Why do posters stress the importance of marriage

[shesyourlobster]

I'd like to understand this more as I read it on posts here all the time and still don't get it. There will often be a post where the OP will happen to mention that they have a child but aren't married and then there will be tons of responses about how venerable they are. This is even if they don't mention anything about their financial situation. I have even seen posters assume that they are young and naive.

Financials aside, I do not believe that marriage means more emotional commitment. Divorce happens far too often for that to be the case.

So why do posters stress the importance of marriage in these cases?

The reason I am asking is because I have a child with my partner and we aren't married. So I really want to know if I am missing something! We have both said that we aren't really interested in marriage for the reason I said above. We both have our own houses (we live together in one and one of our houses is rented out). I have more equity in mine, and earn slightly more than he does. Child related costs are split equally. We have a joint life insurance policy.

So what am I missing? Do we really need that bit of paper?

Because women are still in a position in society where they give more of their time to raising a child when they could be working and improving their earning potential.

Since you already own your own house, you are in a better position. Many women own nothing and many have no qualifications so if they live with a man and he buys the house...he can just boot her out at any time unless they're married.

Can you really not work that out?

Just to add another perspective. I have a family member who had two children with her long term partner and also isn't married. The house that they live in is owned by him and was before they met.

So I completely get why she is vulnerable. I have no idea what she would do if they split. However, she never really had a career before meeting him anyway and couldn't wait to give up work to be a SAHM. So her earning potential isn't lower because of him and their children.

You are one of the lucky ones. You have your own house and your own income. Many women don’t.

Willfully ignorant much OP?

It depends on the situation. A SAHM that’s been out of work for 5 years, renting, and no pension should be married to protect herself. She has given up her career to raise the children, and shouldn’t be left destitute due to ending of a relationship.

A women that owns her own home, worked after pregnancy and has savings/decent pension should probably not marry anyone!

When people are talking about financial vulnerability, they are maki g no comment whatsoever ever about the level or nature of emotional commitment

As you say, they are unrelated.

But there are still far too many posts from women who have been left high and dry at the end of co-habitation. Plus all those who find early widowhood made that bit harder because the financials did nit work as expected.

I don't particularly advocate marriage.

But I post regularly on the need to understand the legal differences, and then make a properly informed choice

Well that's very subjective. Even with no ambition, she'd have worked and earned and gained some savings in all likelyhood.

You can't look at a random woman and say "Well, marriage is irrelevant"

I personally think it should be outlawed anyway...too much of the way it is now depends on men's decisions. Women waiting and waiting to be asked.

It's a load of bollocks. I think that there needs to be changes in the law so that if a couple move in and have children, they are instantly responsible for one another financially in the same way of marriage.

That would stop many people having babies without thinking.

I don't think my post was clear enough.

I completely understand that some women are vulnerable. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I am definitely not ignorant.

My point was that these comments seem to be made without knowing any of the background. So I wanted to know if I have missed something else that I should really know about, for my own position and security.

Then there are the women who do marry and their husbands have nothing, so...

Are you expecting to inherit your DPs house should he die before you? And vice versa? There will be inheritance tax liabilities you need to manage which would be solved by marriage.

Has he made a will in your favour? Given your comfortable financial position it would probably be worth your getting married for inheritance tax reasons alone - there is no other way to get that benefit.

"It's a load of bollocks. I think that there needs to be changes in the law so that if a couple move in and have children, they are instantly responsible for one another financially in the same way of marriage"

I completely disagree with this. People should be free to live together, and make legal commitments to each individual their only if they want to.

CP is available for those who do not want a marriage contract

It makes sense if one person the relationship becomes a SAHP

That often is the woman

Becoming a SAHP without being married makes you financially much more vulnerable should you split up ;he gets the house, has a job, whilst she has nothing

Ironically, being married in this kind of set up is important mostly if you split up

If you are together, and stay together, you could argue “it’s just a bit of paper”

If a partner leaves or dies, THAT’s when the bit of paper is important

Too many women put themselves unnecessarily into a financially vulnerable position

Maybe it's some internalized misogyny, presuming these women don't have secure finances behind them? Maybe the op themselves indicate they are financially insecure?

I don't often see people telling the op they need to get married without it being indicated in some way that the woman could be vulnerable.

I think that there needs to be changes in the law so that if a couple move in and have children, they are instantly responsible for one another financially in the same way of marriage

Civil partnerships are also an option/will be an option in the UK (most of the UK anyway, not sure about NI) too which means people can get the legal side dealt with without the other connotations of marriage.

@turkeyboots

Are you expecting to inherit your DPs house should he die before you? And vice versa? There will be inheritance tax liabilities you need to manage which would be solved by marriage.

I will look into this, thank you. The only thing that I would expect if he died is the life insurance payout and it would be the same for him if I died. However this May change as the years go by so I should look into it.

"My point was that these comments seem to be made without knowing any of the background"

You probably need to take that up on the thread/s in question

So I wanted to know if I have missed something else that I should really know about, for my own position and security

The two main things are a) IHT and b) that wills/pension beneficiaries can be changed, easily and rapidly

Legally, you have no relationship to the father of your child at all. You are not his legal next of kin, you do not share possessions, you have no standing at all.

purple I think the posters give their status willingly. I've seen many posts where unmarried women cannot afford to leave their abusive partner. Its rare that someone who is financially sound faces this dilemma!

@nimbuscloud

You are one of the lucky ones. You have your own house and your own income. Many women don’t.

A lot of the time though this isn't down to raising children. Women often come into a relationship with less - ie less assets, lower paid job etc. Why is it Up to the man to then make the relationship more financially equitable? Why moan about being financially less off when a relationship breaks down when you haven't worked for it in the first place?

Most women don't take a decade out of the workplace these days as the % of STAHM is pretty small compared to working mothers so their earnings potential and pensions are hardly effected by raising children so can't use this as an argument for the majority of women.

So I wanted to know if I have missed something else that I should really know about, for my own position and security.

You seem to have missed everything. You have no legal position or security at all.

I think vulnerability from a break up aside the other benefits come from of something happens to either of you.

I read an article once about a lady who’s partner had died and whenever she went abroad with her DCs she had to carry their dads death certificate to prove she wasn’t taking them out of the country without his permission. I assume that may have been because she had a different surname to DCs

As you pointed out OP, you know the particulars of your financial position, so you can work out what’s best for you.

In the vast majority of cases it is better for a woman to marry to get the legal protection in case of relationship breakdown.

People parrot the Must Get Married mantra based on a generalisation rather than looking at the specifics for an individual woman.

The most important thing is that women (and men) understand accurately their position wrt to each legal and financial issue.

Also a lot of inaccurate stuff gets posted. Like the ‘Next of Kin’ status.

There are many more women in your friends situation than in yours.

I know an older lady who sold her house to move in with her partner. Spent a lot of the proceeds renovating his house, when he unexpectedly died his daughter kicked her out and sold the house.