Page 5 | Why do posters stress the importance of marriage

FortunesFave · 09/12/2020 10:59

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

You can set legal papers in place to protect your child's inheritance if you live together with someone.

Mostly it's for men and women who have kids and then the man (usually) is the one to decide to bugger off...or boot her out...well he can't...not without taking some financial responsibility.

FortunesFave · 09/12/2020 10:59

NutRoast no. Blended families can each take out legal papers to protect their own child's money.

anon444877 · 09/12/2020 11:00

I can understand the education and by stealth points, but the people that end up not being protected, facing benefits cuts for nothing in return and partners that won't marry them etc are often women on lower incomes.

I think it's a shame there's no symmetry between benefits being withdrawn and legal obligations.

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 11:03

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

Sorry, I'm guilty of not defining my terms. I mean any situation whereby you effectively become legally married just by living together, and not by making the conscious and active choice of going to a legal professional and signing the contract. Faffing around with bills and so on, which are often in one partner's name. Having to rely on indirect ways to prove when you started your relationship as opposed to just "on this day we went through the process of legally stating that we are in a relationship and joining our assets, and it'll continue until one of us dies or we go through the process to dissolve the contract".

It does worry me. The law has to be able to work with clear definitions.

TheKrakening3 · 09/12/2020 11:07

@Oly4

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!

It would take someone less than 5 minutes to remove you as their pension beneficiary. Removing you from the will- a single appointment. Would you be told? No.

Marriage is not necessarily the right decision in every circumstance. But unlike wills and pensions, it cannot be changed in a pen stroke. Any unmarried person splitting up with their partners would change their will and pension beneficiary ASAP.

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 11:12

This is the problem with mirror wills etc; you can change them unilaterally. They simply do not offer the same protection. Also, being honest...with a few exceptions aside, if you're prepared to go through every aspect of your life adding your partner, drawing up cohabitation agreements (which a heck of a lot of cohabiting couples don't have), mirror wills, shared mortgage etc and wanting their share in everything to be protected, it's hard to see why the marriage contract is so much more objectionable.

I'm not making this up: I have seen women on here saying they oppose marriage because they don't like the name. They think it has patriarchal connotations or whatever. It's such a risible reason that I can't help but think it was really because their partner wouldn't do it, but I'd get crucified for saying it. Also, I've seen people complain that marriage was indeed extremely patriarchal for a long time, which is true, but so were universities and the jury system...

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 11:15

@FortunesFave

NutRoast no. Blended families can each take out legal papers to protect their own child's money.

But they frequently don't want to. And they should be able to live together without marrying if that's what they want.

LillianGish · 09/12/2020 11:15

It's about being next of kin - and all the reasons gay people fought so hard to allowed to marry. Everyone is free not to do so and to remain an individual entity that's why those rights are not conferred automatically - you have to choose to enter into a contract. It's amazing how many people don't realise this and only find out when disaster strikes.

WelliesWithHeels · 09/12/2020 11:22

@PrincessNutNutRoast

This is the problem with mirror wills etc; you can change them unilaterally. They simply do not offer the same protection. Also, being honest...with a few exceptions aside, if you're prepared to go through every aspect of your life adding your partner, drawing up cohabitation agreements (which a heck of a lot of cohabiting couples don't have), mirror wills, shared mortgage etc and wanting their share in everything to be protected, it's hard to see why the marriage contract is so much more objectionable.

I'm not making this up: I have seen women on here saying they oppose marriage because they don't like the name. They think it has patriarchal connotations or whatever. It's such a risible reason that I can't help but think it was really because their partner wouldn't do it, but I'd get crucified for saying it. Also, I've seen people complain that marriage was indeed extremely patriarchal for a long time, which is true, but so were universities and the jury system...

Couldn't agree more. All the talk of wills and insurance policies . . . those "protections" can be swept away with the dash of a pen.

Bumble84 · 09/12/2020 11:25

I haven’t read the full thread. It’s not just about what happens if you split but what happens if one of you dies. If your partner dies and you live in his house then you could be kicked out of it if his next of kin want to sell it.

TheBlueStocking · 09/12/2020 11:26

I've seen a couple who were together for thirty years, the woman dies, the man has none of the usual rights and ended up losing his home.

They didn't have a chance to get married after she was diagnosed with cancer. That is one big consideration.

484848NC · 09/12/2020 11:39

@shesyourlobster
Aside from the "what happens if one of you takes a financial hit for the other (sick partner, sick child, one gets a gold-plated opportunity which means the other has to relocate blah blah) which PPs have covered...

We have no kids, equal assets & income. We got married after decades together because
a) IHT
b) OH's DB pension only paid out a widow(er)'s pension for sure, everything else was "discretionary"
And minor things like not having to worry about being an unmarried couple in countries where it's against the law, although as PPs said it's not often an issue - but when it IS it really is! Also a spouse as an extra person on the car rental can be free (or used to be certainly) in some locations.

An unexpected bonus that we'd not thought of was that you can transfer assets between spouses & civil partners without worrying about tax issues. I had a windfall recently and saved a good wodge of CGT that way.
So we've earned back the costs of the wedding (well under £200 all in, we just got a couple of friends to witness, bought them a meal and swore them to secrecy, never told anyone).

We were doing wills and LPAs at the same time so the wills both had "in contemplation of marriage" in them so that the marriage didn't invalidate them.

I didn't know about the Bereavement Allowance though I rather hope I will be a lot over pension age when DH goes or I will go first...

Among my friends and family I have a couple of women who aren't married - one older woman with a lovely but slightly scatty live in BF, she's keen to keep her finances separate and rightly so, though her will is set up so he can stay in the house after she dies until he goes too.
Another whose exDH was useless with finances and ran off with an OW so, to her outrage, she had to pay a bit to get rid of him, and now she has a new live in BF (no shared kids) who earns much less ... she is keen to protect her & the kids' assets.

Marriage doesn't fix everything anyway - we own the house as tenants in common so my DH could leave his half to someone else - I haven't taken out life insurance on him so in theory there's a risk there! :D

FortunesFave · 09/12/2020 11:45

NutRoast mean any situation whereby you effectively become legally married just by living together, and not by making the conscious and active choice of going to a legal professional and signing the contract.

With Defacto, you're already making a conscious active choice the moment you DO move in together. You just don't sign anything...you're aware of the risks...or benefits.

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 11:46

The very fact that marriage isn't always the best option in all cases is precisely why it needs to remain explicitly opt-in.

You cannot fully replicate the protections and tax breaks of marriage by any other means. And if you could and wanted to get them, why would you object to being married?

Chickenwing · 09/12/2020 11:47

Is marriage important for women withour children?

Mum4Fergus · 09/12/2020 11:47

The more I see/read about being married makes me think it's a very double edged sword. Yes, you have examples of increased legal protection and security...but on the other side, I've read about partners losing out significantly due to the 'marital assets' situation should marriage subsequently breakdown.

FortunesFave · 09/12/2020 11:48

Chicken not in my opinion no. Without children, most women are capable of earning their full potential. Mothering is more full on than Fathering...it just is.

Princess Well Dafacto is opt-in! Don't like the risks? Don't move in! Simple.

It would sort out the arseholes nice and quickly.

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 11:54

@FortunesFave

NutRoast mean any situation whereby you effectively become legally married just by living together, and not by making the conscious and active choice of going to a legal professional and signing the contract.

With Defacto, you're already making a conscious active choice the moment you DO move in together. You just don't sign anything...you're aware of the risks...or benefits.

There are already enough people who don't understand the nature of marriage, and that's something you actively sign up for. Moving in together is an even blurrier line. If you don't sign anything, how do you indicate that you are aware of the risks and benefits? You opted to move in together; that's a very different commitment to the long term investment of marriage. And what about second homes, double lives and all that?

The law needs clear definitions and to know that people were fully aware and willing in what they commit to. Tbh, if you're happy for marriage to occur on moving into a flat, why wouldn't you be happy for it to occur on an actual contract signature, to be sure everyone knew and accepted what was going on? And what about people who want to move in but not marry?

Long term joining of assets needs to be opt in. If one is happy for the commitment of marriage to occur at all between consenting people, it's hard to see what method is better than both parties actively signing a contract for it. In the meantime, damn we need better education on this because it's nearly 2021 and we still see women dangling themselves over a precipice because "it's just a piece of paper", "we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love", "he'd never do that to me" and even, I swear, "I don't like the name".

FortunesFave · 09/12/2020 11:56

if you're happy for marriage to occur on moving into a flat, why wouldn't you be happy for it to occur on an actual contract signature,

Because currently, due to sexism and "traditions" that are outdated, the choice lies mainly with men...they're expected to ask...they sometimes say they will and then don't!

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 11:57

Well Dafacto is opt-in! Don't like the risks? Don't move in! Simple.

But people need to be allowed to move in without marrying if that's what they want! And if you can't communicate what marriage is clearly, with an actual contract to sign, how do you expect people to become more aware just by moving in?

Why, if two people are entering a legal contract together, would you not want it to be sealed by signing in explicitly? What's the objection to that? What other system makes it clearer to both what they're committing to, and gives better proof that they were both willing?

GnomeDePlume · 09/12/2020 12:00

Mum4Fergus I agree that it is a double edged sword which is why I agree that there should be no 'by default' legal relationship.

Until you marry (or form a CP) you are not in a legal relationship. You are then in a legal relationship until that relationship is dissolved by death or divorce.

You can be in only one legal relationship at a time.

If you had a 'by default' system how many people would be caught out by a partner who is in more than one household? It happens often enough where the partner (often male) is keeping slippers warm by more than one fire.

PrincessNutNutRoast · 09/12/2020 12:00

@FortunesFave

if you're happy for marriage to occur on moving into a flat, why wouldn't you be happy for it to occur on an actual contract signature,

Because currently, due to sexism and "traditions" that are outdated, the choice lies mainly with men...they're expected to ask...they sometimes say they will and then don't!

Eh? Women have a choice too...not to stay with men who won't give them the commitment they want, and to propose. That's where education comes in, because so many people do not actually realise what marriage is.

I'm sorry, but this is starting to sound like you want de facto because you want men not to understand the commitment. And while you'll never hear me defend shitty male behaviour, you'll also never get me to agree that someone shouldn't have a clear legal process before they make a life changing legal commitment.

ivfbeenbusy · 09/12/2020 12:02

Without children, most women are capable of earning their full potential. Mothering is more full on than Fathering...it just is.

I find this quite insulting as a mother and one who has a career.

My earnings potential hasn't changed because of children. My priorities may have changed yes but that's not to say they wouldn't have anyway? Ie better work/life balance, less stress etc

Too many women use having children and a couple of years out of the workplace out of what 45 years spent at work as an excuse quite frankly not to realise their full potential and then it follows that they then blame the father and feel some kind of entitlement for financial restitution.

GnomeDePlume · 09/12/2020 12:04

Because currently, due to sexism and "traditions" that are outdated, the choice lies mainly with men...they're expected to ask...they sometimes say they will and then don't!

Only because some women have decided that asking is a male job. I asked Mr DePlume. He said yes and here we are nearly 30 years later.

WelliesWithHeels · 09/12/2020 12:11

@ivfbeenbusy

Without children, most women are capable of earning their full potential. Mothering is more full on than Fathering...it just is.

I find this quite insulting as a mother and one who has a career.

My earnings potential hasn't changed because of children. My priorities may have changed yes but that's not to say they wouldn't have anyway? Ie better work/life balance, less stress etc

Too many women use having children and a couple of years out of the workplace out of what 45 years spent at work as an excuse quite frankly not to realise their full potential and then it follows that they then blame the father and feel some kind of entitlement for financial restitution.

Very impressive! You are a statistical anomaly. Are you in a particularly evolved profession?