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???

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%.

But if you marry and later divorce, this flat will be become a matrimonial asset to be put into the pot - to a lesser or greater extent - depending such as the duration of the marriage. Matrimonial law overrides property law.

@GenderApostate we both have life insurance with each other as the beneficiary to pay off the mortgage of either dies. But good point because his Dad would still be his next of kin if we don't marry so all his other assets would still go to his Dad, unless we sort this out with a will, but then there is inheritance tax if we don't marry. I think it is going to have to be marriage.

@sawdustformypony that would be ok though since he owns a tonne more property than I do. So surely I wouldn't end up with less than I have now after a divorce?

The courts try to find a fair settlement. Two of the top priorties are the welfare of children and ensuring each party is housed - sounds like the latter wouldn't be an issue for you, but it is for many.

I view marriage as both a romantic and economic partnership. As far as I am concerned, from the state perspective, it is simply an economic contract at this point. I have no qualms about using that state sanctioned economic system to facilitate raising a child.

Please do marry if becoming a SAHP is possibly in your future. For all the pragmatic reasons above.

The education system, political system, healthcare system all have sexist structural inequalities and hair raising-histories. And yet most of us choose to participate to some extent. There is nothing wrong with extracting what protections we can from a sexist world.

You don't have to be married for pensions if you work in public services.

But if you marry and later divorce, this flat will be become a matrimonial asset to be put into the pot - to a lesser or greater extent - depending such as the duration of the marriage. Matrimonial law overrides property law

That is definitely not correct under Scots law. A flat like this is not matrimonial property. Perhaps English law is different but assets owned before marriage or inherited after marriage do not fall into matrimonial 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 don't understand why any woman who is, or is capable of being, financially independent would ever give that up.

Anyone reading the Relationships board here will realise that marriage is a financial safeguard for a SAHP of either sex, and all parties benefit from the IHT deal.
If planning kids and expecting to be the carer, you should insist on marriage before children.

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!

DP and I have been together nearly 30 years. No kids. It's costing us around £1,000 to do our wills and Lasting Powers of Attorney (both health and financial), for a similar effect. Pensions benefits if you die early can usually be left to whoever you nominate.

That said, I've read that LPAs are needed regardless, and 'next of kin' is meaningless.

However, if I'd contemplated kids, I'd have wanted to be married

I did, didn't kill me in fact, it's quite nice.

always write up contracts that aren't marriage, can't you

Which can be rewritten at anytime, without telling anyone impacted by the change, in a way that just isn't possible for a marriage

Do you feel there's a disconnect between seeing your career and income as a stop-gap until you find a partner who can financially support you to be a SAHP, and not marrying because of feminist principles?

She has everything sewn up with wills etc.

A new will can be made with very little trouble and no publicity.

I'm interested to know if there's anything else we should do.

How will CGT impact you on the death of the first? Given what has happened to house prices, life assurance might be prudent to pay off the potential CGTax

That is definitely not correct under Scots law. Perhaps English law is different

Yes, English & Welsh law is different.

@Thund4rcat - just a thought that I haven’t looked into - are any non-UK heterosexual civil partnerships recognised in the UK? If so, perhaps you could do that rather than get married?

I should say, however, that while I completely understand your aversion to getting married, I do think that it is the quickest and easiest and cheapest way to provide security for yourself, your child and your partner. A registry office doesn’t have to feel like a wedding and there is no need for you to tell anyone if you don’t want to.

OP I feel the same way.

OH and I have been together for 22 years and will reluctantly get married soon.
As we approach retirement age , we have several pension pots between us, marriage will give us extra assurance.

We will be nipping down to the registrars, do the deed, then back home.
No one else will be involved. No party, no celebrations.
I don;t need the state to have a hand in the personal or romantic side of our relationship.

You can’t be much of a feminist if your life’s ambition is to find a man to pay for you to stay at home. Of course he shouldn’t pay your pension contributions if you’re not earning! That’s ludicrous. If you want to build up a pension, earn money! If you are truly anti-marriage for the reasons you’ve mentioned then you’d be a hypocrite to do it. If you want to stay at home and have the means to support yourself - and it sounds like you do - that’s what you should do. Do you see him as a partner or a bottomless pit of money?

I think there is a degree of hypocrisy in marrying a substantially higher earner for ‘security’. It is not for security but to enshrine in law the sharing of his/her much higher earning capacity for the rest of your life, regardless of children or what happens to the marriage.

Clearly this does not apply to people who give up big careers to care for children but, if you never had a big career, you are giving up less.

If you are really independent then get married but make a fair prenup that if you get divorced you will be compensated for YOUR loss of earnings and potential earnings, but not ‘have your ‘needs’ met’. Anything else is rank hypocrisy.

I gave up my career to become a SAHM.

No one has the right to tell me that was not a feminist choice.

Surely feminism is deciding for ourselves how we want to live?

“Surely feminism is deciding for ourselves how we want to live?”

Well no, not exactly. Some choices are feminist and some are not. No choices are truly free in a sexist society full of obvious and subtle pressures.

I don’t think being a SAHM is “unfeminist” though, that assumes the only “work” of any value is paid work, which I disagree with - it is feminist to value child rearing.

I suppose the PP was arguing that it’s not feminist to be (financially) dependent on a man, and I see that, but in relationships we do depend on each other and different people contribute different things.

My marriage is my marriage, it is not an institution. It is totally non- sexist, we are absolute equals.The past is the past but it is over, marriage has been reformed. He cant legally rape me any more and if we were both the same sex our marriage would be the same as it is now.
Surely saying Im not getting married because it used to be mysoginist, is like saying I'm not eating sugar because it used to be picked by slaves. Sometimes history learns its mistakes and moves on!

If a couple makes a decision between them for one partner to stay at home and the working partner to fund it, fine. But if your long-term ambition is to find a man to pay for that, then no, that’s absolutely not feminist. It’s about as patriarchal as you can get. If you do marry I hope he legally ringfences all assets he acquired before the marriage, as it does sound rather like you want to fleece him if you were to divorce

Just get married, for all the sensible reasons articulated here.

I gave up my career to become a SAHM

No one has the right to tell me that was not a feminist choice

Surely feminism is deciding for ourselves how we want to live?

Personally whether or not it is a feminist choice is irrelevant. I think for many wpmen it may not be a sensible choice.