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???

Thund4rcat

Go and get one, then! Gay couples can still get civil partnerships.

@VickyEadie I can't though. I am a bisexual woman. My partner is a man.

@VickyEadie I was just responding to your thing about being enraged by straight people demanding access to civil partnerships. As in, maybe you might be less enraged since I am not straight.

Interesting to see how this works out then - doesn't make any sense so far in...

ah...just made a little more sense.

Thund4rcat

Ah - you're in a straight relationship, however. Still makes no sense to me. Get married - it's exactly the same.

The "institution" of marriage is a purely religious notion which doesn't apply in civil ceremonies, where you're not even allowed vaguely religious music.

There are very few gay couples who would have said "No, no, we don't want it to be called marriage, thanks very much" when tossed the concept of civil partnership after much awful debate about whether or not they could be trusted with it (being awfully promiscuous, immoral, etc as I recall the arguments ran).

@VickyEadie thanks, that makes sense and is good advice.

Thanks for the post, OP. I'm bookmarking this to read later. I live with my partner and have the same concerns. I think if we ever did get married - and I think he would like to - I would want it to be very low key, but then there are the associated family politics meaning that we might have to upgrade it (but definitely no big white wedding for me - I just couldn't be bothered).

And I would never change my name on marriage. I decided that when I was young and questioned why women changed their names but men didn't. It seemed very unfair to me!

I like the idea of having financial protection and avoiding inheritance tax etc. Our financial advisor suggested that we consider marriage when we moved in together but interestingly she has been with her partner for 20 years, they have two kids, and she doesn't want to get married to him. She has everything sewn up with wills etc.

On balance, marriage is a tool of the patriarchy but it also protects the partner who gives up work to look after children. This is why many men are now not keen on it, by the way. So I absolutely hear what you're saying OP but on balance, if you want to have children and you want to stay home and look after them, then marriage is definitely something you should do.

There are differences between civil partnerships and marriages, one is that civil partnerships aren't recognised in every country.

If you are having a child, and planning to be a SAHM, you should get married. It's there to protect you, given all you're about to risk.

Unless you are going to set up that he pays you a salary for taking over looking after the children, including pension, PAYE etc.

DP and I aren't married, we might eventually for ease of paperwork, but I've not given up work. My earnings are equal to him, and I actually own a house myself, as well as a joint house with him, so I don't feel that I have put myself at risk in the same way someone giving up work to become a stay at home parent with only a 1/3rd share in a house would be.

There are differences between civil partnerships and marriages, one is that civil partnerships aren't recognised in every country.

Good point - I was only thinking of here.

I'm a feminist, I'm anti-marriage. I'm heterosexual.

I got married for the protections and ease.

I didn't have a "big" wedding. We didn't even want our parents there but they insisted.

There was no "do" afterwards. If we'd had our way, we'd have just gone home but our parents insisted on taking us for a meal.

I wore jeans and a hoodie, as did my partner.

We had minimal vows.

Neither of us wear rings.

Neither of us changed our names.

I refer to "my partner" rather than "husband" and he does the same.

If I'm asked "are you married?", I reply "I have a partner".

For me, doing these things has helped to "keep" my marriage where it belongs as something which isn't important to me and which doesn't define my identity.

I realise it may be different because we're in an opposite sex couple.

I wouldn't give up my career, pension and financial security without the protection of marriage. If you were to split up, you could literally be left with nothing. Remember it is harder to find work with a big gap on your CV, plus all those years without a pension (unless your partner is paying you a salary).

No fucking way would I get married. But, I'd never give up my career and income to be a SAHM either. Seriously, I think the latter is what you need to worry about most, not the former.

@YetAnotherSpartacus why should I worry about that? Being a SAHM has always been my main ambition. My career and income have been things I have done to become financially stable in case I never found a partner who was able to financially support my dream of being a SAHM. Luckily I now have the partner who can afford this. I mean I am worried about our infertility (our first round of IVF failed today) but I am guessing that's not what you mean.

So many times on the relationships thread I see posts from women who think that marriage will protect them and who give up their incomes and security to find that in fact when he leaves or dies or gets sick they are left carrying a huge financial burden. I also see the same in RL, or I see women too scared to leave relationships that have gone south or sour because they have no independent finances. Personally, I think "marriage = safety" is the biggest crock of shit ever sold women and that women should never, ever put themselves in a situation where they are financially vulnerable to a man.

why should I worry about that?.... Luckily I now have the partner who can afford this

What if he dies, or walks away. None of us want to plan for this, but if either of those things happen, and you are not married, you don't even have a minimal claim - you've given up your own financial security to raise a child with someone who has no obligation to provide you with that security. That's a huge risk.

Yes, marriage isn't a get out of jail free card either, it comes with its own issues (especially around debt), but without it you have absolutely nothing in the case of prosperity as well, and those that sparticus lists around giving up your financial security are the risks you are taking when you become a SAHM and delegating your finances to another.

I would not be financially dependent on anyone else, regardless of marital status. It's psychologically and materially dangerous.

I never understood quite why responses to threads on the Relationships board about affair were so furious -- I mean, you expect the person who has discovered or suspects an affair to be upset, but quite often their response seems mild in relation to other posters' fury.

But now that I see how often posters on that board have become SAHMs, I realise that much of that anger at affairs is fear because they are financially entirely reliant on their relationship.

Please get married before you have a child, I didn't and very nearly ended up paying a huge financial price and I live in a country that recognises co habiting relationships. Marriage is not necessary when things are going well but v necessary when they are not. Once you have a baby you have zero leverage and will be v much beholden to him financially. You could give up you career and in 10 years time could try you in for a newer model and not look back. Seriously don't do it, look up my previous threads

No man or women should ever put themselves in a situation whether they are vulnerable to others - but for many, joint ownership is the only way of ever owning a property and to get out of paying for overpriced rent - of course - it doesn't have to be in a relationship - it could be a business arrangement or with friends.

But if in time you separate (or divorce), many find that there just isn't enough money to go around to finance the purchase of two houses.

You make your bed - you sleep in it.

OH and I don't have children, which I think it's the only thing that would potentially sway me. Growing up in the 70s I'm stuck on the idea that marriage is a trap for me and I know as soon as it happened i'd want out/away. I can be pleased for others being in love, but I hate hate hate sitting through the traditional clap trap. So! OH and I have a joint mortgage we've paid equally into, wills, insurance, we've git each other's power of atourney, and we have separate bank accounts but mutual plans for our pensions on which we are each other's beneficiary upon one of our deaths. I'm interested to know if there's anything else we should do.

The plan if I quit my job is that he would pay my share of mortgage and bills, basically pay for everything, but I would continue to own the same % of our property that I would if I had continued paying for it myself like I am now. It sounds like people are saying it would be better for him to pay me an actual salary and me then continue to pay the bills as normal, for the sake of national insurance contributions? Wouldn't that just end up with us paying income tax twice on this money?

I also own a flat myself that I rent out, that I lived in before we moved in together. I am keeping that as my own 100%. It doesn't make significant income but the rent covers its mortgage.

Good point about the pension, we need to discuss that because I agree he should pay my pension contributions whilst I am not earning. I am self employed so will not have any real maternity pay above statutory that I can reclaim from the Government. I have saved quite a lot so could pay myself a maternity pay from my own company if I want though. I think if I pay myself maternity pay he will expect me to contribute to mortgage and bills though which I don't really think I should do if I have no external income...

For things like job related life insurance and pensions, you need to be married. My DD’s friend lost her Fiance in an accident last year, they were TTC.

His parents were next of kin, not her, they got his life insurance and pension pay out, thankfully they paid off the joint mortgage for her but made her sign half the house to them if she ever sold. It made an awful time even worse for her, she thinks she had an early miscarriage shortly after his funeral.
You don’t need a wedding/public show of commitment to be married but it would be insane not to protect yours and your childrens futures for an idealogical stance.

I share your views if not all of your reasons. I told my husband that I would only get married if there was a reason other than a non-sensical promise to love each other forever while entering a contractual relationship invented, intended and continuing to disadvantage women.

So the first thing we did was to put our first house together, bought while I was pregnant with our first, into both our names, into equal ownership. I would strongly urge you to consider doing the same if you do have a child.

My DH put down the deposit and paid all of the mortgage because I stayed at home to raise our child. We initially agreed that if we were to split up, we would sell the house, he'd get the deposit back and then we'd split the proceeds.

When we bought our second house together and from then onwards, our agreement was that if we split up, the proceeds would be shared equally, regardless of the original deposit because DH agreed that my contribution in unpaid work was worth just as much to our family's well-being and prosperity as his paid work.

We finally got married when DH was being transferred to the US by his employer and marriage was the only way to get a visa for me and our kids to go with him. We decided to get married the day he came home and confirmed it was either move to the States or unemployment and we got married in a civil ceremony seven weeks later.

We had my closest family, and one best friend each at the ceremony (so us four plus 14 guests), had lunch together and dinner in the evening at our house with a few more members of my husband's family. My parents actually threw us a surprise wedding reception in the summer the week before we shipped out so that all my family could come and celebrate too.

So as someone who didn't want to get married I find it funny that I ended up having two wedding celebrations, but I am very content with how it all happened. And I have found that being married wasn't as terrible as I thought, not even for my own feminist feelings about myself.

I'm sure lots of people have lots of different views on the pros and cons of marriage. But this is what was right for me and my DH. I hope you two will find a way that is right for both of you!

Sorry that should read "our closest family" (ie parents and siblings)