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?

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-civil-partnership-legal-differences/

I’m with you OP. We have all the paperwork, wills, life insurance Etc. I work in a well paid and stable job.
Marriage is a must I would say for SAHMs... but not for all of us!

[quote category12]www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-civil-partnership-legal-differences/[/quote]
Thank you. Embarrassingly I didn't even think to look this up.

This was hashed out the other day.

Because people don't necessarily know until an emergency happens and then it's too late.

For me the most important thing (legally) about marriage is that it denotes you and your spouse are legally family. If you don't have that then legally there is no difference between a new boyfriend of a week (who of course you wouldn't want inheriting, being able to make medical decisions, etc) and a long term partner of 30 years. Being married is the way to say to the authorities yes, this is a serious and long term relationship.

It's things like whether you're allowed to get information about a partner in hospital, or access things like bank accounts if one of you suddenly died.

And longer term into old age, if you've sacrificed career/earning potential for family, I understand marriage helps level that out as well. I don't know as much about this though.

You don't have to have a wedding, you can do a civil ceremony, keep your name, not even mention it to anyone if you don't want a fuss. Personally I did want the wedding, it was a nice excuse for a party and I liked celebrating with family and friends, but the documentation and legal change is the point of it. IMO.

I’m with you OP. We have all the paperwork, wills, life insurance Etc.

As stated up thread, wills, life assurance, pension expressions of wishes etc can all be changed unilaterally.

If you are OK with that that's fine.

Marriage can only be ended by divorce or death - this is an advantage or disadvantage depending on your circumstances and point of view.

You are seen in law as two separate individuals unrelated to each other and will be treated as such.

Cohabiting splits can be even more protracted and drawn out legally to settle.

You must have wills and properly drawn up ones too naming you as executor.

An unmarried partner, or same-sex partner who has not registered a civil partnership and who has not been named in a will as an executor will not usually be able to act as an administrator. I have also read previously that such a person cannot even choose a headstone!. An unmarried partner as well cannot claim Bereavement Support payment. This benefits are not means-tested, so they are available to anyone regardless of their income level and can be paid whether or not you are working. So quite apart from dealing with their own grief many people can face real financial hardship. His/Her parents could also come to the fore here and have their say over their deceased's childs estate; they in their own way could make life really difficult.

Many women in cohabiting relationships often give their children the man's surname, I wonder why they do this because I see that as yet more power and control handed over to him.

Items like money, wills, bank statements, house deeds are all pieces of paper; would you treat those with any disdain?. No.

People campaigned through the courts for years to have the right to have a civil partnership. I do not think they regarded that status as a piece of paper either.

People keep talking about it only applying to SAHMs, but it's also the case if you keep working but reduce hours or earning potential in other ways - and the majority of women still do this. I was the only woman I knew who went back full-time after maternity leave, and the only one now where I work more hours a week than DH. The difference may be particularly stark if you're a SAHM but it's also there if you gave up any of your earning potential to have children and your partner didn't, which applies to so, so many couples.

I out earned my ex and so am a woman who would have been better off outside marriage, but I am still very much the exception, my lawyer said she sees few of these cases, though they are growing.

The main issue for many women who are equal before children is that it can do a number on your earnings and savings. Maybe you're earning the same and equally ambitious, but then you get pregnant. You don't go for that promotion because you're due off on mat leave in 3 months. He does, and gets it, or if he's self-employed, he puts in more hours to help support his family. You are on maternity leave and run down your savings a bit, even if you share bills, because you feel guilty using 'his' money for haircuts or new clothes, or non-essential but pretty things for the nursery. You go back to work but only 4 days. Another promotion is up for grabs, but it will mean more hours and monthly travel so you leave it for now. Or maybe you go for it, but it goes to the person who has 'shown commitment' while you were away on leave. Then maybe there's a second pregnancy and it repeats again but this time it's hardly worth going back because of childcare fees so you drop more hours. Your eldest starts school and somehow you're always the one they call when a child is sick, and also your partners' career is now better earning than yours so it makes sense that you do the dropoffs and take the hits on unpaid leave. You minimise your pension contributions to maximise your lower take home salary. His is increasing, in line with his pay. You spend a lot of time and some money doing up the house in his name to make it nicer to live in or get better rent.

Then he's gone.

If it's a tragic accident, your career is now going to be a whole lot harder to resuscitate, and you'll be paying IHT on his house.

If (more likely) there's another woman on the scene, he heads off with his house, his savings, his pension. He should be liable for CMS but many women on here can tell you how badly that works for some, especially with self-employed people who can manipulate earning figures.

If you were married, you would likely have had a share of his house, of his pension, potentially even spousal maintenance if you'd given up work. None of us ever think this will happen to us, we imagine that our careers will continue flexibly and out partners won't tire of either is or of family.life and no-one will.get sick. But these things do happen, and marriage helps you prepare.

Off the top of my head I can think of three women made homeless with no recourse to funds due to death/relationship ending. One because her partner of 30 odd years had never divorced his wife, who took the house from under her.

Marriage being a piece of paper? My work contract is also a piece of paper...

That’s just in case.

it bothers me when posters make assumptions about the OP's financial situation just because she is a woman
I get you. But it's an assumption based on probability. It's still the case that it's more likely to be women who earn less and take a hit when children come along. The assumption isn't always correct, but it's based on sound maths! It sounds like you've already been informed of several things you hadn't previously considered, even as a woman in the less-typical position of being at a financial advantage currently. So: those things you hadn't thought of (and the fact there are a lot of "things" all of which are automatically covered by marriage), plus probability, are the reasons people go on about it. I think that's your question answered?

Posted too soon.

There are only specific circumstances in which I would work without a contract in place, but most of us wouldn’t as we want that extra written protection just in case things go wrong.

Same with marriage.

It really depends on the situation. EG: woman who has never worked, lives with a man in a home he rents or owns: vulnerable.
Woman who has never worked, in social housing in her sole name/she joint owns with the man: not nearly so much.

If you have taken care of wills, lasting power of attorney and life insurance then in your case, as someone with independent wealth, you will be fine.

I think some people are sharing genuine concerns and knowledge regarding an individual poster's situation, as you've said some women are in much more vulnerable positions than others and so marriage can provide some security that they otherwise wouldn't have.
I never thought about other aspects of marriage such as the ability to make medical decisions for your partner until I worked with a man who had always been against marriage until he had a stroke, immediately afterwards he married his long term partner as when he was ill she wasn't able to make any decisions for him in the hospital and instead relatives of his that he hadn't spoken to in years were being contacted.

However I do sometimes get the vibe from certain posts (not all) that the poster has a bit of an elitist view about marriage, or sees other relationships as lesser because someone isn't married, legal stuff aside. It's like they enjoy telling someone that their relationship isn't valid or worth anything because they're not married, in my mind I tend to imagine these to be people who aren't very happy in their own relationships and the one thing that makes them feel good about it is that they are married. Having a legally secure relationship is very different from having an emotionally secure one. The ideal is to have both but some will value one over the other (I know which I would rather).

@Jobsharenightmare

If you have taken care of wills, lasting power of attorney and life insurance then in your case, as someone with independent wealth, you will be fine.

Only up to a point. All those documents can easily be changed.

It's fine if there is death or serious illness. Less so if its's a break up

For me I wanted to be the next of kin if DH has a horrific accident. I didn’t want my future to be in the hands of my in laws.
I’ve always earned more but I took more parental leave, this will be reflected in bigger gaps in my pension contributions. I want these things to be taken into account if we did split up.
If I die I want DH to still have access to all our bank accounts etc...

I don’t particularly like the patriarchal history of marriage and you can legally nominate your next of kin etc, but I realised that marriage was a legal contract that covered all these things already and therefore a simpler legal process.

Most women don't have a 'spare' house incase anything goes wrong. A lot of women have given up work, taken a lower paid job to fit around children or dropped to part time hours. It is more crucial for them to be protected. Not being married, if one of you dies you have a very limited rights.

Its not that cut and dried. Even all that does not cover everything and how many people actually get all this paperwork put in place when they are happily living together?. Not all people have the foresight to do this by any means and many myths about common law still get banded about.

Even the former head of the Court of Protection would not have willingly sign a LPA document. That also comes into force in the unhappy event that you become unable to manage finances and is a legal document that allows someone to look after your financial affairs.

For some people, marriage doesn't make sense - particularly in cases where both partners are older and one or both has children from a previous relationship. If there is a financial disparity, it makes sense for the higher earner of the pair to protect their retirement income and children's inheritance by not marrying.

I'm not married to my partner, but I currently out-earn him x 5 and have about twice as much in assets and pension. Its a bit harsh to have to think in these terms, I do love him of course, but having seen what divorce has done to the financial prospects of my parents, his parents and others I want no part of it.

There is also a problem if one of you is a saver and the other a spender. If a saver marries a spender, they can look forward to losing half their savings in the event of a divorce, or being lumbered with half of the debts they didn't run up. If one person has taken a huge career hit to raise children, I'd say fair enough that they should walk away with a chunk of family assets in a divorce - they earned it. But that isn't always the case.

If we were married right now and decided to split, my DP would most likely get a significant chunk of my assets that I worked my arse off for. He was a higher earner for many years but neglected to save and made poor decisions, spunked most of it up the wall. Then COVID came along when our daughter was 18 months old and suddenly his job/industry was gone and earning potential was destroyed. If he was taking a career hit to raise our kid, I'd happily marry him to give him security. As it is, I'm carrying the family financially while he retrains and she remains in full time childcare which I also mostly pay for.

Posters are posting completely wrong advice OP.

If your partner is in a coma or loses capacity then it is a medical decision carried out by doctors. Not you! A doctor will not look to someone's partner for medical decisions ffs.

You can only make decisions for an incapacitated person if your have lasting power of attorney. You do not automatically get it if you are married.
Thats a complete different legal document.

To the person on this thread who said the hospital rang their dps aunt when their partner was in a coma needs to put in a massive complaint to that hospital as that's legally completely incorrect.

If a decision needed to be made about discharge etc it would be the social workers decision under best interest unless there is a lasting power of attorney in place not an auntie!! Ffs.

Please seek actual legal advice. This thread is completely wrong. Due to my profession I know all about this. But don't take my word for it. Speak to a solicitor.

www.gov.uk/lasting-power-attorney-duties/health-welfare