UKC

The question really is in the title - but what is the view on this?

Its something my partner and myself have been discussing recently - she says its not important as the stability and commitment of the realtionship is important, however im a bit traditional and think its important to be married before having kids.

In reply to Anonymous:
If you intend on getting married in the future with your partner, do it before having kids, nothing to do with being traditional, just sheer logistics as you would probably find it hard to find the time to fit a wedding in once you have kids.......

In reply to Anonymous:

Personally, I don't think it's important to be married before you have kids, or at all, if you don't want to be. The nature of the relationship is what's important

It *IS* convenient legally, since it ticks a lot of "boxes" such as inheritance, assignment of pension rights, property rights, etc, all in one simple document. We've had the argument several times on here about whether marriage is an outdated institution, with one person in particular arguing strongly that it is outdated. However, despite my first comment, I believe that if you want the state to acknowledge your status as a couple, this is by far the eaiest way to notify it!

Without marriage (and this applies whether or not you have kids) then, in order for both partners' wishes to be "known" by the state in case of problems (whether splitting up, death, major illness, guardianship issues of kids, etc) then separate legal documents would need to be set out in each case to cover eventualities that are automatic in the case of marriage.

It's all very well to say "we have a wonderful relationship, why spoil it by making a legal issue of property rights, inheritance, etc" but I know too many people who, when things have gone wrong, have ended up in a mess because of their legaly ambiguous state.

One of the most distressing was a couple I knew years ago where the bloke's parents hated the girl he was living with. The bloke died at work, abroad. Because they'd never got around to formalising anything (no wills, no transfer of the house to both names, etc), his parents were treated as next of kin, and *they* got his life insurance payout from his employer, the house, and everything. This was in direct contrast to what he'd have wanted to happen.

In reply to Anonymous:
I'm only 21 and think you have to be married to have kids.

I don't think its right having and being a family with the parents not being married.

just my opinion.

In reply to HartlepoolGuy:

How quaintly old-fashioned for one so young!

In reply to Anonymous:

blame my parents.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
I would definitely want to get married before having kids, but I think nowadays that it is less and less likely. I'm probably wrong, but I always thought the main reason people got married in the past was down to a moral/societal imperative rather than a pragmatic one, and the moral imperative simply doesn't exist any more. I was adopted as a baby in '77 and the main reason that happened was that my birth mother was unmarried and it just wasn't the done thing to keep a child when you were unmarried. Even when I was in primary school, I only had 1 friend in the class who was divorced, and it was considered very unusual.

Nowadays everyone's popping sprogs left, right and centre and nobody seems bothered about marriage, or even being in a stable relationship first! Virtually all the men I know over the age of about 26 have children for whom they are not the primary caretaker. They're all weekend dads (fortnightly weekend dads in the main). There's no longer a feeling with women that they would be unable to cope with bringing up a child without the help of a man (or even the father). One guy I know had already spit up with the mother of his child before it was even born, so has only ever been a weekend dad.

I would love to get married because I'm a romantic and I'm fairly traditional (I'm happy to do the cooking, cleaning and housework as long as he takes the bins out, fixes the cars, takes lids off jamjars and gives me a regular servicing!). I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I think men nowadays are less inclined to want to do it because the moral imperative no longer exists, and they can get most of what they want without having to go the extra 'C'. Yes, I don't think that 'a piece of paper' necessarily changes the nature of your relationship - there are plenty of folk who don't feel they need it and are happy with their relationships without marriage. However, I think the idea of standing up in front of your friends and family and declaring that you love each other and aren't interested in anyone else is kind of nice.

I can however see the downsides of it for men - if and when a marriage breaks up, they usually seem to come off worse (I may be wrong but I'm thinking of my friends here). The woman nearly always gets the kids, and the man gets to support them from afar ad infinitum whilst the woman moves on. But I think that is something that would happen whether you were married or not before you split up, although the legal requirements may not be as clearcut for those who weren't married.

I went to a wedding recently where the couple had a little boy already. The father even explained to me that the reasons for getting married were nothing to do with being in love, and more to do with the fact that the mother wanted the same name as the child 'for when their names were called out in the doctor's surgery'. That struck me as a less nice way of looking at it, but I guess you just have to do what works for you...

In reply to Anonymous: Nah don't get married cause if it all goes horribley Pair Shaped, it'll cost you loads to get divorced and pay child maintanence etc etc. Unless of course your female then you could just sit back and take all the free money you get off the ex-hubby!

In reply to Anonymous:

Hmm

I was 'married' when I had kids the first time. Their biological father was useless, never saw/see's the kids and left me with nothing. Legally I can't get any money out of him to support kids as he got 'depressed' so he finds working 'hard'.

Incidentally his definition of 'depressed' is depressed enough to father 2 kids with another woman while we were married, then go on to get engaged and father another one when we split, whilst having two houses - council pays for both and having enough money from the DHSS to live the life of Riley and continual partying whilst getting prescription drugs from doctor for his 'depression'..

In complete contrast, my 'partner' now and the father of this child has made sure that in the event of his untimely demise that we are all 'covered' (I have also done same), treats my other kids with respect and love. We're getting married yes but in our own time and more than likely when this baby is old enough to help carry the rings down the aisle.

So being 'married' doesn't IMHO make a hell of a lot of difference. Its about who you are with and why.

In reply to Anonymous:

You don't have to be married to have kids - it works just the same, married or not.

Later on when you start getting older the legal system may make going through a civil marriage seem like a good idea even if one is against the principal - as we were - (property, succession, health cover [in France] and other highly boring things like this) and you can do it then if you want - when we got married the only guests were our three children, seemed quite appropriate!

In reply to Anonymous: All that Joe did for me marrying Vlad, was bring the date forward so we could fit a decent honeymoon in before the 28th week! That being the last date Virgin would fly us home.
Marriage isn't something to shout about, as it doesn't make a jot of difference when you get right down to it. If the other party no longer wants to be there, what's a marriage licence going to do to stop them. Likewise, if you want to be together, why marry if it's not what you want?

It's individual choice.

Me n Pennie chose what we have because it's what WE want. Sod all to do with anyone else really...

In reply to Anonymous:

We had this situation and I thought it important while my wife wanted to get married at the right time, not just to be married before the birth.

I was also brought up as a traditionalist but in the end it really made no difference in the family. I apologised to her father for not being married before the birth but apparently he was the only one in his family who had got married first and thought it quite funny.

Obnly difference was an unmarried father has no right to apply for a passport for a child and as my wife is german she could not apply for a UK passport either for him.

In reply to Anonymous:

Agree with most of the above.

The important thing is the stability of the relationship, not the certificate, tho' the certificate does ease certain legal issues

Y.

In reply to Anonymous:

I don't think it's essential to be married before having children as long as it is a stable relationship but in my personal opinion it's certainly preferable to be married first.

In reply to Anonymous: first let me say I have been happily married with kids for 18 yrs.

Having kids is expensive, getting married worsens your tax posision, so don't do it unlessyou have a "faith" reason. You are going to need all the money you can get - not give it to the tax man.