Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

647 replies

KitKat1985 · 27/11/2017 13:07

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?

OP posts:
bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 22:08

@AssassinatedBeauty what kind of civil legal union would be preferable as an alternative to marriage (as per my previous posts)? Would you prefer the extension of CP to opposite sex couples (ie marriage but just not called marriage? Or a new 'different but not equal' legal status like PACS?

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 22:11

I've said that already. Equal, not an extension to the civil partnership (because that's offensive/homophobic), but a new civil union that's available to all couples. Not like the French thing, which is much more minimal as far as I understand it.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 22:16

but a new civil union that's available to all couples

How would it differ from marriage and civil partnerships? In terms of the legal contract?

bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 22:19

Apols we cross posted. Thank you for clarifying. If not extending the CP (which I completely agree was a homophobic cop out)but replacing it with something available to all couples, what would be the difference between your proposed civil union and the provision accorded by the current CP legal framework (if it was available for opposite sex as well as same sex couples)?

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 22:20

It doesn't need to differ in terms of the legal contract, as it should be equal to marriage.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 22:21

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 think it would be a complete waste of time. Utterly redundant.

I can't see how it would offend or upset anyone to have that, or cause problems for anyone who is already married.

It wouldn't offend or upset me, it's just completely pointless. An entirely new institution, exactly the same as marriage except for both parents' names being on the register? Because it's not enough just to update marriage to make that change? If you're just going to replicate it entirely with one simple administrative change that nobody really cares about, it's just as associated with marriage as if you just altered the existing structure.

I mean, I don't object to it in theory and I wouldn't oppose it if it came in. It just seems totally redundant.

bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 22:21

The only differences between civil partnerships and marriage are the following provisions. Otherwise they're fundamentally identical. What would a civil union do other than what a CP does, if the legal rights are to be equal to marriage (which a CP is)?

^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^

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 22:26

You've answered your own question surely? Civil partnership is not acceptable as it was discriminatory. So extended it for opposite sex couples isn't going to be acceptable. Instead, replace it with a very similar new provision which has the same legal status as marriage, but also allows for both parents details to be recorded, and allows for adultery to be a reason for dissolution.

So people can choose marriage if they want to, or a civil union if not, and both are equal to each other.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 22:30

nstead, replace it with a very similar new provision which has the same legal status as marriage, but also allows for both parents details to be recorded, and allows for adultery to be a reason for dissolution.

This would be marriage with both parents' names on the register.

I agree that would be an ideal reform, although it doesn't bother me enormously. It's not like it makes any practical difference in real terms.

But why then can't we just reform marriage, as it's been reformed numerous times in the past, to reflect this change? Why on earth do we need to start an entirely new institution, presumably with a new name and new set of records, for such a piddling thing? It would be just as associated with historical marriage given that it would be based on it as a replica with one minor alteration that makes no practical difference.

bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 22:33

CP should not have been introduced for same sex couples as a stepping stone to gay marriage

But as it exists, I don't see extending it to opposite sex couples is homophobic

My grandfather was excluded from the membership of a golf club because he was Jewish. When the rules were changed to be less anti semitic, they extended membership to accept him as a member. They didn't knock the club down and rebuild it just because of its previous rules

I'm trying to understand why changing the provision of a CP to include opposite sex couples (and changing the provision for adultery to be equal to marriage laws) would be insufficient, and you'd need a new institution introduced, rather than adapting one that's there. I don't get it from an administrative POV.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 22:33

No one would make you take part in it, so why would you be so irritated about it existing?

It wouldn't be considered marriage, just as civil partnerships aren't. Legally you wouldn't be referred to as married. I don't think anyone would think it was the same as traditional marriage. There would be no compulsory mention of matrimony in the legal minimum wording.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 22:51

No one would make you take part in it, so why would you be so irritated about it existing?

Well, I could ask a lot of anti-marriage people the same question. But we're not irritated by the idea of this existing. We just can't see why you'd want to go through the whole administrative, legal and Parliamentary rigmarole of creating something that's exactly the same as marriage, with one piddling administrative change. Why can't you just reform what's there, if it's so important? And why would something based on marriage, indeed almost a perfect replica, be somehow not associated with it?

It's not irritating, it's just utterly redundant and doesn't make any sense.

Legally you wouldn't be referred to as married.

Well legally you could call yourself 'sparklyunicorned' as I suggested earlier, it really makes no difference. You've still got exactly the same legal status as marriage. Why do you care what word they use for it?

I don't think anyone would think it was the same as traditional marriage.

I would. I can't see any difference except extra names on the register and an aversion to the word that usually covers this exact protection. Again, I don't mind if you want to call it being sparklyunicorned, I just can't see the point. We've got a system in place, why not just reform it like it's been reformed before?

amicissimma · 27/11/2017 22:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 22:57

You're dismissive of the reasons that I object specifically to marriage, and you're deriding that in your last post. I don't see the point in explaining my feelings about marriage and it's historical (and in many parts of the world, current) misogyny again.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 23:00

You're dismissive of the reasons that I object specifically to marriage, and you're deriding that in your last post.

Yes.

I don't see the point in explaining my feelings about marriage and it's historical (and in many parts of the world, current) misogyny again.

You've explained them and I understand them. What I don't understand is how you could replicate the institution almost exactly, call it something else and claim it's got no connection to the original.

Gwenhwyfar · 27/11/2017 23:00

I agree in theory, but I think the problem is that often one person wants to get married and the other doesn't. I do sympathise in that situation.

Also, there are plenty of countries where cohabiting couples do have rights.

givemesteel · 27/11/2017 23:02

I will be really annoyed if this change in the law happened. If God forbid I got divorced or was widowed I wouldn't remarry as I would be likley to have more assets than any future partner, which I would want 100% to go to my dc. But at the same time, as someone in their 30s I'm pretty young to stay single the rest of my life.

If this law is implemented it means I wouldn't have the option of a live in partner in that theoretical situation. Unnecessary government meddling.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 23:07

Yes, it's clear that you don't understand my feelings about marriage.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 23:09

The fact remains, I still don't see how you can replicate marriage, give it another name, and claim it's got no shared history.

Sprogletsmuvva · 27/11/2017 23:11

As a taxpayer, I have no desire to spend state resources on developing a new thing that is identical to marriage but called something else for the benefit of those squeamish about the name.There are just a few things that have a higher priority.

Oh, and the OP at lunchtime was about couples who either believed they acquired rights through inertia and/or cba to do anything. Any amount of introducing new statuses that actually require taking action, aren’t going to address that.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 23:12

So you view anyone with a civil partnership as married, then? Or do the minor differences make it sufficiently different to be something new and not have any shared history?

bananafish81 · 27/11/2017 23:13

*No one would make you take part in it, so why would you be so irritated about it existing?

It wouldn't be considered marriage, just as civil partnerships aren't. Legally you wouldn't be referred to as married. I don't think anyone would think it was the same as traditional marriage. There would be no compulsory mention of matrimony in the legal minimum wording.*

I'm not irritated by it existing. Not at all. I'm just trying to understand why adapting the CP legislation would be homophobic - why reforming the legislation to extend to both same sex and opposite sex couples, and bringing the provision around adultery in line with that of marriage, would be so problematic. Why would they CP have to be completely replaced by something called something slightly different, why couldn't it be adapted? It would seem far more administratively realistic to make amendments to existing law than passing an entirely new one.

Raisedbyguineapigs · 27/11/2017 23:14

Gwen I agree and I think one good thing that would come out of 'de facto rights' for cohabiting couples is that the person who doesn't want to get married (mainly men, if Mumsnet is anything to go by) will not be able to hoodwink the partner who does want to get married with the usual 'Oh its just a bit of paper' ' having children is more of a commitment than marriage' 'we don't need to prove our love' tropes that people who don't want to risk a division of their assets say. They hopefully will have to be more straight and tell their partners that they don't want to marry or cohabit and tell them exactly why.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 23:14

The solution to that is not to have creeping rights acquired without an awareness of it. Educating people about what marriage is and what cohabiting is, is the way forward to solve that issue.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 23:17

So you view anyone with a civil partnership as married, then?

Where on earth do you get that from? Of course not. They are civilly partnered. The whole point of it was that it would be different from marriage, somehow lesser, and it is. That's why gay rights activists fought so hard to get the same legal recognition, and I am very glad they have it.

Or do the minor differences make it sufficiently different to be something new and not have any shared history?

Are you arguing with yourself? I'm the one stating that these new institutions DO have a shared history with marriage. You're the one calling to replicate marriage, call it something else, and claim it's got nothing to do with the original.

I do not understand what you're trying to argue here. Truly I don't.