Getting married to get legal and financial protection.

[PerspicaciaTick]

If you are not married to your partner and feel you may be financially or legally vulnerable in the event of the relationship ending or your partner dying, please don't be put off getting married just because of the cost.
A statutory ceremony in England costs £46, plus £11 for a marriage certificate and £70 (£35 each) to give notice. £127 in total. Every registration district in England has to offer a ceremony at this cost by law.
It may not be in a great location, or on a weekend, but it is designed to ensure that marriage is accessible to everyone.

By not my

Happily married for 30 years!

If these sorts of threads get people to think about what legal position they want to be in, then good.

Everyone has their own attitude to risk, and their individual assessment of what the consequences of the risks (essentially consequent to death or long-term sickness or other incapacitation of either; or separation). It's way more important that this is done, rather than one particular set of outcomes.

And no, nobody is behind the times. Civil partnership becomes available to all couples today. And not all government websites have yet been updated to reflect that.

And it seems that’s becoming more female that are the ones getting screwed over my divorce

But it's not screwed over is it? Or at least not if it wouldn't be considered screwed over if the sex was reversed.

Yes as a the higher earner, marriage is risky. You need to make that decision. The other person takes risks too, especially if reducing earning power. The risk should not all be held by one person. Lots of though and consideration need to go into cohabiting, having kids and marriage. Rather than just thinking it's all ok, because you are in love.

The financial security of one csn tge financial ruin of the other. Its all well advocating getting married to be secure, but the other partner might not be prepared to risk their security whrn they are not at a stage of the relationship they feel 100% trusting of their partner or that their own feelings are strong enough forever.

I think there is too much pressure to be married for the sake of security when what we should really be advocating is everyone seeking their own financial independence at least to a level that they could be OK on their own.

I can accept that people have an aversion to marriage for many reasons. That's fair enough. What I don't get is the moving in together, having kids and then saving for "the perfect day" where 10s of 1000s is splurged. Just get married.

You can still be vulnerable if your partner dies and leaves all their assets to someone else in their will.
Marriage isn’t the best idea for everyone, the legal side of all relationships needs to be reconsidered.

It is helpful information but it needs context. What are the legal protections, obligations and responsibilities conferred by marriage ? I don’t disagree with the sentiment but it is a conclusion that marriage is always the best option. People need the actual information about what marriage is legally not just that it might be of benefit.

In a lot of circumstances the fact that assets and wealth are legally combined can provide security but that works both ways. Meaning it can be an expensive trap which is cheap to get into and expensive to get out of. In reality, the security is based on an assumption that there is wealth in the first place or that it will be accrued in the course of the marriage. For a lot of people that just isn’t the case and the advantages if there are any are minimal.

At the end of the day it is just as important to advise people that they need to aspire to financial security and independence. It is important to be objective about making lifelong commitments, like having children, to another person to ensure that they are reliable in all ways. And that if you can’t talk about money then you are not ready to have children.

@ Meditrina " Civil partnership becomes available to all couples today." - well I think that is good news - Thank you for telling me - I thought it was April - but good to know there is another option without the name of "marriage" for those who do not wish that ( I have a friend for whom marriage carries a connotation he does not like but has said a civil partnership would give him pretty much what he and his partner want)

I can't help but notice the huge change in opinion about the importance of marriage when it concerns a mother or father remarrying after being widowed or divorced. Most posts I have read resent a parent, particularly a father, remarrying, because there are fears about losing inheritance.
I have also read some posts which are from wives who have been the higher earner and owned their own house before marriage. They have been incandescent with rage about having to give away half of their hard earned assets.
I don't understand women who don't want financial independence. Relying on someone else for financial support is not healthy. Sharing is great, but apart from the pre school years, it is important for both partners to be bread winners.It should be an equal partnership.
Over one third of marriages end in divorce and both partners should be aware of this before committing to marriage.

@ Meditrina " Civil partnership becomes available to all couples today."
@BasiliskStare - well I think that is good news - Thank you for telling me - I thought it was April

and I thought it was just 'by the end of the year'. i.e. the legislation is about to get Royal assent but all the regulations to make it actually happen haven't been put in place but will have to be by the end of the year. Do you have a source Meditrina?

These people who post

“ I can never understand why any woman would be dependent on a man “

are either women In well paid jobs who can pay for excellent childcare or those who have relatives who provide it for free.

And no, I have never been dependent on a man since I was 17 but I can easily understand why others have, usually those with less privilege than me. It’s too easy to blame individual women for poor choices without seeing the structural inequality behind it.

You may consider it a double standard. However as the parent with a pension and an ex who refused to pay into his then tried to take half of mine, I don't think so. My ex contributes nothing as a parent practically or financially and unfortunately this is far from unusual. This is not a level playing field.

And partnerships / marriages will never be equal until men take on half the housework, wifework, caring and childcare. It’s unrealistic and unkind to chide women for not “ paying their way “ while still insisting that they do all of the above as well.

It’s not usually that woman are unwilling to earn their fair share, it’s that men are unwilling to work their fair share.

Its all well advocating getting married to be secure, but the other partner might not be prepared to risk their security whrn they are not at a stage of the relationship they feel 100% trusting of their partner or that their own feelings are strong enough forever.

But then you cant expect the other person to take all the risk. If you arent sure dint get married, but dont have kids expecting the other person to carry the risk by giving up work. Or living in a house that's no in joint names.

It's ok saying we need to encourage financial independence. I think we do and need to educate on the risks of not having it. However, many parents (mainly women) want to be at home and their choice is entirely valid. But they to know the risks of doing that. Married or not.

Thank you to everyone for your replies, I do feel it is important that people know about statutory ceremonies and the cost, when they are considering their options.
There is currently no date set when civil partnerships will become available to mixed sex couples.

It’s not usually that woman are unwilling to earn their fair share, it’s that men are unwilling to work their fair share.

I actually know lots of women who want to be at home. They dont want to work. They dont want to work part time and their husbands have to. Theres nothing wrong with that choice.

No one is hiding women for not warning anyway. We are saying that you shouldnt give up to independence with no security. Contribution to the household matters. But if you arent married, that household is never actually yours.

I remember an earlier thread which mentioned civil partnerships. I could be wrong, but I think it mentioned that they are legally identical to marriages, and are essentially obsolete now gay marriage has been legalized in the UK. So people hoping that civil partnerships will offer some kind of meaningful alternative to traditional marriage will be disappointed.

It’s not usually that woman are unwilling to earn their fair share, it’s that men are unwilling to work their fair share

I actually know lots of women who want to be at home. They dont want to work. They dont want to work part time and their husbands have to. Theres nothing wrong with that choice

Surely you are not suggesting that caring for children, elderly relatives, housework and wifework are not work?

Contribution to the household matters. But if you arent married, that household is never actually yours.

Are you talking about situations where the mortgage is in the man’s name only? Because if I live unmarried with my partner and it’s a joint mortgage in common (not joint tennants), surely that household is every bit as much mine as his?

Marriage isn’t for everyone, you have to weigh up if you feel it’s necessary in your situation or not.

I’m curious as to whether anyone can tell me if I’m leaving myself ‘vulnerable’ in my circumstances: we’re not married (we plan to at some point over the next couple of years but no rush as we have a couple of other things we want to achieve first), we’re in the process of buying a house where we’ll both be contributing the same deposit and both on the mortgage as joint tenants (I.e. If one dies, the others share automatically goes to the other partner). We both earn the same, his income is likely to rise significantly to around £70k while mine will top out around £45k. Both in professions where we’ll never be unable to get work.

If we have kids I will possibly drop my hours to around four days, if he is in a position where he’s able to (so not in training) he would do the same.

I would never give up work, I earn enough to support myself and a child/children if i need to, the house will be mine as much as his.

Is there actually any legal benefit to marrying, if we have wills for our assets that stipulate everything will be left to the other person?

People talk all the time on MN about women leaving themselves vulnerable if they don’t marry, but they forget not everyone is financially dependent on a man, unemployed/homemaker, living in a property they don’t own or have any stake in, and with no earning power of their own. They also seem to forget that in many relationships the woman out earns the man, SAHDs exist, and marriage might actually be detrimental to the female higher/sole earner (i would happily take that hit if it meant knowing my SAHD partner would be taken care of, but you know what I mean). It’s certainly not one size fits all and there’s plenty of info out there explaining that common law marriage isn’t a thing in the U.K. (thank god) so to an extent people do need to take responsibility for understanding their own financial and legal position with the decisions they make re how to set up their families.

But if I’m missing something and should be getting married ASAP before our first child (we’re TTC) I’d like to know.

So people hoping that civil partnerships will offer some kind of meaningful alternative to traditional marriage will be disappointed.

I see them as a secular alternative to marriage for people who have an issue with the history and feminist ramifications of marriage. I love the idea of a simple legal process to make my partner and I into a recognised union, something to give us legal status as a couple. The idea of marriage is steeped in a lot of problematic issues, the idea of the bride being ‘given away’, the whole wedding industry and pressure for a big white wedding, I know you can do a wedding how you like and it’s the marriage that matters but given a choice between marrying and a civil partnership the latter feels a lot more egalitarian to me.

I have that money. I also have a partner of 23 years who does not want to marry me.
Initially i didn't want to marry but he did. But we have a child, I'm a low earner so we'd be homeless if he dies.
No, I cannot afford to say "marry me or i leave", so I'm stuck with the sword of Damocles hanging over us for the future.
It's not always the cost of a wedding or ignorance.

Are you talking about situations where the mortgage is in the man’s name only? Because if I live unmarried with my partner and it’s a joint mortgage in common (not joint tennants), surely that household is every bit as much mine as his?

Yes that's obviously your home too.

You actually dont have to be married. Just protected and marriage is the easiest way to do it.

I am not married either. No intention of marry my dp either. But then I have mo intention of having more kids and giving up work. Neither does dp

I don’t know any stay at home dads who are not married. None of them do all the housework and childcare 7 days a week.

Everyone keeps telling their wives how fortunate they are. Which is interesting, because I’ve never heard anyone say that to a man whose partner is a SAHM. On the contrary, people tell these women how lucky they are too.

Apparently Women always get to be lucky.

People talk all the time on MN about women leaving themselves vulnerable if they don’t marry, but they forget not everyone is financially dependent on a man, unemployed/homemaker, living in a property they don’t own or have any stake in, and with no earning power of their own. They also seem to forget that in many relationships the woman out earns the man, SAHDs exist, and marriage might actually be detrimental to the female higher/sole earner (i would happily take that hit if it meant knowing my SAHD partner would be taken care of, but you know what I mean).

I would expect a woman earning more and expecting her partner to reduce his earning power to raise kids to protect him. At the moment it's usually women who are in that position of being the low earner due to childcare.

It's not about being better for women or men. Its about being better for the person who is giving up their financial independence.

In you situation, you joint own the property and will both be reducing hours, have other legal steps in place marriage isnt going to give you much more protections. I would consider looking at pensions. Yours vs his, death in service benefit etc.

My dp recieves half of my death in service benefit. The other half goes to my kids as does my house. We both have a pensions and mine is larger. But we haven't been together for a significant amount of time and his pension being smaller has nothing to do with raising our kids. We dont share children. So by not marrying I am better off.

Again, I love him and if we did have a child and he was to be the sahd or go part time. I would want him protected. Either through legal documents OR through marriage.

I don’t know any stay at home dads who are not married. None of them do all the housework and childcare 7 days a week.

I know quite a few and they all do the housework and are good parents and partners. But all married.

In my job shared parental leave is very popular. Lots of couples work in our offices and the dads do what the mother would.

Some sahd are shit. But them I an sure some sahm. I know one couple where she will admit she hated it and didn't do the housework etc. They swopped. She came back and he stayed at home and she says he is brilliant at it and loves it.

But this isn't about sahd vs sahm. Its about financial protection of the oen giving up work.