married not married , what's the difference?

[Anjo1]

hello , this is bugging me , DP and I have been together nearly 4 years , we have a 15week old DS , thing is , he's asked me to marry him , several times in the last year and I've said no .Becasue I don't see the point . if marriage is about committment , we agreed to have a child together , how committed to someone can you get ? I know it upsets him that I've said no but honestly , I can't be arsed with all the hassle and money involved in organising a wedding , is there something wrong with me ..?

Our wedding: 8 guests including us. Registry office. Lovely champagne fuelled lunch afterwards. Off on honeymoon for a week the same night. Honeymoon and rings were the only bits that really cost. Quick and simple to arrange.

oh aitch ...retro coool i like that

This site www.advicenow.org.uk/go/livingtogether/index has information on the legal and financial differences between being married and cohabiting. It also tells you what you can/should do if you prefer not to get married but do want some financial security in case of separation or death.

It seems to me that, if you're feeling cynical about it, just looking at the financial and legal issues, then it's worth getting married in case you split up - as you're better off legally as an ex-spouse than an ex-partner.

you don't need to float about like a meringue or do any of the traditional things like bouquets, receptions, if it is meaningless to you but if you feel committed to your dp, I don't see how a registry office ceremony would harm and it seems important to him to receive some sort of sign of committment from you. Obviously you shouldn't do it against your will, goes without saying

A friend of mine just had a pastor marry her and her partner in the botanical gardens with two friends as witnesses and that was it. Go out for a nice meal afterwards maybe

There is a new act, the Civil Partnerships Act, which I think gives rights to partners who are not married. It's often referred to in the context of same sex couples, but I think applies to heterosexual couples just the same.

Do you have wills Anjo1? If you don't and you aren't married, things could be v. complicated if something happens to one of you.

Heterosexual couples can't have a Civil partnership, they're supposed to get married instead. Legally the two things are almost identical.

you get nice new cutlery

money

and a MIL!

sorry..

thanks fennel, I checked, and you're totally right, CP Act is for same sex couples. Learn something new every day...!

ooh cutlery , like that ,and money too!!
jokes aside though ,thanks everyone , this has certainly made me think . I think I will stop faffing about.
re. Wills , yes he has one ( I have nothing to leave him , LOL )
Pruuni - thanks for that wee list , so simple but very effective in terms of helping me find a way of accepting marriage.
AITCH - retro-cool , Loving that idea!! ,that's helping me think ,yeah , it could be fun as well.
I suppose if I am confident in my self then I should'nt feel threatened by becoming a wife .
I have been considering accepting the proposal recently , you have have all been fantastic help !!( watch this space )

..... now all I have to do is get him to ask me again ....

I see marriage as an important legal contract giving rights to both parties.

Like someone else said, marriage can be as much or as little as you want it to be.

I didn't always think this way, if I hadn't had to get married for immigration purposes I wouldn't have. Even then we just did it infront of a judge on his lunch break with two witnesses. But I know a lot more about the legal rights it confers now and so I would have even if I hadn't back then! I remember when I had ds being shocked that if we hadn't been married DH didn't even have the right to register his own son's birth.

No nothing wrong with you at all - you sound quite together.

A child is a far greater committment than a marriage.
I think getting married is sometimes seen as a natural course of things - a reason to all get together, to get presents, get drunk and eat well - really a child is greater cause for celebration - why can't there be a committment and naming ceremony combined rather than a traditional wedding if Dp feels the need to have a ceremony

I am probaly not the greatest to respond here as I beleive mine (marriage) has run it's course but he is a wonderful father and I am a good mother - I beleive that we will always be those things and a marriage has not changed that and I can't see that the demise of it will either

Anjo, even if you have 'nothing to leave him', it's worth a simple will. If you die without one it can be quite complicated getting things sorted out. And you do have something together, a child!

RISS no no no !! you are confusing me all over again , (look at my last post)
seriously though , I think all the arguments presented are valid , It might run it's course before 'death do us part ' and yet it might not . Even if it does, better to be protected- legally- whilst we are together .Besides from a legal perspective I suppose if it does end I'll be better off if we are married than if we're not.

I'm not convinced that marriage is just what you choose it to be. If we did do it it would be purely for reasons of financial security in case one of us died. But I've read several threads on mumsnet lately where relatives have been very upset that their sibling, say, has got married quickly with little fuss for seemingly pragmatic reasons. And most of the posts agree that it's an unreasonably mean thing to do.

So if you decide to get married that way, it seems that people find it very offensive and upsetting.

fennel - that's what I meant by hassle in my initial post . It's all fine and well saying it's just the two of you ,but the reality is family and friends always ,always have something to say about it ,and you'd end up feeling rotten about it.
I've already seen it happen with his brother

me and dh had a very small, quiet, registry office wedding. it wasnt at all expensive, we only had family and a very close family friend there. We didnt have a party or anything afterwards, instead we had a nice meal (15 of us all together i think) which again, was only family and close family friends. it was lovely and i wouldnt have changed a thing.

its our 1st anniversary on the 19th

i'd say its well worth it...even if its just to say "yeah...how retro-cool am i?"

It's not always the best idea to get married - started a thread here about it here It just depends on your individual circumstances.

I would marry if, financially, it became a bad idea to remain unmarried. Not romantic at all and woudl prefer the nipping off at lunchtime approach but, as fennel says, that also causes problems. My eldest woudl be horrified at missing out on being a bridesmaid!

As a divorce lawyer, I knew that I would want to be married if we had kids, so that I had max. legal protection(dh earns about 8 times as much as me).
V. pragmatic and unromantic, but I've seen what happens when unmarried couples split when they have kids and the woman's almost always worse off than if they were married.

Anyway, I found out I was preg on the Tues and we got married on the Sat (special licence). Invited our 4 closest friends, told family after the event, had lovely champagne lunch then flew off to Paris.

That was 16 years ago and I wouldn't have changed anything. If your parents have anything about them, they'll just be glad you're happy and not care about the big wedding malarky.

Ah Tinker, that just means it's not better for you to get married. If your DP appeared asking the question I'd have to tell him he should!

Oh I know Cascara