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?

That much is clear.

No, I confess, you've flummoxed me.

You think you can replicate marriage yet avoid all associations with it. I disagree.

You accuse me of confusing civil partnerships with marriage.

I haven't.

Then you accuse me of thinking civil partnerships have no shared history with marriage.

I don't. I just recognise that they're different.

Then you claim you can replicate marriage, and it won't have anything to do with marriage.

Bloody hell, if that's got to make sense, I don't WANT to understand what's in your head.

I agree. If you want the benefits of getting married then get married.

This ^^

I've made no "accusations" or "claims". You've leapt to lots of assumptions about things I haven't said based on questions that I've asked.

Ugh, but you have.

You're not satisfied with reforming marriage because you don't want any of its historical connections. Instead you want to replicate it.

I said that you can't replicate marriage, call it something else, and deny its shared history with the original.

You responded with some cack about civil partnerships that didn't make any sense. Civil partnerships have some shared history with marriage but they are DIFFERENT, in many ways inferior. That's why gay rights activists weren't happy with them and continued campaigning for same sex marriage.

You're not calling for a new institution like civil partnerships. You're calling for the exact same thing as marriage, with a different name and a piddling administrative change that would be much, much more easily served by just reforming the existing institution.

You can't compare it with civil partnerships because the whole point of those was that they're DIFFERENT and you want something that is, to all intents and purposes, the SAME.

You think reforming marriage would retain associations you don't like, yet replicating it wouldn't.

I mean, it's bollocks but you're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you wouldn't then come in accusing me of not acknowledging the marriage connection when that person would be YOU. Or accusing me of thinking civil partnerships are marriages when the whole problem with them was that they WEREN'T.

I don't know, I don't know how much plainer I can make this. I've done my best. Night.

Goodness, why so angry? All this talk of "accusations" and shouting about your points in response to being asked questions.

I don't expect very many people at all would think it's worthwhile to create a new institution that is legally the same as marriage but not referred to as matrimony, with other minor differences. I would, because of my feelings about the existing traditional marriage institution. But I appreciate I'd be in a very small minority.

Tbh, I don't feel that it would be worth me trying to explain why I would want that, given that I don't think you or anyone else would be interested.

@PramWanker (great name btw) I like the set up here in NZ as set up by the Property (Relationships) Act. Gives a sensible legal basis to the reality of people’s lives rather than expecting people to conform with a legal system or suffer.

The Act covers:

• married couples
• couples in a civil union
• couples in a de facto relationship for at least three years
• couples in a de facto relationship for less than three years, who have a child

couples in a de facto relationship for less than three years where one partner has made substantial contributions to the relationship, and it would cause serious injustice if that person was not covered

The Act applies when a relationship which meets the above criteria ends, either because the couple has separated or because one partner or spouse has died.

Basically when the relationship ends, all relationship property (property acquired during the relationship/ property used jointly during the relationship and property owned jointly) gets divided equally and separate property (property acquired by either partner before the relationship and held separately) remains separate.

The Act is based on the principle that both individuals in a relationship are equal, that both financial and non-financial contributions to the relationship should be treated equally, and that the division of property should take into account any economic advantages or disadvantages that one party may have experienced as a result of the relationship.

www.cab.org.nz/vat/fp/r/pages/relationshipproperty.aspx

@purits that’s not a world away from saying women in abusive relationships should leave - ignores the inherent power imbalance in many relationships. It just isn’t that simple and the women and children stuck in vulnerable situations deserve legal protection regardless of how they got there.

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

I think that the trend to live together and have children without getting married was a social experiment that didn't overall work out well for women. It really wasn't that long ago that it just wasn't a done thing because of the moral standards at the time, but now I think there are a lot of reasons not to live together that don't have anything to do with morality.

It's about a loss of power, frequently for the woman. I know there are many exceptions, but the current situation hurts lower earning (and often less educated) women and their children.

In Australia, cohabiting couples have the same legal protections and obligations as married couples after two years. Whether they like it or not.

How does social security work in the UK if unmarried couples have no legal link? Could an unemployed partner claim unemployment benefits even if they're in a de facto relationship with a millionaire?

Could an unemployed partner claim unemployment benefits even if they're in a de facto relationship with a millionaire?

In short, yes.

I’m glad we don’t have laws that treat unmarried cohabitees the same married couples. The position is clear... if you want married rights, get married. If you don’t, don’t... and the state isn’t going to interfere and try and assess the ‘quality’ of your relationship to determine who has what rights over the other. I can imagine the legal squabbles now...

“You say you lived together for 2 years? He says you split up for a month after a 10 months and you had only been living together for a year or so , but you say that it was only had a few weeks apart while you got your head together at your mum’s....”

Or... “We were living together for 4 years”..... “No we weren’t. I was living away during the week and only saw you at weekends”.... “Yes, but we were ‘in a relatinship... and besides, some weeks you were here 3 nights a week!”..... “Well, I have a confession. During the week I stayed with my lover, and she believes she has cohabitee rights over me now too!”

I imagine lawyers are advocating strongly for the extension of “marriage rights” to cohabitees.

They could but only if they're not living together.

Thanks for that littlekiwi. As far as I can see, this doesn't contain any provision for opting out of the provisions if you're living with someone? The couple will be subject to them whether they so wish or not. Please do correct me if I've misunderstood.

Also do you know what happens if a couple in this position are cohabiting and then one dies having left a will to benefit eg their children rather than their unmarried partner of 10 years?

How does social security work in the UK if unmarried couples have no legal link? Could an unemployed partner claim unemployment benefits even if they're in a de facto relationship with a millionaire?

"Living together as husband and wife" or "Living together as spouses" has long been the snappy DWP lingo to cover that scenario. It's treated exactly the same as marriage for welfare benefit purposes.

(So, no, the unemployed partner of a millionaire can't claim a bean.)

If you get child support in terms of being the resident parent (you do not have to be living in the house to be a resident parent) then this is seen as non taxable income because it has already been taxed at source.

Assuming that you will get child support from the partner who leaves.

To also add, the child/children will always be the priority in court until they leave school.

Coconutella - Indeed, there was a court case (can’ find the details now, damn you Google )a while back that hinged around the “He promised me X Y Z” (thankfully from what I remember it was fairly obvious that no he didn’t , the male ex was able to prove that their relationship had always been on-off, and the female ex was basically trying her luck).

I'm happy not being married but I can't quite articulate to my partner why we need wills, when the house is in both our names. Work death benefits and pensions will automatically go to the other partner as we have signed contracts declaring this, and our children will go to my parents if we both died. There is noone else who would jump in with claims on either of our estates ... but I would still feel safer with wills. Can anyone explain why, in simple terms?!

ahat Wills make life much easier for the person/people dealing with your estate, if nothing else.

Also although your house is in both names what about everything else? Without a will that wouldn't default to the other partner. It would have to go through intestacy and would go to your children instead. So, any savings not in joint names, stocks/shares, a car in the name of the other person etc.

We have a joint car and only joint bank accounts, lalalalyra. No stocks and shares or anything so affluent! I just wanted to know if there's anything I'm missing ...

Thanks too, genever. I know we need to get this done.

My will also includes small details like any gifts and wishes for where I want to be buried etc, as well as the major financial stuff

Yes, not having wills if you're unmarried is madness. Even things like your personal possessions, if your DP wants to keep your favourite necklace and books or similar, if you die with no will when you're not married he'll have no automatic right to them. Sometimes these sentimental things are as important as the money. Get the wills done asap!

Also ask about inheritance tax while you're there, if you own a house. Yours may be well under the threshold but if not, you'll need to plan for how the survivor pays it.

YY to the sentimental stuff - I have provisions about stuff like the ring I inherited from my mother, that was my grandmother's. If I die, whilst my estate would go to my husband, I want any family heirlooms in my possession to go to my brother, to pass down through the generations within my side of the family. It's not big financial stuff - but if I die, I want to know the stuff I care about will go to the right people according to my wishes

See, PramWanker, I really don't have anything of value and neither of us is sentimental ... we just don't care about jewellery etc. Maybe that's daft, I don't know ... Sorry, I know I'm being devil's advocate here and we ARE going to get the wills done ASAP –I have them downloaded and have started on them already – it's just that I think there may well be some domestic arrangements where wills really aren't all that vital, and I think that might be us. But I'm probably being naive.