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?

@Cam2020

"It's not worth me working...all my wages would go on childcare because I only work in a shop"

But if they continue working, they could become a manager or have other employment opportunities etc.

What about low, or even medium income families who divorce? Marriage might well protect the wives of high earners, but for the majority, the man cannot afford to maintain two homes on his wages - the wife ends up on benefits or trying to find a job (or both).

I think the problem is a lot of people think in terms of the short term, (quite understandably when you're knackered with small children), and you can just about manage on a single income. It's still very much the case that men don't pull their weight equally with regard to childcare, other caring responsibilities and housework, so the woman finds herself doing the lions share of the unpaid labour on top of her paid work. While the man will often advocate she rely on him financially rather than he have to step up and take on his share of the unpaid labour.

While the long term outcome of this short term thinking leaves her up the shit creek.

I'd welcome an ongoing government campaign to educate people about what marriage is and how it works. It would be rich coming from the sexually incontinent father of who knows how many kids who currently presides over us, but it would still go some way towards solving this problem.

I would love a way to make sure men never lead a woman on and women never get shafted, but the law can't work on interfering in people's lives and motivations on that level. Joining your assets with another person (not to be confused with providing for your own kids) is a huge life changing commitment and you need to be sure that both leople involved know what they're doing and agreed to it. You can't try to sneak it in the back door by making them have to opt out if they choose to do something else such as share a home.

People keep saying it because no matter how many times it's been said so far, there are still women who get screwed over and are genuinely shocked to learn they'll be left holding the baby and fuck all else.

If an individual is personally financially fine then great. Good for them. I wish everyone was. But lots aren't and they're the ones that suffer in the end.

Everyone should make an informed choice. To do that, they need the information. Yet somehow it's often still a surprise and they "thought he would be fair".

Never put 100% of your trust in anyone. You only need to spend an hour on here reading the experiences of all the totally shafted women who never thought their partner would do x, y, z. How he was never the sort. How he transformed into a totally different person...

Romance and total trust? No chance. Contract for me please!

An assumed relationship based on the fact that you share an address does seem to be a huge conflation of separate things:

• where you live
• who you have a relationship with

It is very common for people in cities to share accommodation sometimes for long periods of time. Some may be in a relationship, some a FWB type situation, some purely platonic.

Does anyone really want a situation where one person is having to use bedsheets in court to 'prove' that a relationship exists when the other person is thinking they are just flatmates?

Never put 100% of your trust in anyone.

Yes, that just about sums it up for me. People and circumstances can change dramatically.

@Pikachubaby

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

I think this sums is up really well.

But lots aren't and they're the ones that suffer in the end.

And whose fault is that? Women don't have to give up work when they have children. They don't have to take extended maternity leave. The father of the children could. But the reality is that many women WANT to stay at home with their children. And the fact that they may choose to be the SAHP because the father of the children earns more, is due to the fact that women are still seen as more risky by employers because they are much more likely than men to take a year or so out when they have a child, or stop working altogether. Hence they can command lower salaries.

@Holyrivolli

Absolutely no way should de facto rights be rolled out in this country. Why should anyone have enduring rights to my assets based on who lives in my house unless I make a full consenting choice? Having a child means that you have responsibilities to them - not the other parent. Of course if people chose to enter into this agreement then it’s fully up to them but imposing it by default is not fair. Arguably there should be more education to young girls that having kids then giving up work to rely solely on your partner is a stupid thing to do which makes you vulnerable but tbh that also applies to married women too unless the husband is incredibly wealthy.

Totally agree. I'm hugely in favour of education about marriage but not de facto. I have been a high earner and the Australian system would mean that if a few years down the line I had a partner move in, then cheated on me a few years later, he'd have a claim on my assets. I like having the option to formalise it, I can protect my children and myself.

Yes, right now it penalises.women but that's why we need education. People do need to take some responsibility and if you are aware of the rights conferred by marriage and able to access contraception then I don't think you should be able to claim de facto if you 'don't need a piece of paper' but then it all goes to hell.

If there's abuse or additional needs that mean that the less-resourced partner wasn't able to make an informed and independent decision about marriage that's a separate issue that should be dealt with separately - but that is not the majority of women affected and does not need an entire law change that penalises those who wish to keep.estates separate.

We assume that everyone buying their own car should organise their own insurance, even though that has massive implications for others. Why should we paternalistically.assume that everyone living together over 18 months wants to enter into a binding contract that can have a huge impact on their finances?

It's funny how many people object to marriage on the grounds that it's religious and patriarchal and outdated, but want it to continue existing in its exact form...just with less clear ways of getting into it.

@BarryWhiteIsMyBrother

But lots aren't and they're the ones that suffer in the end.

And whose fault is that? Women don't have to give up work when they have children. They don't have to take extended maternity leave. The father of the children could. But the reality is that many women WANT to stay at home with their children. And the fact that they may choose to be the SAHP because the father of the children earns more, is due to the fact that women are still seen as more risky by employers because they are much more likely than men to take a year or so out when they have a child, or stop working altogether. Hence they can command lower salaries.

It is a joint decision made in what they feel to be the best interests of their family. One party should not be at risk of suffering further down the line because of a joint decision.

As a binding agreement, Marriage is entered into with the sloppiest of paperwork, though.

I can't think of any other contract that potentially gives someone such huge claims on your assets, or bestows such massive responsibilities that has such scant paperwork. The T&C are hardly detailed, you just say your vows and get the certificate.

@RainingBatsAndFrogs

As a binding agreement, Marriage is entered into with the sloppiest of paperwork, though.

I can't think of any other contract that potentially gives someone such huge claims on your assets, or bestows such massive responsibilities that has such scant paperwork. The T&C are hardly detailed, you just say your vows and get the certificate.

If this is true, doing it just by moving in with someone is even worse.

I imagine the scantness is at least in part because if the contract should be dissolved at a later stage and the assets distributed, the judge would need to take into account factors that can't be known on the wedding day, such as length of marriage, earning/child rearing division of labour, earning power of each partner and so on. You couldn't set this out at the very start.

At any rate, I can't see a more transparent and clear way of entering into it than actively signing a contract of some kind.

Yes Raining, but it's much less of a commitment than making another human being, a contract you can enter into by a quick shag.

Why do people keep acting as if there's no way of spreading news?? We literally live in the age of communication.

People can be educated about defacto and what it means. They're not stupid.

How on earth do people think Aussies manage??

And just to add...regarding ignorance, there are plenty of people upthread who said "If women won't take responsibility for themselves" then it's their fault and suggesting that there's no excuse for ignorance...well that works both ways.

I personally think that a lot of people feel attacked when marriage is questioned as an institution.

They take it personally...as an affront to all they hold dear. Which is ridiculous because if you're committed and protected by marriage, why would you care what others choose to do regarding defacto?

So in conclusion...don't like the idea of defacto? Don't do it.

Like the idea of marriage? Do that.

Prefer being single? Great! There you go.

@RainingBatsAndFrogs if you want anything outlined in detail you need a prenup. Which should be the default document that people could elect to opt out of.

@GnomeDePlume

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.

It made sense to get married because you both knew each other's real identities by then, Gnome.

I refused to marry my ex (thank fuck). Child has my surname, I earned more and the house was mine from before we met.

However, I know my situation isn't the norm.

Women should get married to stop themselves from getting shafted if the shit hits the fan.

@OverTheRubicon

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.

Too many employers seeing 2 years out of the workplace as a reason that someone will never reach their full potential. I know so many women written off because they took time out, or wanted to do 4 days a week for a brief period (even if those 4 days were massively more effective than many peoples' 5).

You're not necessarily safe either. Until last month I was in a job that I suspect was similar to yours. Blokes everywhere, mostly with stay at home wives and nannies and no idea how much harder I was working to show up and keep pace with multiple kids but I thought fine, this is my choice. I supported and mentored other women in my workplace but didn't join any diversity groups because that, sadly, does zero good for your career and I needed to be ruthlessly pragmatic with my time. Come the pandemic, 'D'H moved out, I was alone with multiple children and a nanny who was unable to cone due to shielding. Temporary nanny was sorted but homeschooling etc took its toll, and despite working/caring/schooling/cleaning for 18 hours a day I went from one of the top performers to stuck in the middle, for 6 months of my entire career. Covid redundancies happened and my job was cut with the other non-top performers - a very disproportionate number of whom were women with young children or other caring responsibilities. The boys' club are all fine. Thanks in part to raising this point during consultation, I have a generous settlement and am in a much better position than most people made redundant due to covid. But it still sucks, and it's so unfair, and being senior or a good performer doesn't save you either, you might get a shock one day.

@OverTheRubicon this is so true. I'm in a senior role in a male dominated industry. I've worked my arse off but still struggle to keep up and am knackered. The difference I strongly suspect is that when I heave my aching back out of my chair I still have all the shopping cooking cleaning house admin and single parenting to do. It takes its toll and frankly I don't think the men are doing it.

FWIW I really agree that the value of marriage reveals itself at its end.

Ex and I started together with very little, bought a place and built up assets. He had a great pension. Me not so much but I earned more and paid for holidays and stuff for the home. We shared and we were in it together after all weren't we? Except had we not been married, his pension, which at one time we'd viewed as being for a future life together, would have been his sole asset, regardless of how much I'd spent during the relationship. And he, just like any of your currently loving partners, would not have shared that pension without the law having forced him to do so.

@FortunesFave

Why do people keep acting as if there's no way of spreading news?? We literally live in the age of communication.

People can be educated about defacto and what it means. They're not stupid.

How on earth do people think Aussies manage??

Because marriage has been around for quite a long time and people still don't know what it is and get fucked over as a result. People can be educated about marriage too, and at least with marriage they can't fall into it by accident.

Your accusation of people just being offended by your idea doesn't sit with the numerous very well-argued posts opposing it (and certainly doesn't apply to how I feel about it). If anything, your posts are the overly emotive ones full of nonsense about men making decisions and women waiting to be chosen.

We're troubled by your idea because it effectively is the same thing as marriage, but by stealth and with far more complications. We do not want a system whereby agreeing to share a house with someone means we want them to be a co-owner of our money. We want to have a clear, active process before we enter into a life changing legal commitment and cohabit as long as we like before we choose to do that, if we choose it at all.

You are actually turning back the clock when you make it harder for people to live together without further commitment. The "living in sin" religious brigade would be delighted!

@FortunesFave

So in conclusion...don't like the idea of defacto? Don't do it.

Like the idea of marriage? Do that.

Prefer being single? Great! There you go.

The de facto liability that is in place is the requirement of father to pay child support (I know many slither out of paying, but that's a separate issue and happens whether previously married or not) Child Maintenance money. irrespective of marriage, surname or being on the birth certificate.

That is as it should be.

People know they can get married. It is depressing to see the number of women, especially, who are not clued up about their rights or security. But that is not a reason to impose liabilities and responsibilities on grown adults who make a conscious choice not to marry. Why should the obligations of an agreement they have chosen not to enter be imposed?

I worked hard to create security for myself - I wanted to be a woman who had her own property, my backstop. If I was unmarried and wanted to live with a man, maybe a man who had left another marriage and children, why should I make my assets vulnerable?

What if I was a single mother with my own house and income and wanted to live with a man in my house - why should a de facto arrangement give him a claim on my kids' home?

Women should get married to stop themselves from getting shafted if the shit hits the fan.

But it still doesn't always if the man does not have much money and can't afford to run two homes!

Women should make sure they are financially independent IMO, since they're the ones often left with the children.

@Cam2020

Women should get married to stop themselves from getting shafted if the shit hits the fan.

But it still doesn't always if the man does not have much money and can't afford to run two homes!

Women should make sure they are financially independent IMO, since they're the ones often left with the children.

I think we need to make a huge social and economic shift where both parents are expected to take parental leave and it's downright weird if the school always calls mum etc. And where they are expected to participate in caring responsibilities for their parents and share housework. Currently it's lopsided and women do so much by default, while the man just focuses on his paid work.

If I was unmarried and wanted to live with a man, maybe a man who had left another marriage and children, why should I make my assets vulnerable?

Exactly - so why should men make their assets vulnerable by marrying a woman? A couple with kids should share leave after birth equally. Men shouldn't have to go into marriage as if they entered a round of Russian roulette where they risk losing half, or even more, of their assets when the relationship breaks up.