Strange way to look at commitment....

I heard the tail end of a conversation the other day where one Mum said to another, "We are trying to make up our minds whether to get married or have a baby." I thought to myself that they shouldn't be mutually exclusive. You can get married with little expense and fuss if you want to make that commitment and I would agree with Daisynance123 that it is often the "Big Day" which appears to be more important than the statement of commitment.

Before I retired my job brought me in touch with many young women. Most had children and lived with the fathers. They all expressed a desire to get married but they simply couldn't afford it!
I often pointed out that the only expense would be the marriage license and was always met with a stoney silence. The point being that they all wanted the 'big day ' , the dress ,the party and all the rest. Actually' being married' didn't come into the equation at all.

I admit if I had not hoped/planned to have a family, I would not have married. I was a family lawyer before our children finally came along, and perhaps I saw too many unpleasant and expensive divorces. But I wanted the additional legal protection for any future children and perhaps also that additional barrier to relationship breakdown when coparenting.

J52
So this binding legal agreement will appear to many in preference to a marriage and, forgive me but I have yet to look at one of these documents, appears an open door to I can walk out whenever I want no strings attached.? Nice one.

I think that this attitude to marriage is partly due the huge commercialisation of weddings. In the hairdressers a few years ago, one of the stylists was getting married after 16 years of co-habiting and two children. She said it was only now that they could afford to get married, but reflected that the 'second magician' at the evening do was a bit of a waste of money! They were divorced less than two years later. Why can't people just get married? They are making promises to each other and a legal contract which is important for children and property. You can have a party any time!

An unmarried couple who have children and property together can enter into a binding legal agreement, drawn up by a solicitor.
Such a document can be more protective of each other’s rights and the rights of the children than marriage is.

I am in total agreement with you all.

Sometimes I wonder why marriage is so unfashionable?

The income and property tax angle is a deterrent, but that may change.

Here (Denmark) the law has been changed regarding social security, so now a couple living together are no longer regarded as two single people, which they were formerly,

Here too we have the same legal issue with people dying intestate and the partner not being a legal spouse inheriting nothing whatsoever, nor able to decide on the details of the funeral if there are blood relatives of the deceased who insist on taking over. (Their legal right).

In one of the worst cases I know of, a man who lost his long-time partner was given three months to get himself and his personal property out of the flat by his dead partner's children who intended selling the flat, and had not even the courtesy to offer him an option on it. The heirs arranged their mother's funeral without any consideration for his wishes in the matter, merely told him when and where it would be held.

So yes, we need to make quite sure that young relatives who don't want the commitment of marriage, but do have children and own common property realise their lack of legal rights.

Of course people can do what they like, but it does seem strange to have children and buy a house together - and then talking of not wanting to make that commitment!

However, to me the real worry is that so many people assume that they have 'common law' rights, when they don't, and fail to make wills, so that in the event that one of them dies, their property (e.g. in particular half the house) may well go elsewhere, and not to the partner they'd have wished and intended it to go to.

Buying a house, getting married takes a lot of planning. Having a baby is often unplanned and people didn't gave commitment in mind when it happened.

I agree. It's very strange to think children and joint property is a lesser commitment.
Mind you, aspects of our current taxation system discourage couples from marrying. For example, an unmarried couple can own a primary residence each (with the tax advantage that they can make untaxed capital gain on both, assuming they go up in value over the years), whereas a married couple can only own one between them. Some (fortunate) young couples are doing this form of financial planning to create income for when one of them wants to stop work e.g. maternity leave, or even, thinking further ahead, as pension for when they reach retirement age.

I absolutely agree. The real commitment is having children. Whether you are married or remain single, if people decide to have children they should understand that. Partners should also be aware that there is no such thing as "common law marriage". Only children are protected if a couple are unmarried - partners are not automatically entitled to a division of assets and continuing financial support on their own behalf, and this can obviously have a knock-on effect for the children.

I too have nothing against people living together and having children - neither of my children have married - but I do think that, practically speaking, it is often a safer option when children are involved.

I agree. A case of looking what people do rather than what they say. They're making massive commitments but somehow overlook that actual fact!