Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

To wonder why the sham of marriage is still a thing

192 replies

munkynutts · 26/11/2017 12:49

Genuinely.

Just take a look at MN, chockablock full of people who are on their second or third marriages - not judging, just a fact.

Most people couldn't give a fuck about the religious aspect. Most people in this country struggle to even make it to a Christmas service, but suddenly find their soulful side when it comes to marriage?

As well as the rise of one person having multiple marriages over the course of their life, weddings are becoming way more OTT and flamboyant too and we see how many threads there are on here about weddings and gift dilemmas. Once upon a time nee couples did actually need a toaster, now guests are expected to chip in so they can have an experience?!

It just seems to me that the days of sticking around in a relationship that doesn't work for you are long gone, for better or worse (better IMO).

So shouldn't we just cut this wedding crap and have civil partnerships for everyone? Because if you dont believe in god and dont believe in one true love to stick with come what may, then really, whats the fucking point other than to have a Princess Day? Wouldnt it be better to jist buy a nice dress, go down to town hall for civil partnership and then have a few close friends down the pub, rather than expecting guests to fork out for what is essentially a sham?

Then we have divorce and all the complication and entanglement that brings. I mean, just is it worth it?

OP posts:

StatelessPrincess · 26/11/2017 22:44

I got married for religious reasons not legal ones. Most people in Britain seem to get married because they really love each other. Every culture in the world (I think?) has some form of marriage, it's just something humans do.

MiraiDevant · 26/11/2017 22:47

The point being made about protecting women is offensive in my view. Women should be independent, earn their own money, go into a relationship and make an agreement about assets.

"Marriage as protection for women" assumes that I as a woman will not be the higher earner, will not be able to support myself, am the default child-carer and, if my relationship breaks up, that I will want to take half of the marital assets. If we had better equality for women we would not need that "protection".

thegreylady · 26/11/2017 22:51

I have been married 3 times, divorced once, widowed once and now happily married for nearly 30 years. Two marriages in church one in registry office. All beautiful celebrations of a public affirmation of love and of our intention to make a commitment.
OP has anyone ever asked you to marry them?

mumeeee · 26/11/2017 23:02

I have been happily married for 33 years. Yes we have had our ups and downs but we still love each other.In fact I know several couples who have been married for years.

Clitoria · 26/11/2017 23:09

I’m so embarrassed for the OP 😄made a right dick of herself and still bleating and trying to change the subject. Aye, enjoy you life with your crusty knickers as talked about in your other shitty thread 😄

MohoBoho · 26/11/2017 23:17

Marriage is a legal state - it does make a difference from the point of view of spousal pensions, benefits on death etc - to be brutally practical. If you don't get married and have no will, you could be left with nothing. There is no need for a church, no need to spend massive amounts, but that doesn't mean you should get rid of marriage. Getting married for the second or third time is an act of hope and commitment (and sometimes practicalities!).

Fluffyears · 26/11/2017 23:31

The rights I would like to see are over our home, we both own it but in the event of something happening to either of us the partner left doesn’t have automatic rights to inherit the Half owned by the deceased partner. Why the hell should my mil get half of my house when she has paid fuck all into it, get half of our savings, have all my partners personal items, make the decisions over his funeral etc.....Home and finances should be protected even if you haven’t married. By April we will be married and we do have wills but these can be contested by the legal next of kin!

missiondecision · 26/11/2017 23:32

Because we are allowed to change our mind.

BrioAmio · 26/11/2017 23:37

I married my husband in a non-religious ceremony to show our commitment to each other, I wouldn't have married him if he was a twat. I don't plan on ever doing it again nor was I hugely fussed about having a wedding, I just wanted us to be joined together as husband and wife.

MilibandStoleMySonsName · 26/11/2017 23:39

I bet for every post ...

actually I can't be bothered, you are just looking to wind people up

Raisedbyguineapigs · 27/11/2017 00:05

fluffy If you are joint tenants, you would get the house if your partner died. The problem with changing the law so that the house is given to a partner unconditionally is that if my DH died, our house would go to me. If I then took leave of my senses and moved another bloke in, he could then claim half of my house, presumably if I died or we split. My children's house would only be half theirs when it was fully paid for by their parents and should be theirs. I would never live with another man, but some want to and won't be able to for fear that half their house will be given away by default.

bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 07:29

But as raisedby has pointed out, if you're joint tenants the other tenant does automatically inherits the other half. The difference is in regard to IHT exemption - married couples are exempt, whereas unmarried couples are not.

And what about couples who specifically don't want their finances shared, as previous posters have stated. By automatically granting cohabiting couples the financial rights of married couples, you're entering people into a contract by default, that they haven't necessarily willingly opted into. They can't live together at all if the act of living together means they're going to be automatically acquire the legal status of married couples that they don't want. A couple might not want to take on each other's debts, for example. By forcing them into a situation of shared financial obligation, they're having their choices taken away from them.

As PP have said, there's a difference between wanting a civil partnership status for straight couples (so you can have the rights of marriage without it being called marriage) and granting cohabiting couples automatic rights (thereby removing the rights of many couples who are choosing to opt out of marital status).

PramWanker · 27/11/2017 08:02

Honestly fluff if you're joint tenants and your wills were drawn up validly and properly I doubt you've anything to worry about. Where unmarried couples are most likely to come unstuck is if they don't have wills, the wills aren't valid or one changes their will without telling the other. But if you have a joint tenancy, the survivor inherits the dead person's share whether married or not. Your STBMIL simply wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

A couple might not want to take on each other's debts, for example.

Just a quick point, marriage doesn't automatically do that. If a couple jointly own property then the creditors can potentially come after the debtor's half, which obviously can impact on the other person, but that's no less true of an unmarried couple.

The point being made about protecting women is offensive in my view. Women should be independent, earn their own money, go into a relationship and make an agreement about assets.

You can be as offended as you like. For women as a class, marriage is more protection because we're less likely to be the ones with the assets. One can talk about how that ought to change, but until it does, the point will remain correct. Obviously there will be individual women for whom it doesn't apply.

And of course, some arrangements for assets will require marriage, such as inheriting an unused IHT threshold, so individual agreements made without the involvement of the state won't impact that.

Fluffyears · 27/11/2017 17:28

Ah I hadn’t thought about the default position that co-habiting couple might be forced into. That makes sense. I wish though there was a way of declaring someone as next of kin separate to a will. In the event of something halo to me I want my partner to have the house, out savings and make medical decisions if needed and be the one who arranges what happens to my remains. Not my mother who is automatically NOK and I love dearly.

PramWanker · 27/11/2017 17:35

You can. You can lodge something with your GP. It's not 'official' in the same way marriage is but it will cover you in a lot of situations. Cohabiting partners are often accepted as NOK, just not always.

I also wouldn't rely on an NOK being in a will because by the time that kicks in you're already past the medical treatment stage!

bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 17:43

@Fluffyears an advanced care directive would be a start - that's a sensible thing to do regardless of marital status IMO

HidingBehindTheWallpaper · 27/11/2017 18:29

I have French friends who did a thing like a civil partnership when they bought their house together. It gives them all the legal protection of being married but without being married.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8