Would it bother you never getting married?

[Wineandmorewine]

Hi all,

DP and I have been together for 6 years, we have a DD2 and I am currently 5 months pregnant with our second, have also just bought our own house and due to move into that in November.

Last night we were discussing the upcoming wedding of our best and DP stated that he has decided he never wants to get married and is totally against it! This has come as a bolt out of the blue as it is something which we had always planned to do (have had many conversations about what type of wedding we would like etc) and also something that is very important to me. When I asked why the change of heart he said that he has seen so many go wrong eg. His parents and grandparents and he wouldn't want to put out DC through that.

Whilst I understand his point, I also said that regardless of whether or not we are married, a break up would effect our children either way and that if we are married we will be in a better place legally.
So I'm asking, what would you do? Do I give up on ever getting married and keep things as they are? Do I leave him in pursuit of marriage?? Which seems silly as it's him I want to marry! Do I try and convince him or is it best I leave it and hope he changes his mind?
Has anyone ever been in this situation?
Thanks for any advice

What we really need is to have civil partnerships extended to everyone who would like to sort out the legalities without all the historical baggage of marriage, and marriage for the people who believe it is a separate, important, statement of love and commitment and all that stuff. At the moment the two things are far too confused.

(I quite like the idea of a wedding, mind. I love a party. It's marriage that puts me off.)

Motherinferior - it isn't blackmail. It's a concession to families. And it's entirely up to you to avail yourself of that concession or not. It's perfectly fine to cohabit if that offends you less.

It's a concession in the sense that it acknowledges that husbands and wives (and their children if they have them) ordinarily share homes. Forcing people out of their homes to settle IHT bills hot on the heels of bereavement is cruel. It's a policy founded in kindness and absolutely nothing to do with blackmail.

I see marriage as a partnership you have 2 children and a house with this man they a much bigger bonds that a piece of paper, is it a wedding you want? or to express how much you love him in front of friends and family? Or just to be married?
Personally I felt slightly odd after getting married (I was 25) it made things feel every final almost trapped, but I was still aware that if I choose to leave I never had to him again. Since having dd I know that regardless of what dh does or what I do I'm a stuck with him forever because of our daughter regardless if we stay together or not! I have not changed my name and generally forget to but my ring on half the time!

Never bothered me - 10 years with DP and have 1 DS but not married BUT

1. Neither of us has ever promised to get married so no reneging on promises involved
2. Financially I am better off so I am better off not married (on splitting up)

inheritence tax is only concern really - so do need to sort out wills etc

"Motherinferior - it isn't blackmail. It's a concession to families"

Er- and what's my 35 year monogamous relationship and two children if it's not a family? Chopped liver?

Motherinferior - marriage can be whatever you want it to be. I dislike weddings, brides, grooms, rings and other symbols of ownership. But I like the fact that the state protects a spouse (and children) whose other half shuffles off his mortal coil or has a midlife crisis whereby Richard the 50 year old Barrister falls hook line and sinker for his 25 year old pupil, Amelia. Leaving Kate his partner for 26 years.

So if Richard and Kate aren't married, then their 25 years together doesn't matter -Richard can bugger off with Amelia with impunity?

I say this again and again on threads like this.

What would be a huge benefit to everyone, not just people who have decided not to get married, is an equivalent of the French pacte civile where you nominate someone as your next of kin, your inheritor etc. In France this is tied into a marriage, but can be entered into separately.

There are people who are not in 'romantic' relationships who could benefit enormously from a similar sort of legal arrangement. What about siblings that live together for years and want to easily transfer their property to each other on one of their deaths?

It's still an opt-in arrangement, which is far, far better than an assumption that a few years living together means you should have the same legal protection as marriage.

Personally I dislike the current tie between romantic relationships and legal responsibilities.

Come off it, Polonium, you can't separate marriage from its history. Sure, the fact that same-sex couples can do it too makes it a damn sight more palatable these days. But the fact that lots of gay couples didn't want civil partnerships and did want marriage demonstrates that marriage is different from just a legal contract. People whiffle on about lifelong commitment and love and all sorts of stuff. A tear comes into their eye.

Or wot Thurlow said.

Hakluyt - You could avail yourselves of that protection but you've chosen not to make the commitment of marriage for whatever reason. It's you who has decided your family is chopped liver.

Hakluyt - Er- and what's my 35 year monogamous relationship and two children if it's not a family? Chopped liver?

According to some people, yes. (I say this as someone in the same position). It seems to be quite a common perception that people are only unmarried because one partner - generally the man - is apparently just biding his time to piss of easily with a younger partner...

People whiffle on about lifelong commitment and love and all sorts of stuff.

But yes, I know what you mean. I struggle with the concept that while a significant part of marriage is tying a couple together legally and providing protection, with is laudable, another part of marriage is effectively registering a romantic, sexual relationship with the state. And that if you want to leave that relationship, you need to prove in one way or another that the romantic, sexual relationship has broken down. I appreciate I'm in a very significant minority here but that to me is a bit weird. Why on earth should a couple have to prove to anyone that their romantic relationship has broken down?

Jesus- polonium- do you really think my family is less of a family because we're not married? That a couple who marry after 6 months then have a baby the split up after 2 years are more of a "family" than we are?

It seems to be quite a common perception that people are only unmarried because one partner - generally the man - is apparently just biding his time to piss of easily with a younger partner...

Ain't that the truth.

I agree with Thurlow. Civil partnerships should be available to everyone. But I think that even married women can be at a disadvantage if they give up their careers or be a SAHM or go part-time. Somebody on a thread ages ago was saying their DH's £150K salary was both of theirs. And what did it matter who earned it. Well it would matter if they got divorced or he left. I am a cynic.

Incidentally, the IHT stuff would only be a concession to 'families' if it was dependent on the people concerned having kids.

Hakluyt - Yes re the Richard & Kate scenario. It happens all the time and guess who supports Kate when she's left unable to support herself? A: The State. And it will be the state that pays for Kate's children to go through university as Kate's household income is insufficient to make a conytibution. Richard's income is not included in the SFE assessment and the state has no means of forcing a contribution from him. Whereas divorce settlements from wealthy fathers consider what contribution he will make to his children's university education. And a legally binding consent order will commit him to it.

It's completely reasonable for the state to incentivise marriage. But it's wrong to call it blackmail.

Do you have married friends? Do you despise them?

Well, yes, Vivienne, anyone who becomes financially dependent on someone else puts themselves at risk.

Why is it right for the state to incentivise marriage?

Motherinferior - no. Families can mean lots of things. You could have an elderly relative living with you. A grown up son (there are lots of 30 yo who still live at home). An aunt. A blind dog.

IHT feels distinctly blackmail to me, living in a grotty bit of London where house prices are zooming up. If I don't marry him, if he pegs it I get thrown out, you're saying. Gun to the head or what?

"Do you have married friends? Do you despise them?"

Nope. And I think you might be the first person I've come across who has openly despised me!

I may yet find myself forced into it. But force is exactly what it feels like.