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?

However, I'd like to be able to have a civil partnership, as same sex couples can. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be an option.
Why is this better? Are you really more likely to participate in a civil partnership than a marriage?

I haven't trawled through the whole thread but DH and i only got legally married for 3 reasons.

1. Married tax allowance
2. Don't have to pay death duty
3. Parental rights

2 of which are outdated now.

I wrote a will when I was in my early 20s when I found out that if i didn't, my estate would go to my parents and I wasn't having that happen (because I didn't want my father to have any claim).

DH and I recently updated our wills. Mostly to ensure there are no discretionary trusts after the nightmare we've had for 3 years!

ReturnOfTheMackYesItIs Mon 27-Nov-17 20:39:06
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.

This ^ x10000

Yanbu but I think that couples should be allowed to also get a civil partnership. And that same sex couples should be able to marry but that’s a whole different AIBU.

To me, the commitment I made to my DH was having children together and making a family. We both agreed that we'd do everything in our power to stay a family whatever life threw at us.

Our wedding on the other hand was a legal commitment, a quick service in a register office and something we did to protect our children.

My gut feeling is that people who don't want to get married fall into one of these categories:

1. People who want to protect their assets. Complete understandable, unless you're the other partner.
2. People who have a bee in their bonnet about the word 'marriage'. Since it's pretty much the same as a civil partnership, I don't get this.
3. People who don't want to commit to someone else, long term. Not a good idea if you have children.
4. The ignorant, who don't understand how vulnerable they are. This is an education issue.
5. People who just can't be arsed, and expect the 'state' to pick up the pieces.

Did I miss anyone?

Same sex couples can get married, in the UK at least.

I sort-of agree, but think you should be able to make that contract without any kind of ceremony. I don’t want even a registrars ceremony.

Without exception every long term (10 years plus) co habiting couple I have known, one of them really really really wants to get married. This is first time arounders. One or both divorced it's different.

It may have no point in European countries, but I wish we had this law in my country. In some regions where women are under-educated, they get married at a very young age "religiously", without registering by law. These women spend their lifetimes for their families, cannot get away from their husbands so easily because of family ties and customs, but can be dumped so easily. So I think even if you are not married, you should be protected by law, that if you lived a life together and earned together, it must be shared. one must not be disadvantaged so severely, just because she didn't sign some papers.

This is the debate that was had on another thread, following the C4 documentary about Nikah only marriages in the UK, where a survey showed a staggering proportion of married Muslim women in the UK had nikah only marriages (without getting a separate civil ceremony to get legally married under UK law) but were unaware that their marriage was not legally recognised.

The programme showed that confusion arose in part because in other countries a Nikah marriage IS a legal marriage, so if a couple marries in a Nikah ceremony in Pakistan, then moves to the UK, they are considered legally married (because nikah marriage is a legal marriage in the country where the couple were married). However if a couple has a nikah only marriage in England and Wales (I can't remember the exact legal framework in Scotland) this is not a legal marriage and they must have a civil ceremony as well.

To get legally married you are required to give notice of intention to marry with the civil authority, and have the ceremony conducted by a licensed officiant, in a venue licenced for civil marriage. This can be a religious officiant in a religious place of worship, if they are licensed approximately. Or it can be a purely civil affair where no religion at all is permitted.

Legal partnerships should be entered into mindfully and with the consent of both parties - it should not happen by default. By which I mean a legal partnership status should not be afforded by default as a result of long term cohabitation, whether the parties wish to be legally partnered or not. Equally, religious ceremonies should only confer legal partnership status if the appropriate measures are followed (ie notice of intention to marry, licensed officiant, recorded in a civil register).

The fact that couples are in situations where they believe they have legal rights which in fact they do not is very sad, but changing the law so as to make legal partnership something you opt out of, rather than opt into, isn't the answer IMO

Yes you are being unreasonable, to assume people share the same thoughts and wants as you. Not everyone wants to get married, I've been with my partner 24 years and do not want to marry, nor would I expect him to support me if we separate.
Our relationship has lasted a lot longer than a lot of marriages and we are fully committed to each other and do not need a ceremony in order to validate this, but I do expect people to show us the same respect and not judge us on our choices.

Without exception every long term (10 years plus) co habiting couple I have known, one of them really really really wants to get married. This is first time arounders. One or both divorced it's different.

It's a contract - if you choose to celebrate that contract with fancy clothes, friends, food at a special venue etc. then fine, but as someone here said you need only go to register at the Registrar's office. If you were setting up in business you would have a contract; what's so wrong about the business of setting up your life, finances and your home together being registered? I really don't get the people who complain. They must be totally unrealistic if they are thinking that nothing will ever go wrong for them ; their love might last for ever but death will intervene somewhere for one of them and ...then what if a family member starts saying the house is theirs 'because it was the family home, and they had lived there for years before the deceased started cohabiting'? I've seen that little scenario played out in the last year, sadly, and it didn't end well.

I absolutely agree with OP if you want to make emotional/financial commitment then get married if not then live together but people who are not married do not have the legal protection of those that are. I am surprised 2/3 of cohabitants do not know this as it seems obvious but I think the term 'common law spouse' gives them a misleading sense of security. Really the facts should be taught in PHSE, along with financial and pension planning, at school so all are aware and this ignorance can be quashed.

@Jaxhog aye you missed me and my DP. None of those reasons fit us. We aren’t getting married because we’ve been married before and it made fuck all difference beyond spending a fortune getting rid of the cunts. Finances shared, kids together, happy as we are.

The only reasons my partner and I got married were legal ones. She is considerably younger than I am, and in the nature of things I will die at some point in the next ten years. As my widow she will have some [fairly modest] financial provision via automatic access to my occupational pensions, not to mention a widow's pension.

I think you pretty much covered them all there Jaxhog. I agree.

I agree with you, OP - this ruling puts me off any long-term relationship. Seems if you want to keep your money, sleeping around is the solution. Or make sure you have a will always ready and updated.

"Or make sure you have a will always ready and updated."

You should definitely do that.......

What ruling? This was a survey.

Sorry, but I disagree.

Because I don’t think people should be forced into marriage just to protect themselves financially. People have many different reasons for not wanting to get married and you’re basically saying “well screw your reasons, get married or go without - being married makes me more privileged than you”. And I don’t think that’s a fair approach and it’s not a one size fits all situation.

However, I don’t think people who are cohabiting should get the exact same rights as married couples. But I do think they should be entitled to some kind of basic rights. When you choose to share your finances and a home with someone that’s still a big commitment. And I do believe that people should have a basic level of protection in some way. What form that takes I’m not sure - maybe a kind of cohabiting agreement they sign to agree how they split finances if things don’t pan out that will be valid in court. Maybe just the ability to have a fair review of the finances post break up and not just be told “you get nothing of the 50% you put into that because you’re not married”.

I personally DO want to get married. But my partner and I want to live together before he pops any questions, to ensure we get on living together. Sounds sensible, as they say you never really know someone until you live with them. But, it also means during that time of living together, before we got married, we would both be vulnerable if the relationship didn’t work out. Why should we jump into something as big as marriage before we live together just for financial protection?

To me, if you’re only getting married for the sake of financial protection, then it does make it “just a piece of paper”. And I don’t want it to be that, that’s not what marriage means to me.

@jaxhog people who don't want to get married. That's us. Well aware of the issues for co-habiting couples: child of 20 year co-habitees who ended up getting married for various reasons including tax efficiency :) Partner and I not particularly keen on institution of marriage, each for different reasons. I probably place more emphasis on the meaning of marriage than some people who are actually married.

@ameliaflashtart let me widen your co-habiting anecdotes by being a co-habitee who is happy to not marry, along with my partner who does not want to marry. I grew up as the child of co-habitees who did not want to marry (until they did, 20 odd years after having kids).
--
Generally, I think if people want to have the benefits of marriage then they should marry. I'm making a decision, based on my assessment of the risks, to not marry. These threads always seem to descend into slightly mad assumptions about co-habitees. I have decided, with knowledge of my personal situation and finances, that marriage is not that important. I am quite clear on the risks of that decision. The poll that the article refers to is based on an online survey of 2000 adults by Com-Res. So decent but that's '2 thirds of co-habiting couples' surveyed.

I've chosen to co-habit not to marry. If I wanted to marry then I would. I'm not too keen on changing the law to take that choice away from me. If the survey result can be extrapolated, perhaps public information might be the way forward.

However it's also a minority (though growing) issue. From the 2017 household bulletin www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017

" In 2017 there were 19.0 million families in the UK; this increased by 15% from 16.6 million in 1996, a rise similar to the growth in the UK population during this 20-year period.

There were 12.9 million married or civil partner couple families in the UK in 2017. This remains the most common type of family. The second largest family type was the cohabiting couple family at 3.3 million families, followed by 2.8 million lone parent families."

I'm not sure if you can safely extrapolate from a survey of 2000 people, that 2.2 million people are unaware of the legal implications of co-habiting.

I also observe that this research was commissioned by Resolution, a family law society. What advantage would it be to the family law society to commission such a survey is the question I would ask myself when interpreting this info.

This one. An unmarried woman got benefits usually awarded to a spouse. Goes hand-in-hand with the survey and contradicts it somehow.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-42152782

"Did I miss anyone?"

How about those of us who perfectly rationally don't want to have any part in an out dated institution which has its roots in patriarchy and misogyny? Or do you just dismiss this because you don't understand it?

I was with my university boyfriend for 6 years and lived with him for 3 of those (in the middle period, as I then moved away for post graduate study). I would not have expected or wanted the same rights or standing as a married couple. We were together at that time in our lives, that's it.