Marriage: is it worth it?

Thermo905 wrote: »

The interruption to the non earning spouse's career and that sacrifice should indeed be taken into account when allocating the distribution of assets. But if the non earning spouse quit a job on 30k per year selling shoes and never had any likelihood of earning the 1 million per year that earning spouse takes home, then in my opinion they are not entitled to huge settlements that they never would have even come close to earning if they stayed in their job.

The high earning spouse could easily pay for childcare if the non earning spouse really wanted to have a career so badly. But in such situations they're perfectly content not to work.

But the argument is that the non earning spouse creates/maintains the environment for the high earner to continue to do so.

Who is to say that the shoe seller would not have become store manager...area manager...regional manager...global manager... majority shareholder and discovered instant shoes in a can...

It's the potential opportunity forgone that is hard to quantify.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't get this mindset at all. Okay maybe marriage as a religious/ceremonial occasion, but civil marriage, signing up to a binding legal contract? Can't see anything romantic about that at all.

Because for some people it's a sign of commitment.

Ultrflat wrote: »

So I'm on the legal separation stage of a marriage break up.

Marriage is an honorable decision, I don't really feel it important to go into the nuances, of the ending of my marriage, but it was amicable.
The thing about marriage when things are tough there's a lot more social pressure based on the very fact your married you almost feel like its you're duty to under go the hard times to show your dedicated to the wo/man your married to. Even tho your miserable.

In the end, I'd had enough. I was asked would I ever get married again the other night. My answer is pretty simple no, I will never sign a paper or form again in the name of marriage. What I feel I could do is offer a vow to the right lady and maybe share a union that is not overseen by the state.

Marriage is not needed in this day and age.

It is, in the legal sense

Tried it once. Thought it was what I wanted. Had a pivotal moment and realised I was not cut out for it. With no mortgage or kids to consider, leaving was still the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.

I can see why a lot of people in unhappy marriages, who have ties to each other, like property and children, just push on through and hope it will improve.

But my mum and dad loved being married to each other. And it showed! So I’m not that jaded, that I don’t think it’s a wonderful thing to do if you find the right person.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Some people get married because they are happy and fulfilled with that person and want to stay with them, so will therefore commit themselves to that person with marriage, it's not exactly a difficult concept to fathom.

But why not just make that 'commitment' a private undertaking between the two of you? As Al Pacino said, why get the government involved? It just seems like you're bringing needless hassle and restriction into your life.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But why not just make that 'commitment' a private undertaking between the two of you? As Al Pacino said, why get the government involved? It just seems like you're bringing needless hassle and restriction into your life.

Again, some people want to make a public official, legal declaration of their love.

Coopaloop wrote: »

With my husband 18 years (only married for 2 of them) we took off to vegas to get married, just the 2 of us. Best trip ever. We did it for us, not anyone else (well apart from our 3 children). The tax break is good too
Was never into the big white wedding day, and buying dinner for ppl I didnt even like Our way was perfect for us. But each to their own.

Ya same here lived together for 4 years than went off to Rome just the 2 of us, priest organized 2 witnesses and it was all over in half an hour. great day around rome her in a short white dress me in a black suit and toured around Italy for 2 weeks when we got back we just went out for a family dinner. I don't get this big irish wedding thing, first you get a priest up in the altar telling us all about marriage and how great it is. Like is he a ffuccking expert on the subject. That would be like getting panty bliss in to give a team talk to the 6 in row winning Dublin football team. But I think myself and herself are in this for life and for us it's all about creating a happy and safe place for ourselves and the kids, we are a family of 6 now and I am fully committed to that.

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Not really, you commit to the person you fell in love with, if the person changes over a period of time that's different and for that we have divorce, if there's problems in the marriage often marriage counselling can solve the issues at hand, that's if both parties want to make the marriage work enough.

It's a leap of faith at the end of the day. Even a steady relationship is a leap of faith to some extent. If some people want to go get married and make their love for each other official let them at it, again, it's not a concept which is illogical and is fairly understandable by itself. As cliché as it sounds, that's love for you.

Thats the problem imo, some people want the big day, the romance, the drama, and then not the follow through, that might be problems in years to come or weeks or months. If a woman wants out or is difficult, then she can make it very difficult for a husband, She can make off with his assets, how is he going to live for the rest of his life? and what quality does he have? potentially not seeing his children or very little, potentially living in a bedsit or rent a room setup, while paying for a roof over the ex wifes head.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But why not just make that 'commitment' a private undertaking between the two of you? As Al Pacino said, why get the government involved? It just seems like you're bringing needless hassle and restriction into your life.

The thing is, people dont even get a say, the Govt get a say by imposing themselves in unmarried relationships, I would say its understandable to some extent, if 2 people make a commitment to each other without getting married, then they should have the same rights as married people, in which case I think there would be a huge drop off in marriages/weddings and the wedding businesses and hotels and tax receipts, and thats what it comes down to imo, and the State gets to not have any responsibility in it at all, despite interfering.
If the State wants no responsibility, it should stay out of private agreements, and people should be entitled to what they put into a relationship, not all of someones assets. So imo it centers around the State & Inheritance taxation (which I believe up to a certain point is wrong), people in unmarried relationships, should be able to purchase assets in common and pass those to their own children or in proportion to their children as they see fit without excessive taxation or maybe even any (up to a certain point, imo at least 500k/per child or double that), that is very reasonable imo, takes a certain amount of burden off the state. That way an adult could pass inheritence to a child from a previous relationship for assets purchased in common with someone. In reality if an asset (eg a house) was not purchased in common with someone, why should they ever attain rights to that by being in a relationship with someone?? by virtue of exceeding a set duration (5yrs I believe).

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Again, some people want to make a public official, legal declaration of their love.

Why does it need to be public? marriages and religion, should be private.
As I read somewhere, what people do regarding their religion is = to their private bodily parts, I dont want to know, shouldnt be my business, if you want to tell me fine, dont wave it around in my face or try ram it down my throat and we'll be all good.

pwurple wrote: »

It's the absolute opposite. Try giving consent for an operation without being married. Or figuring out inheritance. And that's assuming no kids.
It's 40 years later. Your other person is hit by a bus. You can't access accounts, pay the electric bill, your shared car was in their name. It's a needless hassle and restriction not to be in any way legally related to who you live with.
Just sort it out.

Well, I think you should be able to give make some kind of legal commitment up to a point without being in a religious or a civil marriage. As for consenting to an operation or pulling the plug on a life support machine, if there isnt a person saying not to AND it is without warning and the person didnt get to give or waive consents or rights, then maybe it should be down to a medical decision.
I dont see why being married magically infers rights over some other legal consent, its just the State method to tie you to someone permanantly and potentially screw you in the end if they decide to change their mind later.

Thermo905 wrote: »

That's why you have your own accounts.

Id have thought, thats why you might want a joint account, anyway, of the opinion getting married gives certain entitlements but with strict conditions, some of those entitlements should be available to people who commit to each other but are reasonable and dont want to bilk someone for their assets (other than what they put in themselves), I think unmarried civil arrangements might suit people where both are working or or similar earnings, where one person comes into a marriage with assets, the other shouldnt be able to make off with the lions share or all of it and leave the husband (or other person impoverished).

Its 5 years or more or 2 if you have children, and they might not get 50% if there was children, they might get it all, or the original owner might get their share back after the kids grow up.

SineadSpears wrote: »

I get when a marriage ends, & there's a mortgage & kids involved, that it can get messy.


But I'm not understanding the part about cohabiting.

Am I right that if one person owns a property & then their partner moves in, after a couple of years they break up & the new partner can make a claim on that property?

Surely that can't be ?

That’s what some posters are implying.

If I asked a girl to move in with me, that’s what I am asking. I’m not saying.. “ here are your keys, half of everything I have is now yours, half of everything you have is STILL yours “

SineadSpears wrote: »

I get when a marriage ends, & there's a mortgage & kids involved, that it can get messy.

But I'm not understanding the part about cohabiting.

Am I right that if one person owns a property & then their partner moves in, after a couple of years they break up & the new partner can make a claim on that property?

Surely that can't be ?

Strumms wrote: »

That’s what some posters are implying.

If I asked a girl to move in with me, that’s what I am asking. I’m not saying.. “ here are your keys, half of everything I have is now yours, half of everything you have is STILL yours “

You need to distinguish between "can make a claim on your property" and "is entitled to half of everything you own". These are two completely different things.

If a couple cohabit for 5 years (or for 2 years, if they also have a child together) and if either member of the couple is financially dependent on the other (and this will nearly always be the case) the, if the relationship breaks down, either member of the couple can seek maintenance, property adjustment orders, etc, etc, just as if they were a married couple. I have already posted a link to the legislation, enacted in 2011, which provides for this.

The fact that you can seek maintenance, property adjustment, etc doesn't mean that you will get the orders you seek, or any orders. The court has a wide discretion and is required to consider the full circumstances of the relationship and its termination in deciding what orders, if any, to make.

Marriage doesn't matter until it does.

When I was still single my boyfriend collapsed while we were out with friends. He was carted off to hospital and I had to wait in the waiting room until him mum arrived which took hours as she was down the country. I had no say, we were living together and had a kid but in that moment I had as much rights as a stranger.

The medical stuff alone would make me do it especially now. I can't really understand all these couples cancelling their weddings at the moment until things are back to normal. I'd be doing my best to get a legal recognition of my relationship especially in a pandemic. Can you just imagine if your partner gets sick and you can't make decisions or even see them or being hit with an inheritance tax bill if they pass away?

Candie wrote: »

Married my best friend. He's got my back, I got his. I'm just helping him get over a bout of covid and on his worst day I wasn't able to think or sleep or eat for the knowledge that he was on his own dealing with it, and I couldn't bring him a drink or change the bed or just look after him like he needed. Horrible experience. He says I'm the prize of his life and the feelings mutual.

Bad relationships make bad marriages, good ones can make great ones. I could have lived without marriage, but we got married almost a year ago. I was seven months pregnant and we were moving the next day. It wasn't a 'wedding', it was just the two of us and it's all we wanted. A wedding isn't marriage, you don't need bells and whistles. It's been a tough year between moving, new parenthood and a pandemic, but it's still managed to be a good one at the same time, because we have each other.

If you think of marriage as a division of assets and a splitting of services, don't get married. It's a mutual endeavour built on much more than shared mortgages and mutual suspicion, and will involve compromise and living with the knowledge that sometimes, in fact a lot of the time, you will not be the main focus of the moment and you won't always be the most important thing in your own life. In my experience, it's totally worth it.

Delighted for you. Sounds like you are living your romantic fairytale.
I was the same 10 years ago. before 2 kids and a recession kicked in. Up to then, everything seemed so perfect.
But kids change people. We all change to a certain extent. But some more than others. In my case, I was dealing with a Dr Jeckly/Mr Hyde situation. I thought it would get better once the kids got a little older. But it hasn't. And I'm now at a stage where I am desperate to get out but can't. It is financially impossible.
In a post a few pages back, someone mentioned what seemed like a dire situation - living in a bedsit in mid-40s. I'd give anything for that freedom right now. Watch a few monies, have a few beers. For example, she has decided that beer is now barred from our home, because she has decided that she wants to be healthy. And if I want a few drinks, I have to stay away for the night. I think it's mostly to get one over on me - deprive me of a drink, assuming that I won't pay for accommodation somewhere for few drinks. And can't go to pub with the restrictions. That's the way it goes when things go pearsharped in a marriage - get little digs in to the "opposition". And she knows she holds the aces - kids, family homes etc.

I just can't get my head around marriage, you're basically shackling yourself to someone and jumping head first into a quagmire that's going to be very hard and messy to get out of if and when it goes wrong.