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?

So it's silly to object to marriage on the grounds of its historical misogyny and patriarchal background, and what's more its homophobic to want a civil partnership as an opposite sex couple. That's lovely.

I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that marriage hasnt got misogynistic and patriarchal roots. It represents everything that is wrong with how women have been treated historically. Why would I ever want to sign up to that? I never want to be a wife, even if me, DP, two random witnesses and the registrar are the only ones who know.

🙄

cathyclown just to clarify (in case it's been taken the wrong way). That statement about solicitors chashing in was more a bit of light hearted commentary than some sort of passive aggressive criticism of the Irish system. Although I'm not sure how legal aid prevents them chasging in (anyway that going off subject)? It seems to be fair provided with suitable safe guards. Now you have explained it to me I'm not against it per se.

Sorry, but t of a garbled point there, I suppose I'm saying it is not just a problem for the individual woman if she cannot get easy access to the MAP.

Ha, wrong thread, don't mind me. Will we ever get an edit option?

I assume you mean in terms that leagal aid doesnt pay too well?

I was massively in favour of same sex marriage, largely because everyone thought marriage was better than civil partnering and gay people should have the same benefits.

Well, I personally think not getting married due to marriage having historical roots in misogyny and patriarchy is really cutting off your nose to spite you face, if in being married would significantly benefit you / your partner. I can't imagine personally for example being happy at losing out of tens of thousands in inheritance tax after my partner passed away, just because I didn't want the label of 'wife' or 'married', even though it would have made no actual difference to my day-to-day life. But each to their own I guess.

"I was asking why my specific marriage, that doesn't involve a single one of those things, is patriarchal or misogynistic?"
Your marriage is no different from any other marriage. Marriage by definition carries that baggage.
Some people choose to acknowledge that-some people
choose to ignore it

1DAD,

No worries, you didn't say anything wrong at all, and even if you did, I would not judge that either! This is an open forum for a reason. I enjoy the banter and learn a lot along the way too.

The taxpayer foots the bill for any benefit a person is entitled to such as FCLA.

There is no financial protection if you are not married, the children are not automatically the fathers in the eyes of the law. Even if you put things in trust the Trustees could consider a counter claim ie brother family. The idea that this day and age that my husband own me is hilariously funny. I though this was all last century debate 🤔

KitKat would you have said the same to people who didn't want to get married until same sex couples could get married?

I think also we need to try to move away from this idea that co-habiting is just for couples that haven't got around to getting married or don't think it makes a practical difference whether they're married or whatever, and therefore need to be 'protected from themselves' to some degree by legislation.

For many people, as evidenced by this thread, not marrying is an active and considered choice.

Notweaving this is a choice and a legal framework is already in place with tested case law, it’s not a whim.

Marriage by definition carries that baggage. Some people choose to acknowledge that-some people choose to ignore it.

Some people disagree with you and think it is a past feature that does not carry weight today. Especially given the protections it offers to SAHMs and lower earning women.

The justice system itself has had many changes over the centuries and is much better now than it was at its beginnings. I don't agree we should jettison it because of how it used to be. We've changed it to make it better, same with marriage.

You certainly don't have to agree, but you are wrong that marriage objectively carries baggage and everyone is either ignoring or acknowledging it. Some of us don't agree with your premise.

I always warn non-married cohabiting friends and family to seek help independent legal advice and get some sort of legal agreement in place.
Particularly if they have kids.
You don't need to get married if that is not for you but you need to be sure your interests are protected. And no, being married doesn't mean all your problems in life are sorted.

For many people, as evidenced by this thread, not marrying is an active and considered choice.

Absolutely. And people who have made that active and considered choice in order to avoid the legal consequences of marriage, shouldn't be forced to accept them in order to be able to live with a partner!

I assume you mean in terms that leagal aid doesnt pay too well?

Was that to me? It's not just that it doesn't pay but it barely exists any more for divorce, in the UK anyway. And people wanting to put legal protections in place outside of marriage pay privately. It would be more lucrative for the legal protection if everyone drew up their own individually tailored contracts and trusts to try and avoid IHT!

KitKat would you have said the same to people who didn't want to get married until same sex couples could get married?

No. And do you know why? Because those were (then) current protests against an injustice in our society. However leaving yourself worse off to protest against injustices that happened sometimes more than 100 years ago and has long since been rectified is just daft.

I wish so many of you would stop talking about "protection".

It is not protection! It means if you are richer or own a house or have children from a previous relationship you are actually allowing yourself to be very vulnerable indeed. (As some posters have said)

It is only protection if you are a SAHP who comes to the union with less and does not earn as much. Otherwise it is very risky indeed

PramWanker, completely agree. I am one of those in that position. I definitely would be furious if I found myself 'married' by default as I do not want to be married.

I actually think there should be some inbetween options. When people get a mortgage together they should have to make a decision on what happens if one dies or they separate, they shouldn't just be left to do it in the future and let it slip. They can decide anything, but there are too many messy upsetting things that happen through the absence of anyone thinking about them.

My friends were planning to marry, had house together etc. when she died suddenly. It was such a mess as her family were her next of kin and started trying to force him out the house so no other woman would ever live there (or something a bit mean yet understandable for grieving parents). People who should have been supporting each other were fighting. The couple should have been forced to think about these things when buying a house as it would be easier then, same with separating.

I guess I'm daft then. It's how I feel though, 🤷🏼‍♀️