bit stroppy when the state classes them: "as married" when it suits the state but not LEGALLY.

Cos as a cohabitee, the state s*s all over you- you're a couple when it suits and an individual when it doesn't.

Agreed.

Esp re the mixing up of legal status, 'romance,' commitment and religion.

I wish I had been able to form a civil partnership with my husband, rather than a marriage.

I have NO romantic notions about my marriage. My marriage gave me the legal and financial protection I deserved. My husband (finally) agreed to marry me to restore a balance of power and vulnerability after a particularly rocky period during which my lack of rights and protections caused constant anxiety on my part and allowed DH to control more than he should have.

However HE (heavily influenced by his prejudiced, ultra-religious parents) felt that we shouldn't marry because marriage 'should' be about lovey dovey romance spiritual bullshit, blah blah blah. We fought a lot because I felt (WAS) unprotected, therefore unloved. He didn't want to marry me until we didn't fight so often. He refused to think about scary things like him dying, etc. And he found it very, VERY difficult to be in an equal relationship (thanks again, his upbringing). Sigh. Finally, after I went to register for benefits (!) and started packing, he clocked that part of protecting and loving his children means protecting and loving their mother. Oh, funnily enough, they didn't consider me 'living as married' if I moved into the nursery and slept on the floor. LOL.

Giving me legal rights and protections, and financial security, IS the most romantic thing he could have, and ever has, done for me. Especially as I know it has been a hard journey for him to embrace equality (he still has a way to go).

Yet I have been criticized for my 'unromantic' and 'cold' view of marriage. Whatever.

Cohabiting for SAHMs is particularly dangerous. You can easily set yourself up for financial abuse.

The only thing I have to add, slouchingtowardswaitrose, is my idea of heterosexual couples being able to form "civil partnerships".

(Although, if you marry in a register office WITHOUT religious meaning, isn't this just the same as a civil partnership?)

This would take the religious and romantic connotations from marriage and make it purely a legal thing.
The government could even "sell" it as such.

Or how about a "cocktail of rights" that a straight couple (or even gay) can sign up to?

I've no problem with cohabitees being able to sign up for certain rights, if that is what they wish.

But, and this is the key part for me, they'd have to BOTH sign up for it and make a declaration because I honestly dislike the idea of the state deciding FOR a couple when they are legally tied to one another. That would be open to all kinds of injustice and abuse of the system.

I agree, you have been v convincing

I love the civil partnership/ rights cocktail package sign-up plan. Very good. In fact I might write my MP about it.

So wish it had been available to me. Oh well.

I do love my DH by the way Well, most of the time.

Why not right to your MP? To be honest, though, I think most people can see that marriage is a legal thing (just a thought, since the advent of civil partnerships, I wonder how many sharp-brained, heterosexual businessman have sat down and toyed with the idea of forming a civil partnership for financial gain?! ) and would be a bit hesistant STILL to sign up to a civil partnership, but then, if your partner won't sign up to a civil partnership that would give you certain rights and benefits in the event of a break-up, I think you'd have to ask yourself if you're in the right relationship.

OR accept that yours is one that will not seek legal redress in the event of a break-up.

At the very least, though, people would no longer be able to fob each other off with, "It's just a piece of paper" or the classic: "We don't need a certificate to love one another".

Married or not, please go to a solicitor and get a will, partly to ensure smooth handling of the house and flat but also to set up trusts to ensure your kids have money to be looked after in case you both die. Tell dp it's just like buying car and house insurance.