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?

Not quite true mirai.

For example, you might be the higher earner but also own a home that's worth more than the IHT nil rate threshold. When married, the IHT wouldn't kick in until after the second partner dies, but when cohabiting that's not the case. So as the higher earner in that scenario, you might choose to marry to protect yourself against the possibility of having to sell your marital home to pay IHT if you're the surviving spouse.

It depends what you want to protect yourself against, basically. There's no one size fits all.

Sadly our whole society was extremely sexist and patriarchal we can't change that. My great grandmother was one of the first women to get a degree but then women weren't granted degrees, even if they did better than the men, they just got "permits to teach" . But I wouldn't reject a university education because it used to be sexist.

Its fine if you are educated, well informed and able to buy (some) of the advantages of marriage or if you are the wealthier party but there are women who aren't and who do prejudice themselves significantly by not getting married. Theres an awful thread illustrating exactly this in relationships.

As far as I know , you can try to replicate the rights of marriage or civil partnership according to current law with other things e.g. wills etc . Some work , some don't - The safest thing is civil partnership / marriage. I can see why people don't like it , but at the same time I do not really understand why a civil marriage or partnership really makes one of the partners "lesser" . I suppose I post this in the spirit of families ( esp children ) where you want everything as best as possible if things go wrong.

I totally agree with you OP.

I’m amazed how many women happily give up careers and have children without the security of marriage. Marriage is a lot more than “just a piece of paper”.

Yes a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper. Like a passport is, or a cheque for £100,000.

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?

At the moment we have the same legal contract for everyone where married means 50:50. I can see that if we had the menu system then abusive or more-powerful partners would start trying to write the contract for their benefit. We(society) would end up with less protection and fewer safeguards, not more.

Sadly our whole society was extremely sexist and patriarchal we can't change that. My great grandmother was one of the first women to get a degree but then women weren't granted degrees, even if they did better than the men, they just got "permits to teach" hmm. But I wouldn't reject a university education because it used to be sexist.

Excellent analogy. Some people need to move with the times!

Is there actually a proposal to introduce common law marriage or some equivalent in the UK?

Because my understanding is that both parents have obligations with respect to children regardless of marital status? I would be very happy to see those obligations strengthened, but again, regardless of marital status.

Incidentally, as far as I am aware, university education does not have a history rooted in the transfer of "ownership" of a woman from her father to her husband, so it does seem a slightly odd analogy........

transfer of "ownership" of a woman from her father to her husband

Where does this feature in a Registry Office wedding?
Are you objecting to something that isn't actually there?

You noticed my reference to "history", right? The history of marriage?

Get married or accept that you can't have the same rights as a married couple, it's very simple.

Marriage offers protection for the person with the least so more and more don't want to do it as they have to forgo what they have amassed and worked hard for.

It would be silly in a dating relationship, which is what unmarried amounts to, to give financial rights to each other when neither has committed themselves to each other.

KERALA1 - excellent post at 18.16. We live in a patriachal society so everything is embedded in that!

I'm not going to not vote because I once would have not had the right. I wouldn't not see a Psychiatrist because a hundred years ago I'd have been diagnosed with hysteria. I won't not report a sexual assault because the statistics on conviction are dire.

You can get married without your Dad 'giving you away' like a possession or promising to obey or changing your surname or having a wedding with a big white dress. You can have an equal relationship and partnership as married people while legally ensuring you don't get fucked over if it all goes wrong.

What IS furthering misogny and patriarchy is the women who get left (or even kicked out of their homes) with children to care for and no financial recourse AT ALL, often after giving up their careers because they thought marriage was 'just a piece of paper' and they didn't need it because they trusted their partners.

As has been seen by the statistics, a lot of women don't realise they are entitled to fuck all if not married and certainly the majority don't have their name on deeds/have wills/asset split agreements legally drawn up and probably wouldn't know how to go about it even if someone told them they could.

It would be silly in a dating relationship, which is what unmarried amounts to, to give financial rights to each other when neither has committed themselves to each other.

So what exactly about 18 happy years and 2 children screams "uncommitted." I'd love to know.

Your local authority must, by law, offer statutory weddings for £46 plus £4 for a certificate. They may play silly buggers and only offer statutory ceremonies in a cupboard under the stairs on the third Thursday of the month, in which case you are free to shop around and have a £46 ceremony in any other local authority that takes your fancy. This, plus £35 each to give notice of marriage, is the minimum cost of getting married.

Below are all the legal words you need to say to get married in England. No mention of love, obeying, rings, vows or anything. The registrar might want to add some fluffiness, you can ask them not to.

Registrar: Are you John Smith free lawfully to marry Jane Jones?
John: I am.
Registrar: Are you Jane Jones free lawfully to marry John Smith?
Jane: I am.

(next words are repeated after the registrar so you don't muck them up)
John: I John Smith take you Jane Jones to be my wedded wife.
Jane: I Jane Jones take you John Smith to be my wedded husband.

Sign the registrar with witnesses and registrars. Job done.

To those posters who want civil partnerships to legally recognise their relationship, but don't like the name of 'marriage', would you be happy with the current framework for civil partnerships for same sex couples being extended to opposite sex couples? (given the specific differences between the two legal statuses outlined in this document)

www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

TLDR is basically summarised in this article:

"Fundamentally there are no major differences between civil partnerships and marriage but there are some differences including:

Civil partners cannot call themselves “married” for legal purposes.

Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties.

Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties.

Adultery cannot be used as a reason to dissolve the Civil Partnership. In a marriage, if one party is unfaithful this is grounds for divorce. This isn’t the case in civil partnership dissolution. Adultery isn’t recognised in same-sex partners."

www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/

This doesn't include the words marriage or husband or wife or the patriarchy associated with the history of the institution of marriage (but affords essentially the same legal recognition). Would that tick your boxes?

So what exactly about 18 happy years and 2 children screams "uncommitted." I'd love to know.

The fact that there's no contract of legal commitment.

I get that you don't like marriage and I understand why, although I think you're very misguided. But you can't refuse to make a legal commitment, for whatever reason, and then complain because people don't consider you to be legally committed.

I'm not obsessed. I said very early in this thread that, on this topic, the tendency is to suggest that a marriage is a more superior relationship. Some posters denied this was the case.

However there are also several examples on the thread of exactly that kind of thinking. That being married somehow demonstrates a level of commitment lacking in non married couples. That the rights you obtain on marriage are the reward for showing that commitment. I just think it's wrong. Anecdata of course but in my cohort of close friends we have outlasted every single marriage.

I just wanted to challenge the idea that marriage should be the only route to such rights.

I said very early in this thread that, on this topic, the tendency is to suggest that a marriage is a more superior relationship.

I've got no way of knowing whether my relationship is "better" than yours and I'd never presume to say anything of the kind. Nor would anyone unless they were a complete idiot.

But I do say mine has a legal commitment to it that yours hasn't. Doesn't mean we're more in love, have better sex, or that I'm owned. But it does mean we've got a legal contracted commitment in place, with certain protections, that you haven't. That's all.

That being married somehow demonstrates a level of commitment lacking in non married couples.

Because legally it DOES. The fact that you don't recognise this is why I really don't believe you're a lawyer. You don't think or talk or reason like one.

It says nothing about emotional commitment, for sure, but it's never claimed to in the legal part of it (as a poster showed above about the required lines you have to say - nothing about love or emotion at all). Marriage for love is a fairly recent concept; it always used to be about security and alliance. It wasn't long ago that kings in waiting had to abdicate if they wanted to marry a divorced woman, for love.

I don't say my relationship is in any way emotionally better than yours, but I DO say it is more legally committed, for the simple reason that it IS. We have a contract in place and you haven't.

You want legal benefits like IHT exemption, which are fuck all to do with love, you need to make the legal contract.

Me and my DP aren't married because we have our own assets that we would like to keep separate. That's our choice.

Or do you want an entirely new partnership status to be created, something more like the PACS in France, where the civil partnership considers you legally partnered and denotes some administrative rights, but does not give equivalent rights to those accorded to married couples

https://www.frenchentree.com/french-property/french-tax/civil-partnerships-or-pacs-in-france-how-they-work/

"In the UK, a CP is seen virtually as same-sex marriage, whilst in France it is not accorded that status – it is simply seen as a contract between two individuals, although the rules governing the duties and obligations of husband and wife such as communal life, reciprocal assistance, material aid are applicable to PACS partners, tax and legal rights are not the same as for married couples.

In a CP you are considered equal under the law to married couples, just by a different name

With a PACS you are classified as an entirely different legal status, with some - but not all - of the same rights as married couples

Because legally it DOES. The fact that you don't recognise this is why I really don't believe you're a lawyer. You don't think or talk or reason like one.

Oh dear. Perhaps I ought to let my employer know that I can't think like a lawyer. Surprised they haven't noticed so far that I lack the skills.

I don't know if you're wilfully misunderstanding but for the (very) last time. Funnily enough I get that marriage gives the parties legal rights. So LEGALLY they are contracted to one another. All I'm saying is that I'd like the option to contract in the same or similar way outside of the institution of marriage. I wish marriage wasn't the only way. That is all.