Marriage - I need to understand why I feel like this so that I can explain it.

[feelingunsupported]

I want to get married. Dp doesn't.

I've read lots of threads that start like this but I'm stuck and upset because for some reason I have changed my mind about marriage and I'm not sure why.

I've always firmly believed that marriage wasn't important. That its how you feel about someone that is important but since I had ds 3 years ago I have wanted us to get married.

Dp says I'm unfair because we agreed that we felt the same way about marriage when we got together and I guess he is right -I'm trying to move the goal posts and that's not fair. But I can't help feeling like this and it's causing rows. It is the only thing we row about.

My reasons for wanting to get married are:
Commitment (even though we own our home and have ds together. I still just want the commitment and can't really explain why)
Surname - I stupidly agreed to ds having dps surname and I hate having to say 'I'm xx xx, yy yy's mum'
Financial - dp and I both have teachers pensions but, if anything happens to one of us I guess it just disappears - I don't think the other can claim it
Partner - I don't like using the word partner and like boyfriend / girlfriend even less - we're in our 30's and 40's

Dp's reasons for not getting married:
He doesn't want to.

I know there's no compromise. I've come to bed upset after seeing 2 wedding announcements on the dreaded facebook and fancied a rant and a little cry

Newrule But you can be committed and in love and all those other intangibles without marriage. And you can jointly own property and have children. The ONLY thing you can't do is share the spoils of marriage when things go Pete Tong.

Alpha but it isn't the same intangibles is it? The OP's posts are evidence of this. There is some extra value to her in being married and it isn't just the tangible financial side. Of course, we have tried to assign labels to these intangibles, the feeling or thing that we can't quite put a name to. The OP mentioned her feelings associated with not having the same surname as her children, of not having the wife status, etc. There is an extra value that many people attach to marriage. Maybe you don't and only see it as something about financial security but don't presume others do not attach significance and meaning to marriage beyond the tangible side.

Coyocan, your experience is interesting. If marriage is merely a paper, a mere formality even, how or why did it lead to changes in how you perceived each other and behaved towards each other (for good or bad).

Would that suggest that there is a certain je ne sais quoi about taking that additional step/commitment into marriage? That there is something extra that either solicits further reassurance and security or solicits feelings of discomfort because there is an additional 'burden' we would not otherwise have liked to sign up to.

I'm not married to my DS' father and we are not in a couple-relationship: however, he has made financial provision for DS if he (DS' father) dies suddenly.

Newrule - but you CAN have the same surname as your children without being married. And you CAN have the same surname as your partner and your children without being married. There is no significant meaning beyond the sharing finances and legal commitment. Especially if the relationship has already produced a child. You haven't come up with anything that you can have within a marriage that is unattainable for cohabitees. It's weak just to say 'It's things we can't quite put a name to.' (And PS I have experienced moving from cohabiting (pre children) to marriage and the marriage produced children, but I have no idea what you mean by things we can't quite put a name to.

SolidGold - But he can revoke that provision at any moment. Marriage makes provision for family secure in that it cannot be revoked on a whim, or because he's met someone new with perter breasts or has decided to go to Thailand and live with an anti capitalist green commune and needs the money that was saved up for your son for the anti capitalist downpayment, air ticket and fuel duty.

Alpha - IHT and state widow's pension have been mentioned and IHT may impact this couple in future years, even if it doesn't now. Next of kin is another matter that has been mentioned.

SGB is in a very different situation as she is not in a co-habitee relationship.

Alpha, I may not be articulating my point very well because you seem to miss it entirely. Nevertheless, if marriage has no significant meaning for you beyond financial matters then so be it. There is whole lot of people out there who attach more meaning to it. Perhaps they are not as wise as you to put aside all the other values they attach to it and they should simply boil it down to a cynical and clinical transaction. Each to his own and all that.

By the way, if it is solely a matter of financial and other tangible things, I dare say that there's a lot of men and women who have been silly in getting married because they are not the ones needing financial security, name changing, etc. That is one side of the duo is likely to be more in need of the financial security than the other.

Isn't life so much simpler if you get married to your long term partner, especially with children involved. It's just legal recognition of the relationship. I genuinely don't get the objection?

I hope your conversation went well op!

Newrule - Did you marry after children, or before you had them? I think it's easier to commit to marriage pre children. I don't mean to be rude about marriage. But I don't think love within marriage is on a higher plane than love within any other committed relationship.

Financially stronger/and weaker parties emerge mostly because of children. I would have thought most marriages happen before children. But in cases where they don't, I would hope the financially stronger partner would WANT to protect his/her family in the event things went wrong. Especially if the other party has taken a hit to her/his own career in order to bear and care for joint children: leaving the stronger party free to advance his/her career free from child rearing and the time-consuming tedium of domestic arrangements.

It probably feels a bigger commitment to marry someone who is already dependent on you, as you are formalising the arrangement and committing to it beyond the life of the relationship. I can see the difficulty, but one would hope someone who genuinely loved his family would want to do that.

Newrule - if you could articulate the importance you attach to married love over cohabiting love then I might be able to understand what you are trying to say. Sorry if that sounds thick.

I'm ideologically opposed to marriage but I like the protection it gives against spouses who decide financial sharing is not for them.

I think your partner is being TOTALLY unreasonable.

You are allowed to move goal posts when major life events such as children occur. He can of course keep to his view that he doesn't want to get married, but he is being a total shit by refusing to discuss his reasons with you. That is incredibly disrespectful. At the very least you deserve a full and frank discussion about the issue, so you can then make an informed decision about what you want to do next.

I would personally change your child's name to your own surname. You two aren't married, at his behest. You grew and gave birth to that child. If he wants your child to have his name then he gives you the choice of having it too. That's it. Before any MRA jump in, yes of course the child is half his. But you cannot get away from the biological fact that it's the woman who does all the fucking work in growing and actually producing said offspring, and that deserves recognition.

Suggesting you change it by depoll is frankly insulting, and makes me want to slap your partner for being so obtuse.

I'm not saying that you use your child as some sort of pawn to force your partner to marry you. I'm saying it's one very easy way to get rid of one of your major concerns - which is having a different name to your child.

I really do wish women would give more thought to last names - especially with regards to children when they aren't married. It's not to try and offend anyone, but I just cannot see any reason whatsoever why anyone would be prepared to do it.

I don't plan to change my name when we get married. Any children we have will have a double barrelled name, and that's the end of the discussion. It's the only possible compromise which is fair to both parents (when a woman doesn't change her name, which is of course her absolute and total choice).

Strangely enough, when you offer men the option of taking their PARTNER'S name, and calling any offspring with that name, so that everyone has the same family name, they have a tendency to get all offended.

The mind boggles.

kaykayred - Good post. I agree with you. Entirely.

Although not relevant to the OP, the wider debate about the legal "benefits" of marriage has an additional dimension if it is a second marriage - particularly if there are children involved.

My DDs stepmum has additional "rights" regarding my DD through marriage should she and her DH (my ex) split - rights that are not obtainable through cohabiting. This is often overlooked by couples - and can be catastrophic for a child with a positive relationship with their stepparent if the couple subsequently split, or worse, the parent dies suddenly.

The law regarding unmarried, cohabiting stepparents is very limited and applies equally to any adult with whom the child shares their home; be they a live-in nanny, family friend or close relative. No specific recognition is given to the relationship between the unmarried child's parent and stepparent - despite that stepparents income being considered when financial assessments are made in relation to the child.

Only if that stepparent marries the DCs parent does the law define them differently, and permit them additional "rights".

I know where you are coming from Op. after a disastrous divorce I didn't want to get married again.
However having met a lovely man over the years I hated saying partner etc. also we are creeping towards the age where one of us may need hospitalisation and I wanted either of us to be in a position to be able to make serious decisions.

Partner just didn't cut it so I suggested we got married and he agreed.( he did do it all properly with a beautiful proposal and engagement ring just in case it looks like all romance had flown out of the window lol)

So, we are getting married this year while we still have hair and teeth. We are in our 60s ffs so are doing it before we get too old.

We did say at the beginning , over six years ago that we weren't bothered about getting married but practicalities seem to outweigh reasons not too.

If our society has it that life is easier, more practical if you have that bit of paper then do it and as a clever intelligent man he should give you clear reasons why he doesn't want to. Stonewalling isn't good enough.

Is everyone missing the bit where the OP said he agreed to get married. And the op doesn't want him doing it just to keep her happy, she wants him to WANT to get married.

OP, he's agreed, if you want to be married, marry him.

Your feelings changed. You can't demand that his do as well, and you don't really want him pretending to you either, do you?

I'm in a similar situation the other way round. DP really really wants to get married. Me? Meh. I've never seen the point (we don't have children, won't have children blah blah). I am 100% committed to him anyway. We probably will get married as it'll make him happy, but it's for him, not me. I'll enjoy the wedding, I'll be happy to be his wife, but I don't 'need' it in the same way. I'd be just as happy staying as we are now. I can't force my feelings and thoughts towards marriage to change. What I can do, is get married because it isn't going to hurt me and will make him happy.

Yeah, I didn't think he really meant that "ok I'll do it" - it sounded remarkably like a "if I say this to shut you up, will you shut up about it now?" response, and I suspect that if the OP had then gone "Great! I'll book the register office, how does next month sound?" He would have said "Hold on a minute, I didn't really mean it!"

Wooly - A father on his deathbed would not be allowed to disinherit a dependent child. Not would he be allowed to disinherit a dependent spouse.

But by far and away the biggest risk for the financially weaker party and any children of the marriage is divorce. 42% of marriages end in divorce (source ONS). You need to understand how you would be treated differently by cohabiting versus marriage.

Yes, there is a possibility that the OP's bloke will agree to get married just to shut her up; he may well 'get engaged' to her, but then he will put all sorts of obstacles in the way of an actual wedding - cost, wanting some other 'thing' in place like a new job, or not to overshadow some other friend or family member's BIg Event, etc. Because he doesen't really want to marry the OP, by the sound of it.

Yes, there is a possibility that the OP's bloke will agree to get married just to shut her up; he may well 'get engaged' to her, but then he will put all sorts of obstacles in the way of an actual wedding

A marriage and a wedding are two different things; it is quite possible to have a legal marriage without a wedding, and equally possible to have a wedding without resulting in a legal marriage.