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?

category12 posted the link that always comes to mind on these threads. The legal differences are one of those things that seems not to get taught much, which may be part of why some stress it so much.

A marriage certificate is no more 'a bit of paper' than a will or a work contract or a naturalization certificate or numerous other documents some do live fine without and others get bit hard, often having not known the legal differences and potential risks of being without them.

Yes, sometimes people make assumptions as we only ever get part of the picture, but most often they're based on either personal experience or having seen enough threads on the issues this can cause.

It's true marriage doesn't prove emotional commitment -- it's about choosing to alter one's legal status and protecting a loved one even at the risk of potentially being to one's detriment in the future. I find that far more romantic than talk of eternal emotional commitment. Also, the last stats I saw pre-COVID, divorce rates in most demographics were at their lowest since the '70s. People like my father who marry over and over kinda throw off the numbers when looking at overall divorce rates, but for most people, it's not as dire and pointless as stats can suggest.

Run through a worst case scenario in your head. If he ran off with someone else overnight what could he take? Do you have joint savings, or unequal savings? One pension that is bigger than another?

Marriage offers some protection if one of you suddenly decides to become a dick. Make sure you have that protection in place in a different way.

Also by some posters logic, if you lose capacity then the hospital would allow medical decisions (which are done by a doctor) to be made by a second cousin twice removed or parents they have not spoken to in years, or a husband/wife theyve never divorced or spoken to in 30 years!

Can you imagine, a doctor ringing up great aunt Ethel or contacting your partners wife from 30 years ago to ask "do we switch off the life support machine?" Hahahahahaha.

Sorry to go on. But working at the hospital the amount of times you hear a wife or husband say "I'm their spouse, I want them on X ward and to receive y treatment" ...umm doesn't work like that. The DOCTORS decide what ward and treatment they get. As thats their job they are highly qualified for. And no.. you cannot just decide to switch on and off life support. If the doctors think they can survive we won't switch it off. If there is no hope, we will switch if off, not keep it on indefinitely because you want too.

I wish LPA was known about as common knowledge would save a lot of heartache.

Likewise if your husband suddenly needed 24/7 nursing care in a nursing home, unless you have LPA you can't just take them home. They will be placed wherever deemed suitable by the authorities. If you dont agree you will have to take said authorities to court to prove its not in your spouses best interest.

Fantstic post, @OverTheRubicon - one of the most perfect explanations I have seen of how so many women fall into a trap.

It is thanks to the amazing posters on mumsnet that I have held the line in my own life and refused to go down that route.

Like someone else has said, a will is also a piece of paper but you hold that in high regard (as you had one), why not marriage? Marriage grants legal rights, it's the way to legally say 'this is the person that I have chosen to combine my life with'. Common law marriage doesn't exist in Scotland (don't know about England) and I'm glad of that.

If you don't want a wedding, you can get married at the registry office for £300.

I also wanted to have the same surname as my DC. Obviously you can change your name without being married though.

In my mums day all women took a few years off to raise kids
Now a days Most professions won't tolerate a break and you take a step down or part time when returning from mat leave
Even 6 months off impacts pension and professional standing
So vulnerable even if not a SAHM

It's so interesting how often a marriage license is casually written off as "just a bit of paper" when it confers significant legal and financial rights and protections.
I wonder what would happen if someone was fed up by the time and money their DP spent on, say, their XBox or bike and decided to chuck it. Would the same "just a bit of plastic" or "just a bit of metal and rubber" logic apply?

@shesyourlobster

you know that women who've stayed home and not accrued any assets, often in live in relationships are one of the poorest groups of seniors? You say that non career types wouldn't have huge earning potential anyway and whilst I see your point, the longer you are out the labour market the harder it's going to be to earn any amount, there is still earnings loss even for non high earners.

Clearly whilst there are one or two concerns for you to mull over, you're not at risk of a poor old age, but a lot of women sleep walk into this, I don't understand why it ruffles your feathers when it may make someone think twice.

How many times have you seen women not factoring their pension into decisions around cutting their hours?

And the problem with civil partnerships is only that you still have to legally enter into them, they don't happen by default after n years living together or having dc together.

Anon that's why a defacto type law would be better.

Absolutely agree @FortunesFave.

All the people saying that I think it's 'just a bit of paper' or that I'm treating it with disdain must be deliberately missing my point. I posted because I wanted to know more about it which thanks to some of the PPs, I now do.

Financials aside, I do not believe that marriage means more emotional commitment.

It doesn't, necessarily. It is all about the financials. That's how it protects you. The very fact that you think marriage is about legalising love rather than finances is why you don't understand its importance. Like many people, you don't understand what it is. And that's why we need information and education.

People who say marriage doesn't contract love are quite right, but also spectacularly missing the point. It isn't to stop you falling out of love, it's to stop you getting utterly financially shafted if you do.

It isn't always a good idea, and some women aren't better off with it, but as a class, women are generally better protected by it.

@FortunesFave

Anon that's why a defacto type law would be better.

I don't agree with this. How many people live together for a while before deciding to marry? I imagine a sizeable number of those people discover they aren't compatible and end the relationship? The decision to marry should be an informed choice. The problems arise when people are not informed/educated about the legal consequences of being married or not married, especially after having children.

Hmm the interesting thing though is the benefits system takes moving in with someone as a signal that resources are shared. Just living with a person affects entitlement.

Certainly agree that the crossing the rubicon point is children.

I am really, really uncomfortable with this idea of marriage effectively by stealth. If you are going to legally join your assets together then both parties need to be aware, capable and willing. Do you want to be legally bound to the boyfriend you lived with for a year five years ago?

What's needed is proper education about what marriage is, what it actually is, and what it isn't. It isn't always a good idea for everyone, but if you're a woman who plans to have kids and take an earning hit as a result rather than your partner, it's usually going to be in your best interests. And while I don't like to get into fights about who loves whom the most, I do believe that a good man who loves you will want you to be protected in this way. I've been accused of being "smug" and "I'm alright Jack" on here for saying it, but aside from silly ad hominems, I've not yet seen any reason not to believe that. If a man is happy for you to lose your financial independence or at least take a hit on it while he takes none, while you raise his children, and doesn't want you to have your contribution recognised legally to protect you if he dies or the relationship ends...well, he may love you but it's not a love I care to have. I find it to be quite anti feminist not to insist on such protections before putting yourself in such a vulnerable position.

There will be exceptions of course, and if a woman has made her own informed decision then that's her business, but I'm talking about on a class level where it is true more often than it isn't.

@anon444877

Hmm the interesting thing though is the benefits system takes moving in with someone as a signal that resources are shared. Just living with a person affects entitlement.

Certainly agree that the crossing the rubicon point is children.

Indeed, yet if you're unmarried/not in a civil partnership, you have no legal obligation to support your partner. So if you're an asshole, you can keep your income while your partner can have nothing. If you're married/cp, you at least have the legal obligation to support your spouse.

I don’t agree with the defacto concept either. I had a friend who lived with a boyfriend in their 20s in Australia. She earned more. He was controlling. She had to give him a payout when they split up because they had co habbited for long enough to fall under a defacto law. The problem is it become an opt out rather than an opt in system and potentially catches out people not in a serious or equal relationship.

Even if it doesn't stop assholes being assholes.

We got married before the birth of our first child. Then we had another and I was just about on the verge of going back to university when my DD developed a chronic illness that meant one of us needed to be at home with her (I was often up all night with her and school were often on the phone asking me to go in and see to her). I couldn't work at all never mind build a career and at the time, it made sense that I was the one who did the brunt of the caring as I didn't actually have a job at the time.

In the meantime, my husband managed to carry on working, go back to college part time and start a new career and his earning potential went through the roof. If I hadn't been at home looking after OUR dd, he wouldn't have been able to do that. It also meant that when we split up, I would have been fucked financially if we hadn't been married. I had no pension, no savings and no job. I essentially sacrificed my career and earning potential because I had no other choice. Of course I'm glad and grateful that he was able to support us all through that time, but I had to give up everything so it's just as well we got married.

I'll wait for all the people to come on and say I was stupid to give up everything and it should have been a shared load between us but often life doesn't work that. Before my dd we were earning about the same and maybe if she hadn't got ill, I wouldn't have needed the protection of that piece of paper but no one knows what's just round the corner. And women are disproportionately at at a disadvantage when it comes to caring responsibilities. In an ideal world, it wouldn't happen like that, but too often it does.

Hmm the interesting thing though is the benefits system takes moving in with someone as a signal that resources are shared. Just living with a person affects entitlement.

This is often brought up and I do see why it would piss off unmarried couples. But benefits are about income stream into the household and how much state help is necessary for normal day to day living. Marriage is about a long-term arrangement between two people and making sure a lower earning partner who raised children or supported the breadwinner's career has a fair and corresponding share of the investments that they made together. They're really quite fundamentally different.

Lilly I can see that would be awful but probably rare too. There are more women getting the shitty end of the stick in the other way than in your friend's way.

I disagree with the de facto. If ever I end up single again I may wish to cohabit with financial independence but I will never re marry as I don’t want to put my child’s inheritance or lifestyle etc at risk.

Can you imagine entering another relationship with an existing child. It automatically transfers into a marriage (at which point? 2 weeks, 10 years? How would that be proved), we spilt and I have to hand over a portion of my assets?

Hell no.

It all sounds horrifically clinical but I and my child cannot eat love. This is about legal rights.

PrincessNut Defacto doesn't work like that! You're not legally bound to a boyfriend you lived with for a year five years ago!

It's current...and you have to prove the relationship was for more than 6 months in one property I believe.

And why not!? People here in Australia are fully aware of it. So they're not all shacking up with abandon because they know there are ramifications.

De facto would take away people's rights to cohabit without further commitment for as long as they bloody well like, which is what many couples want! I know a lot of blended families where the parents want to cohabit but absolutely do NOT want to marry because they won't be having kids together and want to protect their own children's inheritance. Also other couples who just, for whatever reason, absolutely do not want to marry even if they cohabit.