my marriage plans are upsetting everyone it seems...

[Enid]

I'm having a crap evening. My parents came down to visit yesterday and I asked them if they could give me some money towards a wedding for dp and I (they are paying for my sisters wedding in June). They agreed but very reluctantly even though I said I wouldn't want as much as my sister is getting and it wouldn't be for a while, trying to take the burden off. So anyway, they agreed, which was kind, but not a word of happiness or congratulation. Then my sister rang tonight, very peeved that I was thinking of getting married too and worried that it would be before hers etc etc. Then dp told me that he didn't realise that I was so serious about getting married (err.. despite being together for 8 years, having one daughter and one on the way, and me saying repeatedly 'I really want to get married' for the last few months)and that he was feeling pressured and stressed about it.

I feel like an idiot now, I thought it would be a really nice thing to do and it just seems that everyone closest to me thinks its a really stupid idea. So obviously I am feeling very sorry for myself. All I've done is try and borrow a bit of money so that marriage could become a possibility, its not like I've set a date or even thought about when or where.

Both my parents and my sister asked why I wanted to get married, I said because I'll have 2 children and I feel strongly about it now. They both (independently) said 'oh, what an old-fashioned viewpoint'. Despite the fact that my parents are married, and my sister is getting married this year and is definite that she wants to get married before she has children.

I feel as though I've spoilt something before its even started

Bk, I agree, we can't expect legislation for every relationship. You're right, maybe there should be something that recognises contributions to childcare and home making
(sorry but can't think of a better word - not that I do any of it, I've been here All day today!) once a couple have children (since otherwise both partners are likely operating on a level playing field (yuk to that expression too but never mind), but still doesn't afford co-habitees the same rights as marrieds? That would help AngieL and Sobernow, since despite their partners refusing to marry them, their financial responsibilities towards their children and the mothers of their children would be legally enforcable.

Although maybe that is the same as marriage in terms of financial responsibility, except that it would only apply where there were co habitees with children involved, since this is when it seems to be needed most.

There is a legal responsibility on fathers, married or not, to pay for their children until adulthood. But they do not have to pay maintenance or split their home or pension etc with their partner if they split up. I suppose the 'safest' thing is not not have children without being married. I don't mean that as any kind of moral criticism of not being married - I've lived with boyfriends myself - but it's just that women are often disadvantaged unless they are married because they are the ones who mostly have the responsbilities of child care. The problem with giving automatic legal status to cohabiting relationships is where do you start. Do you have a right to a share in someone's house if you stay over a few nights a week or if you have lived there as your principal residence for x years? Does a man have to give up half his home because his one night stand gets pregnant? It's just so complicated. I know women who have refused to marry their boyfriends because they don't want to risk losing part of their home or income, so it does cut both ways. One of my friends recently married but never put her boyfriend's name on her mortgage, and insisted they buy a new home to put in joint names but only after they married. I think it would be very, very difficult to frame a law which allowed women to have rights over their partner's assets without some mutual agreement upfront. I'm not saying it's fair for women who have had children to be thrown out of their partner's home at a moment's notice, and I think the lack of rights for unmarried couples should be more widely publicised, and the disadvantages be more widely known, but I just can't imagine a law that would be fair either.

On the same sort of thing - what would happen if I am paying child support and give up work to have a baby - would the father of my daughter (No 1) be able to claim child support from my new partner.

(Not pregnant would just like to know!!)

No, child support comes from the parent, not the parent's partner. My income was not considered for my dh's child support assessement. I actually refused to give it, which is fine. The only time his income would count is if he earned nothing (!). In the assessment, they assume your partner contributes to household costs when assessing what you can afford to pay. If he earns zilch or next to zilch your payment is reduced (if you have children together), but it can't be increased even if he's a millionaire. And if you have no income,you don't pay child support.

I actually know someone whose ex dh is married to a millionaire - 'she' won the Lottery, according to him. His ex (who looks after their son) suspects it was actually his ticket. But because the assets are held in the new wife's name, she can't claim to have his child support increased.

aloha, great post (3.06pm). most of those ideas have been swirling round my head since hearing the report this morning...

I have written about this subject before, and interviewed lawyers who are very pro, but IMO it would make living together incredibly risky for men and women. I think a lot of us ended up living with partners for a while for sheer convenience, without ever wanting them to be able to claim a share of our money or our home. I lived with a boyfriend for five years, but refused to pay part of the mortgage because I knew I had no rights to the flat. Looking back, I should have bought my own place - property prices more than doubled while I was living with him - but that was my fault. I think it would have been unfair if I'd been able to claim a share of his flat when I left him!

I have written about this subject before, and interviewed lawyers who are very pro, but IMO it would make living together incredibly risky for men and women. I think a lot of us ended up living with partners for a while for sheer convenience, without ever wanting them to be able to claim a share of our money or our home. I lived with a boyfriend for five years, but refused to pay part of the mortgage because I knew I had no rights to the flat. Looking back, I should have bought my own place - property prices more than doubled while I was living with him - but that was my fault. I think it would have been unfair if I'd been able to claim a share of his flat when I left him!

If you mutually want the responsibilities and legal duties of marriage then why not get married? without being critical, it does seem odd to me to want to be married, but not married. Marriage is the legal, mutually agreed contract you are seeking methinks! It's very cheap to marry and takes five minutes in a register office. You can keep your names, use any title you like! I just don't see the point of the state going to all the expense and take up time instituting an alternative to marriage that is exactly the same as marriage.
Re the marital rights on having children, well I do see the justice of it in so many cases, but how would you frame that legally? Do you think it is fair that a man should give up half his home if a woman has a child with him against his will during a one night stand? Suppose he is already married to another woman? I think the vital difference with marriage is that both parties have to agree to it and therefore know what they are getting into with regards to legal duties.

Why doesn't your partner want to get married Sobernow? Sorry if you've already said somewhere before but I must have missed it.

I think you kind of hope that once you are into the family thing, your partner will see the light and want to whisk you up the aisle. What can you do if they don't want to marry you? Leave them? I don't think I'm in a position to leave but if we were married, I'm bloody sure I'd have considered divorce by now and it would be a lot easier to leave.

If marriage is so quick and easy why can't they just extend the marriage laws to include gay couples? Why is separate legislation needed?

agree with aloha- . My Mum works at the CAB and there are no end of problems with people who think that "Common law" exists in law

Enid, I think this is mainly because of the religious/moral lobby, who would kick up a hell of a stink if the 'religious' marriage was extended to gay couples. I have no objection to legal marriage for gay couples, but the controversy from Church to the Tory party would delay the introduction of rights for a long time, I think. I suspect this is the way to offer marriage to gay couples without the controversy.

Sobernow, I really, really sympathise. I think you are in an unfair position I really do. I assume you have a PR arrangement for your dp and the house in joint names? If so, the only real extra benefit marriage would offer you is the potential for more financial support for you personally if you split with your dp and the potential for pension splitting. If you wanted the same name as your dp you could change your name to his without being married. That's perfectly legal and simple. The reason I said that I thought the truth about the legal position of cohabitees should be more widely known is that it might make a difference to how women choose to live. I have written articles about it for young women's magazines emphasising that if you live with your boyfriend and pay the mortgage, make sure you are married or that the house is in joint names. I have come across some terrible cases of injustice but I still don't see how you could frame a law that would be fair. At least with marriage both parties have to agree in advance, that's not the case with cohabitation.

My dh and I got legally married for about £50 (I think) and it took five minutes for the minimum ceremony at Chelsea registry office with two friends as witnesses. And even so, it was very emotional and emjoyable. We had a bigger do afterwards with a humanist ceremony and a houseparty because we wanted to. But the legal bit was easy peasy. A friend of mine ran away to Cornwall with her now-dh, when she was seven months pregnant. They went down on the train, stayed in a nice hotel, got married the next day with two witnesses pulled off the street. One of the witnesses turned out to be a lovely farmer's wife who bought my friend a bunch of daffs becuase she said she couldn't get married without a bouquet. My friend, her dh and their two dds have frequently revisited the farm and spent holidays there. She thinks it was the best way in the world to get married. I find it hard to think why anyone would agree to a legal contract which imposed the same duties as marriage, but wouldn't get married. I'm interested to know why that would be.

You said that so well Sobernow, that is just how i feel.

I have actually changed mine and the kids surnames to his by deedpoll. So I suppose there is even less reason for him to marry me. He has even bought me a wedding ring to complete the big lie.

I don't understand why if they haven't got a concrete reason for saying no and they don't care one way or the other, why they couldn't do it to make us happy. But I suppose thats probably a selfish attitude to have.

sobernow, I agree with you re the non earning thing. That's what I was clumsily trying to say earlier really. I do sympathise with you and Angiel, it does seem unfair to me. And although it didn't work out with me and soon-to-be-ex-dh, I am glad we were married since it has made a difference to me financially since we parted. Which is as it should be, since I earned more than him when we met and stopped work to be a SAHM. At the time I really thought it would work so we did get married for all the right reasons and we already had ds, which as you say is the bigger committment. However, having a child doesn't mean a person has to make any financial committment to his/her partner if s/he gives up work, (agree this should apply to both sexes) although the committment the SAHP makes in terms of sacrificing earning power etc is considerable.

message withdrawn

If a couple are living together as man and wife and have children, I think its overly complicated NOT to get married because of the issue of rights. Why wouldn't a man want to support the mother of his children in the case of something going wrong, like death or divorce, to put it bluntly, so that his children don't suffer?. If the couple also have no wills in each others favour then the woman really will have no rights.

If you aren't married and your dp dies without making a will in your favour, this can also be problematic.
If either of you are worth over £125,000 when you die, and this can include the property, the surviving partner would, I believe, only get £125,000 plus interest on half of the amount over that. You would not be allowed to touch the capital. Everything else would go to the children.
Anything in joint names, like a property, would go to the surviving partner. But your dp died and owned the property in sole name or had savings or pensions or insurance policies that would all go to the children, leaving you with nothing. If you don't have children, it would go to your dp's parents or siblings. And if you died then unless you've appointed them guardian in your will, they wouldn't automatically get custody, even though they are the father.
So you should be especially careful to make your wills if you aren't married.

Duh, no, if you are MARRIED but there's no will and no joint ownership of property the £125,OOO is the maximum inheritance. If you are not married you don't automatically get anything - though if you are a dependent you might have a claim through the court. If you are married you can inherit everything via a will without paying inheritance tax. If you aren't married but are left everything in a will, you will have to pay 40 per cent inheritance tax on anything over £255,000 - and that includes the house. Gah, I don't think we have a will. Time to make one, I think.