Marriage

[doireallyneedaname]

My partner & I have been together for 5 years. In the beginning I was open about my wishes to eventually marry & have children.

Through out the entirety of our relationship I have watched so many of both his own friends and mine get engaged and I used to get upset about it. Initially he had said it would happen but he was hardly going to talk to me about it. Then slowly it changed ti “I want to save enough money to do something great, you said in the beginning you’d always wanted a great gesture”, to “there’s a lack of trust from you and I want to fix that before we get married” to now “you know Im not fussed for marriage, it doesn’t mean anything.”

His parents never married and have lived very happily so he doesn’t get it. My parents did marry and I come from a family who see it as a big deal, as do I. It just means something to me and i guess it’s the fairytale I’d always dreamed of.

He says having a baby together should prove his commitment. It’s not really about that, although now I’m starting to wonder how committed he really is. I will always explain that if it’s not a huge deal to him but he’s not against it per se, but it’s a big deal to me, why wouldn’t he just do it for me?

My issue is that I don’t talk about it anymore but I also don’t expect a proposal anytime soon, if ever.

Anyone been in a similar situation?

You pushed him into having a baby. Now you are pushing him into marriage. I just don't get it. Why wouldn't you just cut your losses and find someone who really wants to be with you

If you’re not married you’re not automatically entitled to anything that is ‘his’ - savings, pension etc. If you own everything jointly and are self sufficient then good for you, but a lot of unmarried women are not in this position

I don't want to join the debate about the ins and outs of marriage. However I wanted to flag up the issue of buying a house. I gather that you do not yet own a house together but I would strongly advise you to take legal advice if you are going to buy a house, but not marry - to protect your assets.

My DD bought a house with her partner, they were not married and they have a LO. They have now split up and sorting out the house and providing a roof over LOs head is proving difficult as the rules for the division of assets are different because they are not married. I don't want to go into detail - but it is proving complicated and I am not sure I fully understand it all.
I am not suggesting your DP will leave but my DD said marriage wasn't important and they would be together forever, so I just wanted to advise caution.

There are so many stories on here of boyfriends stringing girlfriends along with the old chestnut 'we'll get married eventually or it's only a piece of paper or any number of crap excuses'.

It boils down to one thing - your boyfriend doesn't want to marry YOU. Your boyfriend doesn't want to marry you. Marrying him now if you can somehow bribe him into it will feel like a poor victory.

Marriage is important for practical reasons. If he dies you will be entitled to very little as you are not regarded as his next of kin. You will struggle to get any firm of pension too.

Why don't people read more then the OP and see that there has been updates, therefore commenting on the OP only is pointless.

@Costacoffeeplease maybe not 'half of what's his' but my fair share. I own half my house, we have paid towards it evenly. I don't need half of what's his as I have my own savings, pension and income. Just as he's not entitled to 'half of what's mine' if you look at it that way.
Some women are left out of pocket when marriage ends, although not the women commenting here who seem to think they need a man to provide for them.
I have two daughters and a son and encourage them all to be financially independent.

Good for you, not everyone is in the same position

I totally get that.
I'm just surprised I haven't seen one other comment encouraging financial independence and instead saying this woman should get married so she's entitled to half of what's his.

But not everyone can achieve financial independence easily, if you’re at home with 2 or 3 children and your career/earning potential takes a hit, then why should the person earning a decent salary get to keep the lot?

Marriage would protect a woman in that situation and still lots of women don’t seem to get it, so it’s worth spelling out whenever possible, to save women from thinking its just a bit of paper and we’re fine as we are, merrily having several children until shit meets fan and they find they’re financially stuffed!

Child maintenance is still up to 20% of the parents net salary though, is that correct? Is 20% unrealistic? What difference in childcare cost is there if you’re married? If father is on the birth certificate surely that changes things?

@Costacoffeeplease yes absolutely.
I suppose for women who just want to be sahm they should get married.
For those who want a career and their own income it's less of an issue.

It’s not necessarily want to stay at home but several children close together, or a child with additional needs or indeed developing your own disability. We can’t all plan our lives down to every detail, things happen, not always what we choose but the cards we’re dealt. Any of our lives can be turned upside down in a second and being married will make that much easier, if it should happen

Costacoffeeplease agree with you. I dont understand woman who become a SAHM when not married. Unless they have already considerable assets . I know not everyone can afford childcare however you make choices which many working folks do, limit the number of children or ensure if one person is giving up work you are at least bloody married to protect yourself incase of future splits.

@PutBabyInTheCorner

I find this thread really sad and I'm quite shocked by the number of people saying not to have children unless you're married. What about women who work full time, have good jobs and are financially independent? It feels very old fashioned to suggest that women need men to look after them and therefore should get married.

There are important legal differences which affect you even when you stay together, regardless of income. Read the threads on here and also CAB. In addition, all partnerships end, whether by death or a split, and again, critical legal differences here too. You cannot replicate the status and legal rights of a marriage no matter what other things you put in place, when you choose to shun marriage and live as legally single people. Just one example is that a man can change his will at any time and without you knowing. The vast majority of women don't have "good jobs" of the sort that would replicate the same standard of living provided by two working people.

You are also assuming that your financial circumstances will stay the same throughout the lifetime of the partnership when in practice for many people, life simply isn't like that and all sorts of things come up which affect their earnings or how much they need to spend, or caring responsibilities etc.

Marriage also protects children much better because providing for their needs is central to any divorce. With a boyfriend/girlfriend split, it's simply CMS (if paid at all) and unless you're independently wealthy, not just financially independent (i.e. a small fraction of women) your children will suffer a more drastic change in their living due to the loss of their dad's normal contribution and they are much more likely to have to leave their family home they were growing up in.

@doireallyneedaname

Child maintenance is still up to 20% of the parents net salary though, is that correct? Is 20% unrealistic? What difference in childcare cost is there if you’re married? If father is on the birth certificate surely that changes things?

That 20% is the absolute max (which even at that max level is a very insufficient contribution in almost all cases towards the true cost of raising children), and is proportionately deducted according to how much he has the children. Therefore sharing any custody (which will hopefully happen for the children's benefit) means you won't get that 20%. On top of that it's fairly easy for men to get out of paying the CMS they owe - that's precisely one of the main reasons we have the child poverty levels that we do in this country.

To add to the above, marriage takes into account providing for the children's needs (over and above CMS) as part of the division of marital assets (as well as a fair split between the ex spouses). That's why so many men make excuses to avoid marrying their girlfriends to prevent this exact scenario, and ensure they keep as much of the assets for themselves in the event of a split.

@LilyWater I understand what you're saying and that most women rely on their partners financially, I do understand that.
Would the same not work both ways? If a woman is more wealthy than her husband he'd be entitled to half what is hers?
I haven't looked into marriage and financial benefits because I have no interest in it and don't feel it's necessary, for me. I may very well be financially better off but I don't really understand how.
If you get divorced why would you still replicate the same standard of living provided by two working people?
My partner isn't well off and doesn't have assets so that isn't a consideration for me.