'Don't have kids unless you are ready to marry' says judge

Cottage_Economy

bugslet wrote: »

Because they didn't plan and presumed they had some rights. As long as you plan, you can have the same rights.

Sorry to hear about your OH.

The whole presuming of rights might be correct, but i also think that as far as planning goes there is an fear of being a) accused of being mercenary and unromantic by planning what might happen if the relationship failed and b) not wanting to rock the boat and make it look like you're angling for a marriage proposal.

I have certainly been accused of a) in the past, as I moved in with my husband after six months and set about planning what might happen if we split up by requesting a legal agreement to protect both of our sets of assets. His friends and family were horrified and were angry about it, but at the end of the day we moved in together without plans to marry and as far as i was concerned it was important to sort out our financial future together. I saw the man i wanted to spend the rest if my life with, married or not, but accepted after six months it was still early days in the relationship and things might change.

As it transpired, he asked me to marry him six months later and 12 months after we were married.

To this day one of his friends still brings it up in a very mocking fashion and i still look him in the eye (a very steely look at that) and tell him I'd do it again to protect myself because when a relationship goes sour more often than not it ends up being every man/woman for themselves and there's no guarantee it will be amicable. Having a plan in place stops that, and marriage automatically puts a plan in place. It may not be exactly what both of you want financially and need tweaking, but it's there as a default.

Otherwise quite rightly as you say you have to put an alternative plan into place to get the same rights.

Mojisola

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Having a plan in place stops that, and marriage automatically puts a plan in place. It may not be exactly what both of you want financially and need tweaking, but it's there as a default.

Otherwise quite rightly as you say you have to put an alternative plan into place to get the same rights.

It takes a lot of other "pieces of paper" to replace the one that so many people dismiss as "just a piece of paper".

neverdespairgirl

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

I watched three friends go through this and the only one who came away with anything was the one who was married because that piece of paper gave her rights.

The other two, despite living with the others halves for more than a decade each, had nothing......

If OH and I split up tomorrow, I'd be no worse off than I would be if we were married and divorced.

That's because when we bought our flat, we made a conscious decision and executed a proper declaration of ownership - 50/50.

lostinrates

bugslet wrote: »

Because they didn't plan and presumed they had some rights. As long as you plan, you can have the same rights.

Most of the same rights.

Fiscal issues relating to marriage, transfer of assets etc are not the same.

A the beginning of a relationship assets that seem modest and not worth worrying about can be considerable at the end as regards threshold. Particularly relating to property or investments in a modestly living stable couple.

Edit: that doesn't mean I don't think its a valid choice, but I do think It should be a conscious choice differences considered not brushed aside.

Dunroamin

gayleygoo wrote: »

I hadn't realised there was a problem of couples deciding "not sure if I really like you or not, but sure lets have a baby anyway and see how it goes". Or does the judge mean that non-committed couples should have abortions of unplanned pregnancies?

My OH and I are not married, but we have lived together happily for 9 years now. Our first child was unplanned (I forgot a couple of Pills) and my OH nervously asked if my parents would expect us to get married. Luckily for him, they didn't, they thought it was silly just to get married because of pregnancy! We've since had another child, and hopefully next year will have another, we certainly don't plan to get married in order to so so.

I understand there are legal issues - if my OH was to die then I might not get his pension benefits or whatever (although I am named on them as next of kin, I know some companies don't pay out to unmarried widows). Legal protection is something I see as mostly a middle-class problem anyway, perhaps if my partner earned more or we had any savings or a mortgage, there would be more of an incentive to get married. I think it's very sad that our government still puts the beliefs of religious people over than of non-religious people.

On the issue of "lifetime commitment", congratulations to all of you who manage this, but frankly I don't see the point in it as a moral stand (unless your are religious, if not, really what does it matter if you have lots of relationships and babies to 4 different fathers?) Yes, my partner do feel committed to each other for as long as we live, but if we ever become unhappy with each other we won't have to shell out for a divorce. We will of course try our best to repair our relationship, why should a marriage make it different?

I see marriage as a religious thing, where "god" apparently wants people to have sex with only one person in their lives. I don't believe in religion, or the so-called morals of the bible. Not so long ago, marriage has also been a "business transaction" where daughters where married off to secure land or wealth, and the women had no rights if they were unhappy or abused. I fail to see the moralities of marriage.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to get married, if I do however it will be a celebration of our love for each other. How wonderful that through millions of years of evolution, in this vast universe, that OH and I have so much love for each other and do want to spend the rest of our relatively short lives together. We would need to save for it of course, it wouldn't just be a registry-office-with-two-witnesses kinda thing, no, we want our loved ones to join in the celebration with us! For those of you who'd say it's ridiculous that people "can't afford" to get married when they can just do it for £40 (and imply that they *should* be married already), then it's likely you just have very different ideas of what a marriage should be.

Having children is a much bigger commitment IMO. You can't just divorce them!

Some parents, unfortunately usually fathers, manage to walk away from their children as totally as if they were divorced.

Having children together without marriage in no way indicates a commitment to the other parent.

thegirlintheattic

Cottage_Economy wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

I watched three friends go through this and the only one who came away with anything was the one who was married because that piece of paper gave her rights.

The other two, despite living with the others halves for more than a decade each, had nothing. One is still legally scrapping to get the money back that she spent helping to renovate 'their' love nest (it was his name on the deeds and mortgage) as he claimed she was only a long term friend with 'benefits' who he had helped save a fortune in paying rent, but otherwise she had contributed nothing to the fabric of the building. She was devastated, because as far as she was concerned she felt as good as married, but once the relationship was over he protected what was his to her detriment and left her with nothing.

So because your friend didn't plan means everyone should get married. She should not have been investing so heavily in his house if she was not named on the deeds.

If OH and I split up tomorrow, neither of us would be worse off, and both would walk out of the relationship with the same assets that we brought into it. When we purchase a house, we have already looked into legal documents that will allow the same as far as possible. Neither of us has any interest in living off the other, even when living as a couple, therefore we have kept as much as possible separate.

claire16c

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

You see, that's where you are wrong. Yes, it can be a religious thing if you want, you can get married "in the eyes of God", or, you can do what we did and not get married in a church. We are not religious, and there was no way my husband would have got married in a church. But not just because of the religious aspect, but also because it was only a very small wedding which was exactly what we wanted.

People say to just go down to the registry office if you want a small wedding, but that option didn't appeal to us either (especially as ours is right on a junction opposite McDonalds :rotfl: handy for the reception I guess!), as we wanted something nicer and more special to us, and we wanted our parents there (just didn't want any other guests lol!), so we got married at Gretna Green. All organised within a month, and I loved the tradition behind it, thinking how many brides and grooms had got married there before us in the Old Blacksmiths Shop.

So, you can have a religious wedding if that's what appeals, or a non religious one, you can even get married on the London Eye or in a cave if you should so desire. I guess what I'm saying is when I think of marriage, I had never just thought it to be a religious thing.

Exactly. There are more civil weddings than religious ones the last time I looked it up.

thorsoak

When a marriage takes place in a place of worship, people are making vows to their God ....so it makes sense that those who do not believe in a god should have a civil ceremony.

lostinrates

thorsoak wrote: »

When a marriage takes place in a place of worship, people are making vows to their God ....so it makes sense that those who do not believe in a god should have a civil ceremony.

Personally. Think it makes sense EVERY BODY ( gay, religious, athiest or whatever legally able to ' conjoin' do so ' civilly' and equally, then for those that want it the religious, spiritual, or more aesthetic or unspiritual but still joyous aspects can take place as desired. That way the various faith groups can make their own rules o suit their beliefs without impacting on equality.

Cottage_Economy

thorsoak wrote: »

When a marriage takes place in a place of worship, people are making vows to their God ....so it makes sense that those who do not believe in a god should have a civil ceremony.

Religion has its commercial angles that come into play here though. My local church has around 10 regular worshippers every Sunday but has at least 2 weddings booked every month during the spring and summer - at £400+ for a simple wedding service with additional costs for a choir and bell-ringing. It's an important source of income for places of worship to have lapsed and non-believers who want to 'do' the traditional wedding marrying under their roof.