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?

@leftbehind

You've said lI just wanted to challenge the idea that marriage should be the only route to such rights."

What would you prefer be an alternative route to such rights? Extending UK civil partnerships to opposite sex couples so as to have essentially equal recognition under the law without calling it marriage? Or a solution like PACS to create an entirely new legal status that is a fundamentally different legal entity to marriage?

"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."

I have legal arrangements in place too concerning our children and our joint and separate assets. Your point?

I would very peed off with that Irish system as my partner has been a very bad earner for some years but definitely doesn't reserve my financial support, pension, part of my house. As alluded to before, such a law would condemn a lot of us to living alone forever. If you want the rights, opt in. I do think there should be civil partnership route available though as it would be a good option for many avoiding all the connotations around marriage.

I wish there weren't any faith schools and our education system was far simpler and less hotch potch. But like most things including marriage it's evolved over time to mirror the changes in society but built on top of what was there before. Women have fought hard to modernise marriage from the married women's property act to ending rape within marriage. I think as it is now it's fair. It's not perfectly right on but there or thereabouts.

Being married isn't a superior relationship. It does give legal protection though.

And the number of women posting on MN because their loving and devoted partner who they were 100% sure were just as committed as they were left for someone else after 10/25/30 years of marriage is shocking.

And that's utterly devastating. But at least they were married and the OP isn't left on the bones of their arse financially.

What I have learned in life (and on MN) is that people can often seem to have a complete personality transplant during a break up. That man (or woman) who you completely depended on and never doubted for decades, who ostracized friends who had affairs, who was the most involved and devoted equal parent can change seemingly overnight.

You were the couple that all your friends thought would never split, the relationship that people envied and suddenly - they meet someone else and are willing to throw away a decades long relationship away for someone they've known for a few months and they now 'realise' they'd been unhappy for years and never really loved you....

And if you're married, they'll often hide assets or argue to give you as little as possible through court. That devoted parent isn't so devoted now they have a new partner or maybe more children.

Not married? They have no obligation at all to you. Been a SAHM for years bringing up your children? Time to get a full time job now even though it's difficult when you're the resident parent because all you are entitled to legally is child maintenance via the national calculated amount and your full time job probably won't be enough to live on anyway.

Older children? Easier (or harder given your age and time out of employment) to get a job but it better pay well because you need to not only pay for everything but you'll also need to start saving for your retirement because the government pension won't keep you out of poverty whereas your high-earning ex has plenty of savings and a fab pension which is all theirs.

Their savings and pension they wouldn't have achieved had you not spent years at home raising your children.

But that doesn't matter. Their house. Their money. Their pension.

I have legal arrangements in place too concerning our children and our joint and separate assets. Your point?

I presume it's that your legal commitment is less than the one made in marriage because the provisions you have made concerning your separate assets, if you're leaving them to your partner, can be altered by you at any time, without the other person knowing. And they'd be very unlikely to be able to challenge it. Which is not true of marriage. The one is more easily ended than the other. When you marry someone you're committing to giving them the right to a greater claim on your assets in the event of separation or your death.

I have legal arrangements in place too concerning our children and our joint and separate assets. Your point?

For you, none at all except that I think it's a shame to dismiss marriage based on outdated bollocks that no longer exists in it. You have a legal arrangement in place that suits you, so you don't appear to need an alternative to marriage as you have it already.

Perhaps you should PM the details to leftbehind, because her situation does not suit her and she might not know what the other options are.

She wants legal benefits, but won't make a legal commitment. She seems to think she should have these legal benefits because she is emotionally committed. Unfortunately we can't contract emotions, as she would know since she's totally a lawyer. We can contract legalities.

Emotions and love are their own reward. If you want legal protection, you need a legal commitment. You've got one, she appears not to, so perhaps you should tell her a bit more about what you've got in place.

yorick could you refrain from the personal attacks please. If you think I'm lying or a troll please do report me.

I don't think you're a troll, I just don't think you're a lawyer. Or if you are, I've got to assume it's in a field so unrelated to this that it isn't relevant at all.

If I'm wrong, you can be secure in that knowledge. I've been accused of being all sorts on here.

I have legal arrangements in place too concerning our children and our joint and separate assets. Your point?

There are certain tax considerations that you cannot replicate.

I'm only ignoring posts that are deeply silly.

Bertrand - what if you don't have joint or seperate assets though?

Lots of women don't.

What if you fell in love, moved in to the house he owns or you were renting together and that's fine because you had your own job and bank account and you had lots of lovely holidays and hobbies and nights out and if you split up, you could easily rent somewhere on your salary.

Then you get pregnant either unplanned or planned. You're committed to each other and know you'll always do the 'right thing' by each other. You don't need to get married because having a baby is much more of a commitment than getting married.

And you don't entirely agree with marriage anyway and/or don't see it as necessary.

And you have a baby and give up work or reduce your work. Or 2/3/4/5 babies. And you're too busy or it's too costly to get married or you still simply don't feel the need to because there is no bigger commitment than having a baby with someone.

And he meets someone else or you want to end the relationship because he's abusive or you met someone else or you both agree you don't want to be together anymore.

And you came into that relationship with no assets. You paid towards the mortgage/bills at first but for years you were a SAHM who took money out of the family account or you maybe paid some nominal bills like phone/car insurance from a part time job.

And now - he wants you out or he's willing to leave but there's no way you can pay the mortgage on your own and he's under no obligation to do anything but pay a nominal amount to your children (if he does that).

Which is very likely if you were in an abusive relationship or if he's just fucked off that you met someone else or didn't want to be with him anymore and as far as he's concerned, he's paid for you to stay at home for years while he's done all the 'hard graft' so now you need to sort something out and get a job. Don't expect him to reduce or adapt his hours so you can work though.

The misogynistic and patriarchal undertones of the marriage union are so very, very minor these days when compared to the misogynistic and patriarchal results of a society where women become lesser earners, bear more caring responsibilities and are more likely to live in poverty as a result of society making them rely with no legal protection whatsoever (without marriage or having their own assets which they formally protect) on men to provide for them and their children.

Because it often doesn't happen.

I'd love it if someone could answer my question about what kind of civil legal union would be preferable as an alternative to marriage - extension of CP to opposite sex couples or a new 'different but not equal' legal status like PACS?

There is still a lot of argument. Would simply extending civil partnerships to everyone solve most of the issues on this?

Although I would suspect if I was being cynical it would put a fly in some peoples ointment. There must be some individuals out their in LTRs who don't want a legally binding contract who use a moral objection to marriage as a get out clause to the legal commitment?

(By the way that's not aimed at anyone on here, just speculating in terms of all the 1000s of couples out there may be some people that are using the lack of an alternative)

Same sex couples get married, civil partnerships are increasingly rare...probably because they were create to specifically exclude same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

FFS - to all those smugly saying “more education needed” and/or “why don’t people just get married”, yes congratulations on being in good/ balanced relationships where decisions were made for the mutual benefit of both parties.

The decision to get married will always be more in the less powerful partner’s interest. So there are lots of women who are unmarried not primarily through choice, lack of education or stupidity, but because their partner doesn’t want to get married. Should this mean that in the event of relationship breakdown they and their children should be horribly disadvantaged? Shouldn’t having children together (at least) mean that you are a family and everything is joint? Simply saying “don’t have children if you’re not married” is unrealistic and out of touch, as the large number of unmarried couples demonstrates.

As a kiwi I just don’t get the wilful blindness on here about this issue. Nor the smug and frankly unkind response to an awful situation a lot of women find themselves in. Last place I would have expected to have so little care for what is primarily a feminist issue.

But wait! Naturally it’s a class issue, too, so I guess all of you preaching about getting married are doing so partly to reassure yourselves about your class status. Yeah, well done. You’re well off and middle class or whatever.

Basically, I'd like the civil partnership model to cover the legal aspects - IHT, division of property etc - and if you want to also sign up to monogamy, god's presence, the cultural history aspects you have a marriage ceremony with a celebrant of your choice/religion/whatever

But a civil service does not - in fact, legally cannot - include any religious content. The cultural historical bits you can minimise, if not completely exclude (for example, you don't have to change your name, no need for "giving away" / wearing a white dress and veil / swapping rings. And I'm pretty certain that the vows don't have to include a commitment to monogamy either.

So all a civil service is doing is giving formal notification to the state that you and X are in a relationship

Would simply extending civil partnerships to everyone solve most of the issues on this?

No, because there are still going to be a lot of people who don't see the need for it because they're common law married. I'd venture to suggest that those who aren't married because they understand the legal position but object to the institution are a minority, and they're also likely to have made at least some other provisions. Because people who understand the law usually do. The least protected people are the ones who don't know, so CP is an irrelevance for them.

And there's going to be a lot of women who have given up work to be SAHM's left high and dry if they split from their partner. They might enjoy the SAHM years but will they enjoy working till they are 68 in some low paid job relying on state benefits as they gave up their careers because partner earned loads more. . When will people wake up.

What exactly are you advocating for littlekiwi?

For what it's worth, I'd be interested in a version of a civil partnership - something new, available for all couples, if people object to any connection to current civil partnerships.

If I've understood the argument correctly, the main reason for getting married is so that you have better protection if you split up - is that right?

That rather contradicts the argument that people who are married are more committed to each other than those who aren't.

I'm only ignoring posts that are deeply silly.

Well, your one about people entering major legal contracts because it makes them feel better than you wasn't exactly dazzling, if I'm honest.

But what's silly about people pointing out that whatever protections you've got in place will not carry the same legal weight as getting married, and are therefore a lesser legal commitment? What's silly about people pointing out that many institutions we have in place, including our very justice system, were once utterly prejudiced but have evolved over time to something acceptable and workable now?

No hackmum it's also about what happens when you die. Also even if it were just about what happens when you split up, marriage is giving the other person more of a share in your assets and a way to challenge you not providing for them. It's basically putting more of your money where your mouth is.

I certainly don't think unmarried couples are less emotionally committed to each other, that would be ridiculous. Legally though, marriage is a commitment that unmarried cohabitation isn't.