Anonymous wrote:I am a 50-something widow. I don't see the point of getting married again unless it is financially advantageous, which hardly ever happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has to be one of the most depressing threads I’ve ever read.

50 isn’t 80 folks.

Its also not 30 Where you are stupid enough to think “you complete me”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the point of marrying over 50. You won't have kids. You would be wise to have separate houses and finances. So why?

Agree with the above except the part about having separate houses. Why is that an advantage ?

Separate houses are an advantage because you'd have to pick one person's house to live in. If that person dies first, presumably their heirs (children) would sell the house and the surviving partner then has to look for new housing which might not be easy or affordable.

Obviously if you’re married you update your will so that surviving spouse gets the house or gets to live in the house until death. Again, you don’t get married with no protections.

It's pretty tough to throw a surviving wife out of the marital home. Whose name is "on the deed" doesn't matter much in that situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve generally been in the “why marry again” camp. But at 55 and having seen my parents getting old, my mother dealing with my father’s decline and death, I am starting to see a benefit to being married as we age - having no issue making health and financial decisions for each other, funeral arrangements, etc.

Many times widows who were caregivers to their late husbands don’t want the possibility of doing it again.

And some do.

Want to be caregivers again? Please tell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the point of marrying over 50. You won't have kids. You would be wise to have separate houses and finances. So why?

Agree with the above except the part about having separate houses. Why is that an advantage ?

Separate houses are an advantage because you'd have to pick one person's house to live in. If that person dies first, presumably their heirs (children) would sell the house and the surviving partner then has to look for new housing which might not be easy or affordable.

Obviously if you’re married you update your will so that surviving spouse gets the house or gets to live in the house until death. Again, you don’t get married with no protections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the point of marrying over 50. You won't have kids. You would be wise to have separate houses and finances. So why?

Agree with the above except the part about having separate houses. Why is that an advantage ?

Separate houses are an advantage because you'd have to pick one person's house to live in. If that person dies first, presumably their heirs (children) would sell the house and the surviving partner then has to look for new housing which might not be easy or affordable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the point of marrying over 50. You won't have kids. You would be wise to have separate houses and finances. So why?

Agree with the above except the part about having separate houses. Why is that an advantage ?

Anonymous wrote:This has to be one of the most depressing threads I’ve ever read.

50 isn’t 80 folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve generally been in the “why marry again” camp. But at 55 and having seen my parents getting old, my mother dealing with my father’s decline and death, I am starting to see a benefit to being married as we age - having no issue making health and financial decisions for each other, funeral arrangements, etc.

You can live with someone without getting married.

But you have no legal rights or protections.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see the point of marrying over 50. You won't have kids. You would be wise to have separate houses and finances. So why?

Agree with the above except the part about having separate houses. Why is that an advantage ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve generally been in the “why marry again” camp. But at 55 and having seen my parents getting old, my mother dealing with my father’s decline and death, I am starting to see a benefit to being married as we age - having no issue making health and financial decisions for each other, funeral arrangements, etc.

Many times widows who were caregivers to their late husbands don’t want the possibility of doing it again.

And some do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve generally been in the “why marry again” camp. But at 55 and having seen my parents getting old, my mother dealing with my father’s decline and death, I am starting to see a benefit to being married as we age - having no issue making health and financial decisions for each other, funeral arrangements, etc.

You can live with someone without getting married.

But you have no legal rights or protections.

What kind of legal protection do you want? you should have your own money. Especially after age 40. I actually found marriage to be the opposite of legal protection because I would’ve had far more wealth if I had stayed single. And I’m a woman.

Things like having a say over medical treatment, end-of-life care. For example, I know a long-term couple, never married, that when one of them got seriously sick, the other one wasn’t able to to manage the partner’s care. Had no legal right and the hospital, nursing home wouldn’t let them. In fact, when the pandemic started couldn’t even see the partner and to finagle, threaten and cajole in order to get access because they weren’t “family”. Or seeing all the stuff my mother and I had to decide and arrange for at the end of my father’s life. If I’ve built a life with a partner I would want us to be each other’s person/decisionmaker if one of us is at that stage, and not the grown kids who may have grown distant or, worse, an estranged sibling or some other relative having greater legal rights over such decisions.

As I get older, I would want my partner and I to either get married with a prenup or get the whole slew of legal documents that would allow us to be recognized as each other’s “person”, caretaker, next-of-kin, whatever people want to call it. We don’t need each other’s money, retirement, etc. We’re both independent and well off. But it would be distressing if, as we got older, we lose the right to care for the other, honor one another’s wishes, end up being considered nothing more than a stranger, legally, when important decisions need to be made.

I’m the 55yo PP who’s reconsidering my “never marry again” position.