"There is no point in getting married if you're not having kids"

seven-day-weekend

MrSmartprice wrote: »

This is exactly as I understand it. You need this authorisation to conduct a marriage, which is what registrars have. Vicars can have it too, in order to effectively stand in for a registrar at a recognised church wedding. Any ceremony, religious or otherwise, which does not have this authorised person conducting it means there is no marriage under the law.

)

Just one minor detail; the authorised person does not have to conduct it, but does have to be physically present and hear the couple make the declaration and the affirmation.

In the church I went to, the Pastor conducted the ceremony. I sat at the side with the paperwork. I could hear and see the couple from there. (Although the Pastor was also an Authorised Person, he was carp at paperwork and I'd have hated to conduct the ceremony. So we divvied the role out according to our particular skills ).

But the point is, anyone can conduct the ceremony providing the Authorised Person is physically able to see and hear them make these legal responses.

samtoby

Some of the people I work with have no children but have been married longer than the ones who have children and that is nothing to do with age. Some have kids and are on their 2nd marriage and the ones who don't are on there first.

That is like saying - you have to get married if you have children.

Rubbish. It is all personal situation, opinion and principals. I am not saying I don't want to get married, I know I do but my partner is not that keen really - so I will respect that because having him in my life is more important than marriage.

Gavin83

fluffnutter wrote: »

That's because very few people regret having kids, even the ones that didn't feel particularly keen initially. They can't imagine life without them and so assume that you'd have a similar conversion.

I disagree. I think a fair few people regret having children but its such a social taboo to admit this that they'd keep it to themselves. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it was the people expressing this opinion who did regret it, jealous that other people were making the decision they wished they had.

seven-day-weekend

Gavin83 wrote: »

I disagree. I think a fair few people regret having children but its such a social taboo to admit this that they'd keep it to themselves. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it was the people expressing this opinion who did regret it, jealous that other people were making the decision they wished they had.

Our son was planned and wanted and we still love him dearly now he is a grown-up in his 30s and wouldn't be without him

However, had we the benefit of hindsight, we'd have stayed child-free. It's one less thing to worry about and one less thing that cramps your style.

He and his partner of five years say they don't want children, so at least we won't have the worry of grandchildren.

Gloomendoom

MrSmartprice wrote: »

Cultural & religious points of view are still meaningless and irrelevant in law. If there is no legal marriage it would affect inheritance in the case of intestacy. A woman who had only been through one of these 'pretend' marriages would inherit nothing if her co-habiting partner died. It would go straight to his children. And if there were none, to other blood relations.

Society's 'blessing' isn't much use to you then, I suggest.;)

Equally, if society's blessing is important to you, a civil ceremony on its own isn't much use either.

seven-day-weekend

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Equally, if society's blessing is important to you, a civil ceremony on its own isn't much use either.

But at least it is legal. Co-habitation, even if the couple consider themselves to be as good as married, will provide no legal status nor offer any legal protection.

Slinky

I have an acquaintance who had a humanist wedding. Some of her relatives, whilst they attended the wedding, didn't like her husband and told her they took great comfort from the fact the wedding wasn't 'legal'. What they didn't know was that the couple had married at a register office a few weeks previously, which they didn't bother to tell the unhappy relatives either at the time, or at their humanist ceremony.

Gloomendoom

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But at least it is legal. Co-habitation, even if the couple consider themselves to be as good as married, will provide no legal status nor offer any legal protection.

Which is why couples rarely rely on just a religious ceremony, in this country at least, it is almost always combined with a civil wedding recognised by the law of the land.

MrSmartprice

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Equally, if society's blessing is important to you, a civil ceremony on its own isn't much use either.

You just can't grasp the point, can you? :wall:

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?:doh:

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But at least it is legal. Co-habitation, even if the couple consider themselves to be as good as married, will provide no legal status nor offer any legal protection.

This is exactly the point. Whatever else you do, the few minutes doing the formal bit gets you that piece of paper. Without it, a relationship has no legal status whatsoever. For us it was the whole point of getting married; in every other way it makes no difference whatsoever whether we are married or not.

Gloomendoom

MrSmartprice wrote: »

This is exactly the point. Whatever else you do, the few minutes doing the formal bit gets you that piece of paper. Without it, a relationship has no legal status whatsoever. For us it was the whole point of getting married; in every other way it makes no difference whatsoever whether we are married or not.

What you cannot grasp is that not everybody regards marriage in the same way that you do. To some, that bit of paper is of secondary importance, only necessary for the marriage to be legally recognised with the rights and benefits that that bestows, the most important part of the marriage to them is the religious ceremony.