Why do people get married

[blondegirl1979]

I'm fairly new to this site, but I have a genuine question for anyone who was interested enough to read my post, and that is: Why do people get married ?

Almost every post on here results in the op being told/suggested to leave the husband, women (in general) seem to all suspect their husband of something whether founded or unfounded.

So that is my question, I understand marrying for religious beliefs, which doesnt get mentioned to much on here actaully.

I myself (and this is only my opinion) do not see the need for marrage, I spent 10 years with someone and we didnt get married, we had a joint mortgage, which I think shows as much comitment to the relationship as marrage would have.

I'm not looking to start an arguement here, am just after opinions, and wonder if maybe this will help some people to remember why it is they got married in the first place.

Anyway, thanks for your time !

HQOW, your post did remind me of that viewpoint, but it's something I hear an awful lot. My comment wasn't specifically aimed at you.

mozette, I've been married before, he never has. He's unsure about marriage because he's worried it would change our relationship and it's utterly glorious as it is. I feel no need whatsoever to be married to him, but if he changed his mind and decided he wanted to sometime in the future, I would say yes.

Can anyone please enlighten me as to the legal aspects of raising a child with someone you're not married to?

I never intended to marry my long-term partner, but now we're expecting and I'm a bit concerned about the rights of our child.

I got married because after being together a year or so, DH & I both really wanted to be married to each other. Marriage had never been important to me before, actually I would have said it definitely wasn't important to me and that I was happy to live with someone. But then I met my Mr Perfect and that all changed.

We are not religious and we didn't do it for any moral or legal reasons either. I suppose it is the ultimate commitment you can make to show somebody you love them and always will, and that was what I wanted to do.

BTW, I agree that there are more negative 'relationship' posts on here than positive, but as others have said, what's to post about if you're in a happy relationship? I have sometimes posted 'happy' posts myself, but TBH, I feel a bit smug and insensitive posting in 'relationships' to gush about my lovely H when almost everyone else is trying to get help with serious relationship problems.

it's true youngblowfish - most people complain when things are not going well. when things are going well, it's just normal nothing to report.

I ended up married because I met and fell in love with a foreign woman. I wanted her to be with me and the Immigration Service have this thing about people overstaying on their visas. So, a Register Office wedding it was (we are both Wiccan, but a Wiccan Handfasting has no legal recognition in English law. We did that bit later).

I had no particular fondness for the institution and it took a while to adjust to, but now after 15 years I like the fact that I'm a married man and wouldn't want it any other way.

Spatchcock, I just copied the text below from the DirectGov website

Who has parental responsibility?
A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth. However, the conditions for fathers gaining parental responsibility varies throughout the UK.
For births registered in England and Wales
In England and Wales, if the parents of a child are married to each other at the time of the birth, or if they have jointly adopted a child, then they both have parental responsibility. Parents do not lose parental responsibility if they divorce, and this applies to both the resident and the non-resident parent.
This is not automatically the case for unmarried parents. According to current law, a mother always has parental responsibility for her child. A father, however, has this responsibility only if he is married to the mother when the child is born or has acquired legal responsibility for his child through one of these three routes:
(from 1 December 2003) by jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother
by a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
by a parental responsibility order, made by a court
Living with the mother, even for a long time, does not give a father parental responsibility and if the parents are not married, parental responsibility does not always pass to the natural father if the mother dies.
All parents (including adoptive parents) have a legal duty to financially support their child, whether they have parental responsibility or not.
For births registered in Scotland
A father has parental responsibility if he is married to the mother when the child is conceived, or any time after that date. An unmarried father has parental responsibility if he is named on the child's birth certificate (from 4 May 2006). Alternatively, unmarried fathers can also be named following a re-registration of the birth.
For births registered in Northern Ireland
A father has parental responsibility if he is married to the mother at the time of the child's birth. If a father marries the mother after the child's birth, he has parental responsibility if he lives in Northern Ireland at the time of the marriage. An unmarried father has parental responsibility if he is named, or becomes named, on the child's birth certificate from 15 April 2002.
For births registered outside the UK
If a child is born overseas and then comes to live in the UK, the parental responsibility rules apply for the UK country in which they live.

Thanks, blowfish. I had seen that link and we will register the birth together. I'm just wondering if there's anything I hadn't thought of. Also worried about next of kin issue, inheritance ... I agree with whoever it was who said we should be entitled to civil partnerships.

the main motivation at the time was to get my OH a spouse visa so he could stay in this country.

Seem to be a few of us about who married for that reason, kepler

Hi again Blondegirl, read your other post which others here obviously haven't. It would seem you're doing a lot of thinking about what suits you lifestyle-wise, I applaud you.

I've been married and am now divorced and I would never marry again. To me marriage is outmoded and unnecessary. Children can be raised successfully outside marriage, whether that be as a result of divorce or otherwise (my situation is testament to this). Women absolutely needed marriage before they gained the opportunity to be financially independent, we don't now.

With nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce and so much unhappiness within marriage, I really don't know why people continue to bother. I think it's perfectly possible to be in a partnership without it but also cannot believe in the one partner for life mantra which seems to persist. I'm happy for all those who are happily married but personally I don't need to be married to be happy - whilst I love having a man in my life, I'm far too independent.

So do what suits you, whether or not you decide to have children.

I'm getting married tomorrow (bricking it right now!) mainly because we love each other, but also for the legally binding contract :o

I expect most people marry for love.

I think that love is not the point of marriage, though, as it is perfectly fine to love someone without it.
I also think religion is a red herring, too. Atheists marry- I believe Richard Dawkins has done it 3 times!

To be brutally honest, the point of marriage is to make it explicitly clear to the rest of the world (including government, law etc) that a couple wish to be viewed as a formal couple. Obviously nobody in their right mind does this without being in love and committed first!

It is a way of formalising the relationship. It is the only way a couple can gain rights in relation to each other (obviously they are free to make joint mortgage arrangments and and wills).

To be honest, I think people who don't marry because of lack of religious belief or not needing 'piece of paper' to love one another are completely missing the point of marriage and, if in a long-term, committed relationship, may be taking a chance should the relationship break down as cohabitation has no rights attached to it.

Nor should it- people must have freedom of choice as regards whether or not they commit to another adult and attaching a legal framework to cohabitation would take this freedom of choice away.

Some people want civil partnerships for heterosexual couples and I am in two minds about this:
I can see need for a legal contract that gives exactly same rights as marriage WITHOUT 'baggage' such as religion and all rest of it, but, at the same time, I think this contract already exists anyway in form of civil marriage so I tend to think, 'Why don't you just go to register office in lunch hour and sign the bl form if it is legal rights you are after?!

Anais: Hi again ! I was just pondering really, after reading so many posts on here, gets you thinking/wondering about things and other people points of view, so thanks for yours.

marantha, so whats the difference between a civil marriage and a civil partnership ?

blondegirl1979, I actually think that the existence of the nominal difference between civil marriage and civil partnership is symptomatic of institutionalised, residual homophobia.

BTW, ITA with your first post, marantha.

I do not know exact difference- I'm not a lawyer! But I think that apart from few minor differences, they are the same.

But I think when heterosexuals say that they want civil partnerships they want it for rights of marriage without the baggage so I think they actually want an arrangement that is actually there for them ALREADY i.e. civil marriage.

To be honest, I would be surprised if those wishing to have heterosexual civil partnerships know the exact difference between civil marriage and civil partnerships, either.

ok,Ive never heard of a civil marriage, thats all, so I just wondered, but this isnt my area of expertise so.... Ta though.

it's been deleted.

there are differences between marriage and civil partnership. civil partnership can take place "behind closed doors". marriage has to be "witnessed". i also think there are no "bans" published for civil partnership. the wording of civil partnership vows is completely open whilst the choice of wording for marriage is limited by legal restrictions. i hope someone will correct me if i'm wrong.

if you're gay, you have a civil partnership.
if you're a man and woman, you have a marriage.

there's no such thing in law as a civil marriage.

but that's what the problem is, isn't it?
heterosexual couples who don't want to get married still want the legal protection, but not the commitment (cos it is still acommitment!) and gay couples want the right to be married.

I think a 'civil marriage' is one that does not involve religion e.g. a person who is married in register office. I doubt people who marry in register offices think of themselves as being civilly married, though, I think they just think of themselves as being married. I know I did!

nickelbabe the government could solve this problem very easily by having civil partnerships for both heterosexual and homosexual people (which would provide exact same rights as marriage).

If the couple then wanted to make it more 'special' in the eyes of their religion or whatever, they could have a ceremony in their local church but the law would NOT be involved at all in this ceremony.

I think that one would be vetoes, because the civil partnership thing makes it seem like it's not enough.
I think civil partnership is akin to marriage, but they weren't allowed to call it that because it might upset some homophobes.

I think the way you describe it is how they do it in france - the legal part is done in a register office/town hall/whatever it's called over there and then a religious ceremony follows.

I think they should bite the bullet over here and call all legally binding nuptuals a marriage. (regardless of gender)

I don't think they should separate it from religion, tough, even thoug htat would seem to be a perfect solution - mainly because people in this country aren't religious as a whole and a lot of them wouldn't bother doing the church part if it weren't legally binding.

WRT the OPs original question, I married my DH because I loved him, I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him, I wanted to have a family with him. Like a few others here, for me, personally, I wanted to be married before having my children. DH was of the same opinion.

I come from a 'broken' home and actually, both my parents tried to persuade me to live with DH before we married, but DH and I were adamant that we wanted to marry. We had been a couple for about five years by the time we married and the first time we lived together was as husband and wife. Despite MILcertain people's prediction it would be a short lived, miserable marriage, we have stood the test of time and are nearing our 30th wedding anniversary.

We have helped each other through bereavements, MCs,illness and the pressures that children bring. We have survived a major sex drought (health related) and IL issues. We still struggle financially but the bottom line is that whilst not claiming to have a perfect marriage, it works well for us and somehow we manage to get through the tough times together.

And, somehow, we manage to put up with each other's annoying little foibles without threatening divorce every five minutes, which sadly has been the case with a number of our contempories.

If you think MN relationship section is any kind of representative sample of women and their relationships then it stands to reason that you can't really understand why people might want to legally formalise their partnership.