AIBU to think if you want marital rights then you should get married?

[KitKat1985]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

According to this BBC article, 2/3rds of cohabiting couples wrongly believe 'common-law marriage' laws exist when dividing up finances, and there are calls now to introduce some form of legal financial protection for 'common-law marriages'. AIBU to not get this? Surely if people choose not to get married (or have a civil partnership for same sex couples) then they do so knowing that they don't have the same legal protection as married couples. It was one of the reasons me and DH decided to get married after co-habiting for a couple of years. Surely if you choose not to take on the legal and financial commitments of getting married, then you can't expect to have the same rights if you break up / your partner passes away? And surely for some couples the whole reason they don't want to get married is so they can just walk away from things if the relationship fails, without having to have the legal and financial complications involved in getting divorced? Is it really fair to then force those people to have to support their partner if they break up even if they actively choose never to make that commitment in the first place?

In the Republic of Ireland, they have a "half way house" redress scheme for cohabitants who are not married, nor in a civil partnership.

Basically, if either partner is financially dependent on the other, and the relationship breaks down, or one of them dies, provided they have lived together for 5 years, or 2 years where they have had children, the dependent partner can invoke the redress scheme. It applies to opposite and same sex couples.

This scheme means applying to the courts for maintenance, pensions etc. orders, and a share in the estate of a deceased partner. The courts will take the circumstances of the applicant into consideration.

It is not automatic, but I think it is fair.

So Holy Catholic Ireland accepts that certain cohabitants might need to be looked after!

What do you think?

NotWeavingButDarning It seems to me that (as others have pointed out) there are often winners and losers in a marriage contract in terms of its 50/50 aspect come divorce. Increasing there are more women who look to lose out in a 50/50 divorce asset and cash wise. I you were being very cynical often marriage is a smart move for one person and not the other. Definatly something not to be walked into likely.

What does every one think of a sort of menu of packages (like an energy suppliers tariff menu)? All offering a range of differing features that couples could opt to sign up for and branded in a way as to cause the least objection?

"t just to me seems odd that there's several posters on here essentially saying 'I don't want to get married and make financial and legal marital ties to my long-term partner, but I would like to have financial and legal ties to my long-term partner please'."

I honestly don't understand what is so difficult about this. For me marriage comes with load of misogynistic and patriarchal baggage that I do not want. But I do want my family to have financial protection in the event of death or break up. What is so very hard to grasp about that?

Yorick I haven't said the rights should creep up on anyone. Just that the rights should not be inextricably linked to the notion of marriage.

I don't really know what else to tell you. I object to being forced into a state sanctioned recognition of my relationship founded in misogyny and ownership of women. Does that help you?

Oh and BTW Civil Partnerships can no longer be registered since the introduction of same sex marriage in Ireland.

So you are either married or cohabiting.

PoorYorick - to be fair, I'm actually married. Quite happily and boringly monogamously so. I don't really object to marriage. I just don't think it should be the only way to achieve legal recognition of a relationship.

OK. Stuff I am aware of people not liking:

• monogamy
• religious connotations - bringing god into your relationship
• historical and cultural baggage - traditionally marriage has involved women being treated as property etc. Wedding vows still often reflect this
• 'til death us do part' - some people think that's not natural, you don't know what's happening in the future and would rather not promise to something they can't be sure about.
• psychological impact of the word 'married' - a lot of people associate it with losing your identity, losing your name, your sense of self
• losing your financial independence (also true of civil partnerships - but the rest aren't)

That's stuff people have talked to me about, if that helps?

Fizzthecat1

But what about when the civil partnership needs dissolving? That could be just as messy as your experience of divorce. ANYTHING that legally ties finances has the potential to be messy when it needs dissolved, particularly when emotions are involved.

That's not becUse she wasn't married. That was because she did not put in place adequate protection for herself and her child.

And yet it wouldn't have happened had she been married. Thus, not being married is as much a cause of this as not having made alternative protective provisions.

On the subject of universal CPs, I'm not opposed, but I must say it always seems a tad shady when people are opposed to marriage because of the misogynist connotations but then are apparently fine with being part of an institution that othered gay people. Sexism is bad but homophobia you'll make your peace with.

If people do just get married for legal and financial reasons then it is just a piece of paper. I believe common law marriages should have more rights.

cathyclown My problem with that Irish system is after building up a wealth of assets I would want to give them to my kids. I would be cohabiting with someone on the basis they could support them self. This system means that my kids may not get these assets. And what say before I snuffed it I was actually planning to leave my dp. Maybe they had been cheating on me and I was in the process of splitting up?

1DAD2KIDS

You say you would be with partner if they can support themselves.

The Irish scheme refers to those who might be left with absolutely nothing, i.e. financially dependent. This is what the courts take into consideration....

"In making a decision, the courts must take into account a number of factors including:

The financial circumstances, needs and obligations of each cohabitant
The rights of others (including the rights of spouses, former spouses, civil partners, former civil partners and dependent children of either partner)
The duration and nature of the relationship
The contribution made by each, financial and otherwise"

For me marriage comes with load of misogynistic and patriarchal baggage that I do not want.

THANK YOU!

Now THIS I can understand! I don't agree and I think it's silly to deny yourself something beneficial because of how people thought of it 100 years ago, but it's at least a reason! I get it! Thank you!

I object to being forced into a state sanctioned recognition of my relationship founded in misogyny and ownership of women. Does that help you?

Yes! It does! As above I still think it's bollocks, and you're not being forced into anything, as you would know because you're totally a lawyer, but it's at least a reason!

Honestly, it was driving me utterly bonkers. As far as I could see, it was going something like:

"I want IHT exemption and to be my partner's legal next of kin."
"Ok. So get married."
"No. I don't want to be married."
"But then you'd get the IHT exemption and legal next of kin status."
"Yes but I don't want to be married. I want a civil partnership."
"What's the difference?"
"I wouldn't be married."
"Yes but what is it in the marriage contract that's not in the civil partnership one that puts you off?"
"Being married."
"But you want the legal protections that come with being married..."
"Yes. But I don't want to be married."
"But the 'being married' is the part that gets you the legal protections..."
"I don't want to be married. I want a civil partnership."
"But what's the difference, for your purposes?"
"I don't want to be married."
"But you want the legal protections..."
.......

It was doing my SODDING HEAD IN.

Anyway. THANK YOU! I can actually get on with something else now.

I honestly don't understand what is so difficult about this. For me marriage comes with load of misogynistic and patriarchal baggage that I do not want. But I do want my family to have financial protection in the event of death or break up. What is so very hard to grasp about that?

Your marriage would only come with misogynistic and patriarchal baggage though if you married a partner who was misogynistic and patriarchal. My emotional relationship with (now) DH did not change when we got married as he always respected me as a woman, and respected my independence. Our getting married did not change that.

I believe common law marriages should have more rights.

They'd need to exist first.

I do think it should be possible to protect yourself legally against some of these problems with getting married, but I agree with Yorick that it can't be an automatic thing for co habiting couples because that is just another unfair situation. There must be some kind of alternative though, and if enough people want to create one then it isn't really anybody's business why they don't 'just get married'.

Aside from that, I think there needs to be some protection for people who have been in long term relationships, perhaps raising children or in a caring role of some sort. It does not seem right that you deserve whatever comes to you because you didn't or couldn't marry.

What patriarchal or misogynist baggage does my marriage have?

I'm not the original poster but off the top of my head:

• Under English law in the 19th century and earlier, women's legal identity dissolved into nothing once they married a man. Technically, a married woman existed under the "protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord" until the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, which allowed women to own and property for the first time.

• In the U.S., married women weren't allowed to sign contracts, write a will, or own property — and were only allowed to do certain things with their husband's permission.

• Traditionally marriage was a transaction between families - nothing to do with romance. That's still reflected in the father of the bride 'giving his daughter away', as if she's property. The traditional vows say that the bride should 'love, honour and obey' her husband. The echoes are still there.

• Until 1991 in the UK it wasn't possible for a married man to rape his wife. By getting married the woman was considered to have basically given away her body to her husband in perpetuity.

• Brides wear white to their wedding because it's associated with virginity and purity. Which is pretty dubious if you think about it. There's a bunch of equally dodgy wedding customs - like the 'garter toss' is the last remnant of the days when the bride and groom would be 'put to bed'. There's a load of stuff relating to virginity and deflowering the bride.

I'm not saying marriage is bad or your marriage isn't great. I just don't think we can kid ourselves that there is a load of patriarchal baggage in the institution and it's a very personal decision as to whether you think your reinterpretation of that tradition outweighs the ancient bullshit or not. I decided to get married because for me, it did, but it took me a long time.

Many people on here seem to be asserting that marriage and civil partnership are effectively the same, and that if you can access one it is perverse to be requesting access to the other. So you did not support recognising gay marriage then? You felt they should be happy to be called civil partners and their choice of preference didn't matter?

PoorYorick would the right to civil partnership be the y way forward to you.

cathyclown I could understand some common sense in the idea that a court could look into the circumstance where some sort of fair financial recognition could be sort if the nature of the relationship and entitlement could be proved. No doubt the solicitors could cash in too.

Unmarried women were quite often their father's effective property. Still are in some societies. I can't say I care for the connotations of that either.

itshappening Same-sex couples should have been given the right to marriage in the first place IMO. I'm sure lots of other people felt the same way.

1DAD

The legal profession "cash in" WRT divorce and lots of other things.

The financially dependent partner would qualify for Free Civil Legal Aid in Ireland. Long waiting list, but if they have little or no means they qualify.

Ah, cashing in. You can't generally get legal aid for divorce now (except possibly for DV, it's been the better part of a decade since I did family law). I well remember the pittance my firm used to get for each case before it got taken out of scope altogether. I think it was about £200 by the end? Anyone who thinks any lawyer was getting wealthy off that doesn't know enough about law firms.

Actually it was much more financially lucrative for people to come in and pay privately for mirror wills and other less efficient ways of getting fewer of the rights of marriage. I would've much preferred it if nobody had got married and they'd all created some form of individualised contract instead!