Any downsides to not getting married?

bugslet

notanewuser wrote: »

Indeed. Being married needn't change anything about your relationship. Your OH can keep her name and call herself Miss/Ms whatever, banking can stay as is etc. apart from our mortgage there is no financial connection between my husband and I, and we've been married without issue for 8 years!

You don't have to make a song and dance of it - you don't even have to tell people if you don't want to!!

Absolutely. But I don't want to because it would make me feel trapped. As I said that's just me and I kind of know myself better than anyone else:D.

I'm certainly not anti-marriage - I'm quite happy if other people are happy being married. As kylyr says, it does have some advantages, and as Jimmythewig says, it's just down to what you want to do.

Brighton_belle

lazer wrote: »

This is what i never understand - it probably costs way more to pay to get a lasting power of attorney, wills, tax planning etc all sorted if not married, than it would actually cost to get married, so why not simply get married (Registry office ceremony and 2 witnesses is all it takes!)

It is still really really important to have PoA's and wills even if you are married. I dont think marriage is enough to be 'allowed' to take certain decisions n your spouses behalf if they are incapacitated. And spouses do not automatically inherit everything if no will.

lazer

Brighton_belle wrote: »

It is still really really important to have PoA's and wills even if you are married. I dont think marriage is enough to be 'allowed' to take certain decisions n your spouses behalf if they are incapacitated. And spouses do not automatically inherit everything if no will.

It depends on your circumstances - for most marriages no Power of Attorney is required (not for next of kin purposes anyway (such a switching off the life support etc) - it may be required to get if one partner became mentally incapable of doing things etc)

A will is not required if you want everything to be left to your spouse - in some cases it is easier to have a will although it is not necessary - outcome is the same.

IMO it is the men that have the most to lose if they are not married and intend to have children with their partner.
It is possible that they finish up having to go to court to get parental responsibility.
In most cases the ftaher will simply go with the mother and register the birth, however not all cases, for example the couple may spilt up before the child is born, or the mother simply goes and registers the birth without him, and it does not become an issue until years later until they spilt up.

bugslet

If we'd ever had children then I might have thought differently. If you are going to have children together, then it's a whole different ballgame.

Angry_Bear

bugslet wrote: »

If we'd ever had children then I might have thought differently. If you are going to have children together, then it's a whole different ballgame.

We don't intend to have any (not since I found out where they came from :eek: :rotfl:). I'm not sure if I'd feel differently if we did plan on children, but at least that's not a worry.

Angry_Bear

The more I think about it, the more I think that having to get wills drawn up and papers for different eventualities is the way it should be. If you're deliberately and (hopefully) permanently entangling you life with someone else, it shouldn't be a case of pop down the registry office and you're done. It should be non-trivial and you should be forced to be aware of exactly what you've tied together.

/rant

londonsurrey

Just to double check, does he have any children, or either of you have relatives/friends that you help keep an eye on, give money to or help out?

Angry_Bear

londonsurrey wrote: »

Just to double check, does he have any children, or either of you have relatives/friends that you help keep an eye on, give money to or help out?

Nope. Well, we have friends and relatives, but we don't give them money .

ETA: Reading that back I realise that it could be read as if he has kids but won't pay for them . He doesn't (nor do I).

londonsurrey

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Nope. Well, we have friends and relatives, but we don't give them money .

ETA: Reading that back I realise that it could be read as if he has kids but won't pay for them . He doesn't (nor do I).

Lol. Rest assured that I didn't read it as such.

It was just to double check that there was no one that you were innocently just being decent to, that could suddenly turn mercenary and claim that they could reasonably expect to be maintained from the estate. (I'm not just being paranoid - my mother, a trained solicitor, tried a variation of that on me)

lazer

Angry_Bear wrote: »

The more I think about it, the more I think that having to get wills drawn up and papers for different eventualities is the way it should be. If you're deliberately and (hopefully) permanently entangling you life with someone else, it shouldn't be a case of pop down the registry office and you're done. It should be non-trivial and you should be forced to be aware of exactly what you've tied together.

/rant

Marriage is a serious committment and should be entered into as such, I would think that most people entering a marriage know that everything they have would be their spouses etc etc.

In marriage you tie everything together "for better, for worse", its a lifetime committement and you should be aware of what that really means. If your marrying someone, you should trust them with your life (No PoA required!), and your possessions (no need for a will)

I agree you should not be able to simply go down to the registry office and be done - which is why you are not - you need to give at least 2 weeks notice usually.
What do want a test to see if you understand the implications of marriage, or do you simply want marriage to not exist or at least not to confer any additioanl powers or responsibilities?