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?

* 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 the only difference between a CP and a marriage is the name, the format of the certificate, the digital status of the register, and the provision for adultery in the event of dissolution of the partnership

A civil partnership ceremony is otherwise identical to a civil marriage ceremony

We have a civil partnership model. It's just that it's for same sex couples only. Do you want that to be extended to opposite sex couples?

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?

No, also if one partner dies.

But you're being a bit too flippant, I think. If someone gives up their earning power, or severely reduces it, in order to maintain a home or raise children, then yes, they'll do very well to get some legal protection if they split, especially if that split occurs because the working partner decides to use their time out of the home and away from domestic responsibilities to have an affair.

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

No, it's pretty constant. To agree to share assets after a split is more of a commitment than being able to skip off without a care.

But marriage isn't about emotional commitment. There's absolutely nothing in the legal contract that says anything about love. Which is why I would never claim my marriage is more romantically committed than someone else's relationship. I will only say it's more LEGALLY committed. Because it is.

The dangers of something even as limited as the Irish approach can be seen on another thread. OP there lives rent-free at her partner ‘s, equal split of costs (but thinks her partner should pay for more as he chose to take up a higher-paying career than her - but he also has DC to pay for which she doesn’t). They don’t even have kids together, but presumably on death or breakup she’ have a claim on the basis of the length of their relationship. I’d be hellishly wary of being the partner under the Irish approach.

Oh, and rejecting an institution because elements of it used to be oppressive. That describes pretty much every institution, everywhere. The point is, they reform. What’s the point of reforming anything if people are just going to going to go, “It used to be dodgy so I’m still not doing it”?

Agree 100% too. The 'cool hipsters' who come out with this 'it's only a piece of paper' crap really piss me off. They mock and berate marriage, and think it's too 'mainstream,' but they want all the trappings that go with it. Does my head in. Get married, or stfu.

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.

Er, isn't this where we came in? There are lots of unmarried couples because 2/3rds of them don't understand the situation. Most women should say "if we're not getting married then kids aren't happening" and walk away from the relationship.

I agree with most posters about marriage (and the legal differences and obligations that go with it) being an opt-in thing, that people shouldnt have to sign away/share their property etc as soon as they move in together...

However, very many people (particularly women, especially some mothers) are cohabiting in circumstances they haven't necessarily chosen or in a situation where they can insist on marriage or anything else. Perhaps their partner doesn't believe in marriage or is still married to someone else, perhaps the pregnancy was accidental and they had nowhere else to go, perhaps marriage was promised but excuses were always made or partner is coercive or controlling. It's heartbreaking that these women will find it so much harder to leave and suport themselves outside of the relationship

I think the rights that come with marriage have to be opt-in. I'm unlikely to shack up with anyone at my age (in my fifties), but if I did, I would not want them to acquire a claim to my house, pension, etc. simply because we were shagging each other. As a single mother who's done the tough bits all by myself and kept a roof over our heads and a decent life for us, I want to protect my DC's inheritance.

So, people want a legal contract to:

Share financial assets in the case of death/separation

Not pay IHT until both parties have died

Ensure that parents provide well for their children/ensure that children are provided for first before cohabiting partners (who are not their parent)

Ensure that the other party is next of kin for medical reasons

Ensure that pensions/widow’s pension/any other benefits can be shared after death/not shared in the case of a separation

Are these all the rights/obligations we’re talking about under the umbrella of marriage? What have I missed?

Dances, pregnancy is a choice, likewise so is picking a partner and then co-habitating with them. No one is forced into it. We make choices as adults and then live with the consequences.

Surely if you have a legal valid will that says your co partner inherits when you die and is your next of kin it's valid

Much of the issues can be handled

There are some tax benefits I understand

'However, very many people (particularly women, especially some mothers) are cohabiting in circumstances they haven't necessarily chosen or in a situation where they can insist on marriage or anything else. Perhaps their partner doesn't believe in marriage or is still married to someone else, perhaps the pregnancy was accidental and they had nowhere else to go, perhaps marriage was promised but excuses were always made or partner is coercive or controlling. It's heartbreaking that these women will find it so much harder to leave and suport themselves outside of the relationship'

It's heartbreaking that anyone sleepwalks into this knowing she has NO rights at all as an unmarried cohabitee. Accidental pregnancies don't have to result in childbirth, who would move in with someone still married to someone else, if you're living with someone who 'doesn't believe in marriage' and you do then you leave when the tenancy agreement is up (or don't move in with them at all), just about every single scenario has an easy enough out and especially if you haven't gone and jacked in work for this 'DP'.

I'm in favour of leaving it an opt-in system. But you know, it's a caveat emptor world. A quick Google search will reveal the lack of legal protection for unmarried partners.

Issue is wills can be changed and there is no redress to challenge. So you think partner left all to you (mirror wills) but he changed will.

you cannot choose to reject the system for formalising that relationship and then object to not receiving the formal benefits

Bang on.

ReturnoftheMack's post is excellent.

I'm in my 50s. When I was a child hardly anyone cohabited, far less had children, without being married. I accept there would have been quite a few people who called themselves married but weren't, because it was asking for trouble to be openly immoral (in the language of the times). Now those were oppressive times and we've moved on a lot from then, but it's not all been good. More women than men are the lower earner and more women than men take career breaks when children are small or elderly parents need care. In a real partnership the lower/non-earner needs protection for when the relationships ends, whether that's in death or splitting up. Marriage goes a long way to doing that. Co-habitation doesn't, unless the couple are clued up and willing to spend quite a lot on legal fees.

Surely if you have a legal valid will that says your co partner inherits when you die and is your next of kin it's valid

Not if your partner marries someone else, which they'd be free to do. Marriage voids existing wills.

A colleague had a couple all lovey dovey who did their wills with her together. He went in the next week and changed his. She wouldn't have any way of finding that little surprise out until he died.

Or people don't make wills. Lots of people don't. It's not always at the forefront of the minds of people.

Yes it's probably not wise but a hell of a lot of people don't do it or it's on their list of things to do but never get round to. A hell of a lot of people think a life-time of good health and healthy living plus parents that lived into their 80s/90s means they've got years and years to sort that kind of stuff out.

And when their partner of 10/15/20 or more years dies and the partners adult children who they've hardly seen for years pitches up to sell the house they've been living in but have no legal rights to, they remember that they'd both been planning to make wills for years.

expat: the statistics given which are the basis of this entire thread show that most people DON'T KNOW they have no legal rights and think that common law wife/husband or co-habitees gives them legal rights. So they're not knowingly entering into that situation at all.

Yes a quick Google shows it's not true but people don't Google things they think they already know.

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?

Not just split up - but death: Avoiding IHT, access to ISA and pension, ensuring wills cannot be overturned, next of kin. As well as accessing married couple’s tax allowance

I don’t want either of us to have to sell the house to pay IHT if one of us dies

There are of course significant legal rights afforded to married couples in the event of separation as well, such as home rights and maintenance.

Whether you see these as affording protection, or placing you in a position of vulnerability, depends on your personal circumstances

We wanted the rights of married couples, so we got married

We can’t have children, as it turns out, but we got married after 12 years together because we wanted to start a family. I wouldn’t personally have children without the legal protection afforded to both partners by marriage. But personal choice.

I think it's tragic to see the number of threads on here where women are left high and dry because they didn't know that they didn't have the rights they thought they did. That's not a reason to force common law marriage by default on all cohabiting couples however.

It was a patriarchal institution until at least 1991 in the UK, so within my lifetime. That's before you consider elsewhere in the world.

Blimey Kerala!

I’m with *Gen
*
Our decision to get hitched was not on religious basis but on a understanding that it was him and me against the world, we both wanted to make a legal commitment. I’m proud to be married. I’m proud that my children were born in our marriage. I’m not particularly interested if people are married or not but I don’t want it torn down or diminished at the convenience of those who can’t be bothered.

I'm not complaining about not getting rights that I know I have not signed up for. I know you think I'm daft/foolish, but I'm not that stupid. I would like the option of having a new type of civil union that doesn't have any of the associations of marriage but has equal protections (and both parents details on the records). I think it would be popular. I can't see how it would offend or upset anyone to have that, or cause problems for anyone who is already married.

Can you clarify exactly what I'm denying my children? Not possible/hypotheticals on certain possible future scenarios, but definitives now, in my current situation.