why do people want to get married

[juswonderin]

Looks like most marriage are unhappy. What's the point of marriage? For kids? Why can't they be raised to be happy, healthy adults by single unmarried parents? Do you think when kids grow up (next 20-30 years), marriage will be as important in society as it is now?

I am just very fed up with my own problems and was wondering what's the point? I was a happy person once. Sorry for the rant.

Not all couples by any means be they married or cohabiting make wills or other such provisions for their families. Even if a cohabiting couple puts in all the legal protections possible how many actually do this?. Even doing that still not cover all areas because in law they are still seen as two separate individuals unrelated to each other and are treated as such. Due to this it still does not cover all eventualities. Its still very much a case of what is his is his and what is yours is yours.

I have seen both marriages and cohabiting partnerships end and without exception the cohabitees split has been more bitter, complicated and protracted.

There is still a lot of misunderstanding out there re this whole area and the myth of "common law wife" is still out there.

To answer the OP, I suppose marriage is a triumph of hope over experience!

I laugh heartily at the "get married or don't have kids" opinions on here - mumsnet really does harbour some of the world's last great romantics... I mean! Imagine walking down the aisle and shedding a tear at the sheer romance of a right to your future husband's future pension.

For all those who smugly believe they're fine because they're married, a wedding isn't a magic wand whereby a massive cunt is transformed into a kind and reasonable person! Come the hour, you're either fine because your husband/partner is a good person who will keep his head (and kind heart) in a crisis or you're in for a shitty time because your husband is however many degrees short of that. And vice versa.

In any case I'm smug because DP and I live in a civilised country where partners are treated with the same respect as spouses. So the should we, shouldn't we is sort of irrelevant (tho' we will because we're soppy like that).

Marriage is about brain washing. Capitalism. Childhood indoctrination. Those sorts of things.

Crevan getting married isn't difficult or expensive - it can be done in half an hour for less than £100. If you don't like the legal aspect of marriage then what do you think more 'rights' being given to cohabitees will mean? More rights will be conferred by law, therefore you will be subject to laws as a cohabitee.

Neckless wills and pension nominations can be changed by your partner without you knowing it - unlike a marriage. If your partner finds someone else, they can easily change their will and pension nomination to their new partner very easily and that's that.

There are lots of references to 'smug marrieds' on this thread, which is a bit unpleasant. I really do not care what other people do if it is their own choice but the majority of women that I know that are cohabiting are doing so as they fell into it rather than actively chose it. I know there are some women who are vehemently against marriage and see it as a patriarchal institution etc but I reckon they are quite rare. I don't see marriage like that now anyway, it may have started out that way but it clearly protects women more than men nowadays (unless the women are high earners) - which is why so many man will not actively seek to marry someone if they can get away with living with them.

For all those who smugly believe they're fine because they're married, a wedding isn't a magic wand whereby a massive cunt is transformed into a kind and reasonable person! Come the hour, you're either fine because your husband/partner is a good person who will keep his head (and kind heart) in a crisis or you're in for a shitty time because your husband is however many degrees short of that. And vice versa.

For all those who smugly believe they're fine because they're married, a wedding isn't a magic wand whereby a massive cunt is transformed into a kind and reasonable person! Come the hour, you're either fine because your husband/partner is a good person who will keep his head (and kind heart) in a crisis or you're in for a shitty time because your husband is however many degrees short of that. And vice versa.

Sort of depends what you mean by 'the hour'. If, for example, the hour involves you owning a home with more than the IHT nil rate band of equity in it between you and the other getting landed with the bill on bereavement, for example, you won't be fine no matter how much of a good person your late partner was. You'll just either have the money to pay it or not. In the UK of course, I don't know how it is elsewhere.

Oops that was an italics fail above...

I meant to also answer neckless question but seems to have gone missing. And cross posted anyway. But yes basically things like wills and pension nominations can be changed unilaterally by an unmarried cohabitant, with no way of the other partner knowing and minimal options to challenge. So it just depends whether you think that's an advantage or not. Some people would be pleased about it.

I really don't understand why there should be marriage -like rights conferred on cohabitees. At the moment, it's an opt-in system and you choose to marry to gain the rights. An automatic system, while it will certainly protect some vulnerable (mostly) women, would surely seem outrageous to those who have made to active choice not to marry?

I really don't understand why there should be marriage -like rights conferred on cohabitees. At the moment, it's an opt-in system and you choose to marry to gain the rights. An automatic system, while it will certainly protect some vulnerable (mostly) women, would surely seem outrageous to those who have made to active choice not to marry?

Where there's an element of mutual provision i.e. either of you could die/ fall sick I get it. What I find bizarre is the urge to get married only to protect yourself in the event of divorce - this sentiment presumes your partner is a turd, life will work out badly and you'll be the lower earner. There are better bulwarks against such outcomes (find a good person to partner up with, expect god to help you because you've helped yourself and be successful).

I know I'm being a bit goady for effect, but you get my point!

Eh? Surely it is just sensible to approach marriage from a logical and rational place rather than a romantic one?

You don't know whether or not your partner will turn out to be a turd in 1, 5 or 20 years. You don't even know whether you will!

Why there should be equal rights for cohabiting and married couples:

One in six men and women now fall into that group, and one in four children are born to cohabiting couples. According to current prediction, by 2021 one in three couples will be unmarried. The Oxford research shows that they differ little from married couples, except in their lack of rights when the relationship comes to an end. A key message, says Maclean, is that "it's not any longer sensible to divide people into married and cohabiting as if they were separate tribes... At the moment, if your parents separate and they were married, you're in a better position than if they weren't married. That's the iniquity that bothers me."

www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/11/law.gender

Yes I get that being married for 1 month shouldn't trump living together for 20 years, but I still think it's correct to have rights such as NOK, parental responsibility or inheritance rights, as well as financial provision in event of divorce or death, as opt-in rights that you have to sign up for. Maybe they should bring in civil partnerships for straight couples, to eliminate the need to be involved in a tradition which, I agree, has murky historical connotations.

Because if you break up and you're not married and you've given up (or reduced) work to look after kids, you're basically up shit creek.

When I was a teeny tiny girl all I ever wanted was to get married with a veil, and train and beautiful dress and used tovrehearse it with a tea towel on my bed; sometimes my grannie let me use the bit of net from the downstairs bog window .

I kissed some frogs, found a prince, had some miscarriages, eventually managed two DC. Nearly,26 years on love him more than the day I met him. Yep, that's why. Not always easy, requires compromise but well worth it.

Why are we refering to this as giving more rights to cohabitees when it also takes other rights away from them?

Is there a right to keep money to oneself?

I wouldn't want to be remarried though because I wouldn't want to give someone entitlement to assets etc that I have built up for myself and my children. There is plenty of protection if you want to opt into it, just pop down to the local registry office and get it sorted. It should be an opt in rather than a catch all thing. As for smug marrieds, I think only very foolish people don't appreciate that life, people and relationships change over time. None of us know what's ahead of us.

A marriage is a social and economic contract. It's a demonstration to each other and your general friends/family circle that you love and commit to each other. It's blooming well hard work too and not a decision to make lightly.

If you're not married, there's a right not to pass assets to your partner in your will and to not include them as a beneficiary of your pension, yes. This is some/all of the reason why some people choose not to get married: they have other people they want to leave their assets to. Often kids from previous relationships. People frame treating cohabitants the same as spouses as an extension of rights, but actually it is an erosion of them also. Depends on where you're sitting.

There's certainly an issue with some cohabitants being left high and dry when shit hits fans. But it's far from certain that the best way to tackle this is by denying some people their choice of living and financial arrangements, because other people are either ignorant or think their wish to not utilise the existing arrangements provided by the state trumps the right of others not to have them imposed. I support straight CP but that's not the answer either.

I got married nearly 26 years ago and had a pre nup. It was my money then. The problem is?

I would imagine that if cohabitees automatically gained rights, that would not mean more people being protected, but an awful lot of relationships ending just before the cut off, if it was even possible to have a cut off. How do you know when a relationship starts, or how many years you have been living together? It would leave people in second relationships who have assets from the first marriage and children extremely vulnerable to exploitation. It's all very well saying 'choose the right person and build up your own assets' but I did that. I have been paying a shedload of money into a pension since I was 21. That money is for me, or if I die, for my children or for my children's father to use to bring them up, as is my home. It is not for another man, no matter how wonderful he is.

The point of it would be to protect unmarried cohabitees and their DC from someone who refuses to get married so they can keep their money to themselves.

There is no saying what form cohabitees' rights could take. It wouldn't have to mirror marriage but the children and partners of financially abusive people do deserve some protection and it is in the public interest to offer them some. Why should the state pay to support an abandoned family which has been abandoned by someone financially abusive who could support them and should support them.

In fairness, the differences between cohabitation and marriage are more significant on death than anything else. Obviously the ability to access spousal maintenance makes some difference. But I think the lower hanging fruit there is getting absentee parents to pay maintenance, and that can still be an issue even if they were married to the other parent. The state could play hardball on child support, more like the US system, without there being an impact on cohabitant status and rights.

Well, I am confident that my dp isn't going to change his nominee pension or his will so I still don't want to get married, just never have. Really should do a power of attorney as well tho.

The right to same sex marriage has been a hard fight although Civil Partnerships had become available. So there must be reasons why everyone, quite rightly, wants to have the right to marry. It's not just men with women anymore.