Anti-marriage feminist. Should I marry for money/tax reasons?

[Thund4rcat]

*Trigger warning for sensitive content"

I am 36 and have been in a committed relationship with DP for 3 years. We have a shared mortgage where I own 1/3 of our flat because he put more in. We are doing IVF as both desperate for a baby and suffer MFI. I earn a good wage, but he earns a lot more and has a lot of property. If I get pregnant I hope to be a SAHM as long as possible. I love him very much and plan to be with him forever.

I was brought up feminist and anti-marriage. I expect in this forum I don't need to explain the misogynistic history of marriage but the main sticking point for me, since being a victim of repeated rape in a previous relationship myself, is that marital rape only became illegal in England in the 1990s. Not ancient history. Too recent for me to be OK with joining a club that condoned that.

DP wants to get married for romantic reasons but isn't pushy about it and understands my reasons not to. I wish we could have a civil partnership but we are different sexes so it's not legal here and even if I did that abroad it wouldn't be recognised here.

However, should I put my feminist reservations aside and marry him because of the benefit of inheritance tax? Any other possible benefit? Am I cutting my nose off to spite my face? Should I marry him in secret and hide my shame of becoming a traitor to feminism???

As someone who has had both a marriage to a man and is currently in a civil partnership with a woman, I can tell you that civil marriage is no different to civil partnership. It really isn't.

Go down the register office with a couple of mates, spend ten minutes getting married and then go to the pub (which is what we did when I got married). NO fuss, minimal expense. The legal protection it offers you is worth it.

I agree with Vicky. You aren't being a traitor to feminism by entering into a civil contract.

You'd be no traitor to feminism if you did marry. We can hold ideals but still have to live in the world with all that comes with it.

I can't answer this question for you. But I don't personally hold one individual responsible for the history of an institution. I married my husband because of him, perhaps in spite of the institution.

There are benefits which you've identified. Many on here think that marrying is the best thing you can do to protect yourself financially, given the current power structures that we do live under.

I capitulate to patriarchy all the time. I shave my legs! Who cares? I still think I deserve to vote, get paid fairly etc etc and I will fight for equality.

There are advantages to being married if you are going to give up your career to raise children. I wouldn't give up my career if I wasn't married to my partner. You can easily be left with nothing.

There was a suit being brought about allowing straight couples to have civil partnerships. You could wait and see the outcome of that. Or if you do get married get divorced and convert to cp afterwards.

You can just pop to registry office in civvies (Mumsnetters are always keen to provide witnesses) Or have a look at some EU countries. I went to a civil wedding in Porto last year that was very legal and had none of the trappings of a wedding in UK.

It sounds like it's the legal/financial aspect you're concerned about in practical terms - is there anything you can do about that? A pre-nup, wills, trust funds for children, life insurance? Getting that agreed might settle your mind enough to focus on the other pros and cons of marriage.

I haven't done any of that myself, I'm just watching a close friend who's been financially controlled start on the path to divorce. It's horrifying. She is in no way protected from the evil git right now, with barely any money of her own and everything in his name because she didn't see what he was doing.

I think there are a lot of variables to consider.

I've been with my partner for about 15 years, we've not married, but we may do in future.

As far as I can tell, marriage becomes more useful as couples get older - when things like access if one of you is admitted to hospital, and inheritance start to become more likely. (I'm in Scotland, not sure how law for things differs in England, but I think the whole 'living will' issue is a little different). Other than tax, this kind of thing - power of attorney when it comes to medical decisions, etc, seemed to me to be the other advantage of marriage.

Sorry if this all sounds very clinical - I think we are often sold on the lovely (genuinely!) potential aspects of marriage, but don't necessarily tend to consider the implications of what is in reality a legal contract concerning tax and inheritance.

You can always write up contracts that aren't marriage, can't you? Wills and insurances can be adjusted etc. Probably worth speaking to a solicitor and finding out what kind of contract you could come up with, and then you could have a 'wedding' without the legal marriage, if you so desired?

Would be interested to hear other people's views & experiences on this.

I don't know, it seems a little bit hypocritical and like you are selling out to me, if you do decide to marry him. I suppose everyone has a price though, my price is £2,000,000.

OH and I are getting married for pragmatic reasons (inheritance tax, next of kin, pensions etc). It's costing £70 for the registration check and then £50 for the ceremony. I might get a bouquet. Job done. Not remotely romantic but very sensible!

I actually think that unmarried women are quite hard done by in this country, in that some unmarried women (not all) find themselves significantly financially disadvantaged if they separate and retain primary care for any children.

A certain kind of man is aware of this, maybe not straight away, but if he decides a few years in that family life is all too hard for him - his “damage” so to speak is limited to child support and co-named assets.

I believe that marriage actually protects the person who does the primary care for children (generally still women) by recognising (in very general terms) that the division of assets shouldn’t favour the one party who financially contributed and that unpaid contributions to family life are equally valid.

Basically, despite very anti feminist origins I think it’s a key protection for women today.

Now if we could only have no fault divorce!

Also, we married in a civil ceremony at the registry office as part of a rather expensive wedding. We are atheist and didn’t see the point ina church wedding nor paying £££ to hire a room to get married in. I dislike the stranglehold that the CoE has on what is ultimately a legal contract that only my husband and I chose to enter, and are responsible for.

I would advise any couple contemplating having children to get married, a civil wedding is, as Vicky above states, no different from a civil partnership, can be accomplished in minutes and provides a level of protection for everyone all for around £50. Bargain.

Thing is you're not making this decision in a perfect world, you're making it in a patriarchal world where you're screwed over in many ways if you aren't married.

'I believe that marriage actually protects the person who does the primary care for children (generally still women) by recognising (in very general terms) that the division of assets shouldn’t favour the one party who financially contributed and that unpaid contributions to family life are equally valid.'

That's a good point, fleuripeninsula. It does frame raising children as a joint endeavour with joint contributions.

Everyone has made excellent points. I hadn't thought enough about the risk to my finances if I give up my career for child raising, even just for a few years, and how I would not be protected around that issue if we are not married.

I knew you could do it all cheaply without fuss in a registry office, but it's not the wedding party (in general, obviously lots of the ceremonial traditions in weddings are patriarchal) that puts me off, it's the basic fact of joining a fundamentally sexist institution, which would not be the case with a civil partnership. The legal case about equal civil partnerships has been going on for years and the Government still isn't listening on that issue.

Will probably tell him I'm up for getting married soon.

Since the recent Supreme Court ruling, it's likely that civil partnerships will become legal for heterosexual relationships at some point. It's a question of how long you can wait, I guess.

I know marriage is referred to as institution but to me it isn’t. I see an institution as something where I would have to obey rules and would not be able to control. I see marriage as a type of union where you and your partner get to decide the rules. The only parts decided by anyone else are the legal and financial protections, because your union is legally recognised. It’s almost like creating a company- but it’s your relationship that is treated as a type of legal person. I hope that helps. The history of what has happened in many marriages is terrible but that doesn’t need to dictate how you decide to proceed today.

I knew you could do it all cheaply without fuss in a registry office, but it's not the wedding party (in general, obviously lots of the ceremonial traditions in weddings are patriarchal) that puts me off, it's the basic fact of joining a fundamentally sexist institution, which would not be the case with a civil partnership. The legal case about equal civil partnerships has been going on for years and the Government still isn't listening on that issue.

I hear you, OP. I felt exactly the same and still do but I ended up marrying my DP of over 20 years for a pragmatic reason (visa-related). He wanted to marry on romantic grounds. I didn't, for all the same reasons as you don't. I eventually agreed, as long as we did it in jeans with just two witnesses, no rings, flowers etc and no fuss. I'd still rather not have done it in fact, we'd been poised to have a solicitor draw up a document to replicate marriage rights as far as possible but it eased certain things, and it's not something I think of often, six years on. Life became very busy and complex immediately afterwards, and I don't think some people knew we'd got married for years.

Yeps I never got married. Regret it now for all reasons up there

I echo everyone elses responses.

Personally, whilst marriage may be a sexist institution, I don't really see how a civil partnership is any less so; the entire concept is rooted in basis of marriage, with an added dollop of homophobia because some people didn't want homosexual people to be allowed to marry. And whilst there is plenty of unpalatable sexist history to marriage, it is also the institution that financially protects women in your position.

You would be a fool to give up your financial independence and ability to earn without protecting yourself and safeguarding a share of your joint assets. For most people the easiest and cheapest way to do that is to get married. You could set up alternative legal provisions, if you think not having the term "marriage" attached to the contract of your relationship is worth it

It would be madness to compromise earning potential / downgrade career in any way let alone being a SAHM without being married. You could pay a very high price for your principles.

Plus if your individual estates £325k plus you will pay alot more IHT than you would if you were married.

Personally, whilst marriage may be a sexist institution, I don't really see how a civil partnership is any less so; the entire concept is rooted in basis of marriage, with an added dollop of homophobia because some people didn't want homosexual people to be allowed to marry.

Indeed - civil partnerships only exist in this country because Tony Blair was too in thrall to the religious fraternity who couldn't stomach the word "marriage" being allowed for us gays. It enraged me then and does now when straight folk demand the "right" to civil partnerships, which are exactly the same in legal terms as civil marriage but had the word marriage left out because of fucking homophobia!

We have refused to 'upgrade' our CP to marriage precisely because it pissed us off so much that we had to have the 'marriage but not called marriage but we'll let you have this' version - which some might say is cutting off your nose to spite your face, but I'm damned if I'm going back down the register office.

'Since the recent Supreme Court ruling, it's likely that civil partnerships will become legal for heterosexual relationships at some point'

That's what I'm hoping for too. I feel the same as you OP. I would much prefer a civil partnership. However, if that doesn't become a possibility in the next year or so, DP and I will get suck it up and get married. I want the legal protections involved. We don't have children and have no plans to have any, but I wouldn't consider having children without being married first. No moral judgement! It's just good sense from a legal point of view

There is no difference between marriage and civil partnership. The difference only existed in the first place because the religious homophobes had to be pandered to.

@VickyEadie I don't know if it makes any difference but I am not straight. Also the fact that same sex couples were not able to marry until recently is another big reason I was against marriage and would prefer a civil partnership.

I’m married. I am not a “traitor” to feminism

I don’t think of marriage as an “institution”. It’s a legal contract. Yes there is a history behind it but the laws have changed and in today’s world, marriage gives a lot of women rights and protection. It protects the person who owns/earns less and in today’s patriarchal society, that person is still a women more often than not.

You would be wise to marry if you want to be a SAHP. If you don’t want to marry, it’s important that you stay in paid work. Alternatively, i suppose you could get your partner to pay you some kind of salary for looking after your child, so you can protect your share of the house and continue making pension contributions.