De facto relationships

Can I ask why are so vociferously advocating for this op

The white wedding dress crap is a load of patriarchal shite.

Not really. It was a fashion trend started by Queen Victoria. White was not the usual colour for a wedding dress before she chose that colour.

The point of this thread is to discuss whether the legal rights and responsibilities should only be actively opted into (i.e. marriage), or if they should also be conferred by default if a couple cohabit.

(And yes, plenty of men do want "the special day").

However the legal contract which recognises that you are now a partnership with joint finances offers invaluable protection to whichever partner puts their career on the back burner while the couple jointly have children - and since 9 times out of 10 that's the woman, I'd say that from a feminist perspective, the option to marry is something young women intending to start a family need.

We too are not married after 10 years, I do like living with him. I'd prefer not to have to kick him out after 2 years to avoid a de facto marriage. Or could we then explicitly opt out? Like a pre-nup!

I would be very unhappy at what would, in effect, be forced marriage. At my age I don't want to risk my house just so I can live with my partner. I have actively chosen not to marry.

Why do we need to continue with the archaic system of marriage. If we are honest do men really want the 'special day'. We should get rid of the whole mrs / miss, changing surnames, the 'virginal' white wedding dress and the corny vows.

Very interesting Plan thanks.

hate the idea I could end up married without actively doing it in purpose
⬆️Agree

Just go and get a civil partnership if you don't want marriage. Drag a couple of witnesses off the street.

I meant wedding. You don't need a big wedding. You can choose marriage or civil partnership.

I got married quite young. People questioned why. 'I love him' wasn't an acceptable answer, and we didn't have kids for ages, so it wasn't that. Neither of us had any assets at that point. I came up with the next of kin thing. I wanted him to be my family, if was in a coma I wanted him to make decisions on my behalf. If he kicks the bucket, I wouldn't want to marry again. I might let a fellow live in my house but if I would find myself accidentally married to him after 2 years I wouldn't let him move in.
I hate the idea I could end up married without actively doing it in purpose.

I don't think it will change in the UK.
According to the c of e, marriage is a sacrament, not a contact (sacrament = an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace) and c of e has some standing in the house of lords.

Really interesting that, Plan thanks!

I think many former U.K. colonies have this de facto marriage (Aus/NZ) or common law wife/husband (US/Canada) in their legal system as an outdated vestige from being so remote. It dates back to when you’d have pioneer communities with no priest or minister available to marry willing partners. The priest or minister might ride a circuit in a region and only come through your settlement once every few years. So they set up this common law or de facto marriages so that couples could cohabit quickly without “living in sin” and the idea was that they’d be officially married next time the priest/minister passed through town. It was many times needed in the harsh conditions to have couples cohabit quickly. Widows who lost a husband in summer, would risk starving to death if they did not couple up with a new husband to bring in the harvest and hunt over winter. A man who lost a wife and had young children similarly would need another adult woman to take over child rearing and household support- vegetable farming, cooking, etc. They couldn’t wait months on end for a man of god to arrive and do the ceremony.

Plus, if you're married, the widow/er is the one who makes decisions about life support, funeral arrangements and so on, not the deceased partner's parents/siblings.

Sorry. Cross post Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I may be a cynical old battle axe but even so, cynic that I am, I'm not entirely ruling out meeting a bloke in my early 60s, finding we fancied each other and liked each other enough to want to spend our declining years together. And if I did get the chance to shack up with someone, I would like the option to have the companionship and sex without entangling our finances. I certainly would not want the state telling me I could only live with someone if I were prepared to pool financial resources. That's none of the state's business.

A lot of people were surprised when I got married as I am quite a forthright feminist and not traditional. Most of them were also surprised by my explanation- that I think we should be able to make an explicit choice about our relationship status and would hate as situation where one is treated as married without having chosen it.

I would have preferred a civil partnership if it had been possible though.

What people often forget is the issue of legal next of kin should they become ill or die. It's not just about children and houses. A friend's long term partner became ill and died quite suddenly. They owned a house together but had somehow omitted the business of wills. Her family wanted her half of the house. He had to massively increase his mortgage and take in lodgers to cover it. But what really hurt. REALLY HURT. Was that he was not allowed to arrange the funeral service and choose the words on her gravestone.

I would say to anyone: you don't need a meringue dress and massive party for 200 guests. Just go and get a civil partnership if you don't want marriage. Drag a couple of witnesses off the street. But if you want legal protection then you have to opt in. Do it.

And if you don't want to be constrained and financially disadvantaged because your live in lover wants a share: Actually I think that's fair enough. People just need to understand the law and make an informed choice.

Marriage is a significant legal contract. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone without their express consent
⬆️Absolutely agree, marriage can’t be an add on by stealth. It’s one of the most significant contracts an adult enters into

As above, it’s fuck all to do with rings, insta-worthy proposals, big dresses and “being traditional”. Marriage is a significant legal contract. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone without their express consent.

Men have the power we give them
If a woman isn’t conversant with the difference between cohabitation vs marriage, why not?