Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
QueenAravisOfArchenland · 27/11/2017 13:31

I think education should be prioritised over a change in the law. It's clear enough from even a short stint on the Relationships board here that many women don't realise having kids and giving up or curtailing work without getting married puts them at enormous risk, but I also completely understand why people with children from previous relationships actively choose not to get married and I think that option should remain open to them.

Andrewofgg · 27/11/2017 13:32

And remember that even if you make wills in favour of each other the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take his (or indeed her) cut when one of you joins the majority unless you are married. It's not just a piece of paper if you have enough to pay Inheritance Tax.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 13:33

I've been with my partner for 17 years, we have 2 children and a mortgage. I'm not interested in getting married and I don't really understand why people do want to get married (beyond the obvious legal/financial matters already mentioned on this thread).

KERALA1 · 27/11/2017 13:34

Exactly Andrew. Several vociferiously anti marriage 70 something clients with very large lovely houses they bought in the 1960s rather shamefacedly quietly make a quiet trip to the town hall after I talk them through that one Grin

BertrandRussell · 27/11/2017 13:34

It's easy enough to put in place all the same protections you get fen marriage for an unmarried couple. There are only a couple that could be a problem.

But why does it matter to anyone else? You're talking as if you resent other people not "having to get married" as if iit's a hardship! If you want I get married then go for it. If you don-don.t. Just make sure any i financial investment you put into the rekatiknship is acknowledged and protected, for the sake of your future security and that of your children. and your

DivisionBelle · 27/11/2017 13:34

I want the division maintained: in a previous relationship I very much did not want 'my' property to become 'our' property, and my reasons were proven good ones! (no kids, no-one gave up paid employment in the interests of the partnership etc).

People just need to know what's what and make informed choices.

Butteredparsn1ps · 27/11/2017 13:35

Exactly KERALA1 SAHM are really vulnerable in this situation. I'm sure they "never think it will happen to them" but if marriage is seen as just a piece of paper - why not get the document?

TheMathsTrainee · 27/11/2017 13:36

I dispair at the level of ignorance and naivety.....and the Snowflake ❄️ on radio who was indignant at the mere suggestion that she should get married, as she trusts her partner....Hmm

PramWanker · 27/11/2017 13:36

Yanbu to think if you want marital rights you should get married, rather than changing the law to make them automatic and fuck over other people because you're too precious.

Yabu to think couples who aren't married will have made an informed choice, because the myth of the common law spouse is incredibly pervasive. The article you quote refutes that exact point!

EssentialHummus · 27/11/2017 13:37

This is going to make me sound far more invested in this issue than I am, but I think for many people wedding = grand, expensive party, and they’d no more go to the registry office to get married than sign up to a lunar mission. Marriage is seen principally or in the short term as something separate from the law/rights and obligations it binds people to.

genever · 27/11/2017 13:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Graphista · 27/11/2017 13:39

Morris here in Scotland even having wills doesn't mean much there's so many laws on who you can and can't disinherit so it really is better to just get married in terms of protecting yourself.

On similar threads I have told the story of one of my mums closest friends, co-habited with her partner over 30 years when he died lost her home, car, even their holiday caravan because they weren't married and it was all in his name and he'd children by his ex wife who hated her.

She was completely blindsided.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 13:39

Surely its about having a choice of having a legal contract or not? By giving unmarried people the same rights as married couples you also impose both the rights and obligations on people who do not want to be subject to them. It should be legal entry into contract by consent rather that by default. Surely that is the contemporary point of marriage and civil partnership? It can be a simple as going do the register office and signing on the paperwork. Being that some people are uncomfortable with the term marriage I don't see why heterosexual civil partnership is not allowed? But I guess that's another debate.

ninjapants · 27/11/2017 13:40

So someone who is divorced may have no intention of remarrying due to the fallout from their previous marriage and the legal implications of marriage. They may however get together with a similarly minded partner in future. But as we all know things change when relationships break down. Would this mean the divorcee would no longer have the right to decide what happens to their assets in the event of a break up of any future long term relationship? I guess the only way to be sure you'd never get burned again is to never have another long term live in partner again.

I agree OP, if people want the rights of married couples, then get married.

Wasn't marital rights one of the arguments to support gay marriage?

purits · 27/11/2017 13:42

From the article "The government must listen to the public, legal professionals and a growing number of politicians who all agree that we need reform to provide basic rights to cohabiting couples should they separate."

I disagree.
When the Government did a consultation on gay marriage, I made a submission that said I believe there should just be two states: married or not. End of. Civil Partnerships were a stupid idea which muddied the water. There should be a State-sanctioned relationship which promotes stability in family life, which is called marriage, and everything else is 'not marriage'.
We need more education on marriage and what it means.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 13:43

When I was young I married purely out of love probably considering the legal pitfalls. As far as I was concerned I was going to be with her forever and it was our declaration to the world as our coming as one. I know better these days.

DeepPileTinsel · 27/11/2017 13:45

I wouldn't have moved in with my ex if living together afforded us the same status as marrying him would have. I didn't know whether I wanted to marry him or not, but moving in together seemed a good choice at the time, as we were only young.

kmc1111 · 27/11/2017 13:47

I would actually like to see an alternative to marriage. It's far too all encompassing for many people, especially now that so many people have complicated blended family set ups. It's all well and good saying marriage provides protection, but a lot of people only need some of those protections, and very much do not need or want the rest. So they end up stuck in a crappy situation where marriage works for them in some ways and is a big problem for them in others.

Marriage has put me in a similar position to a lot of unmarried women, in that I have to just trust my partner will do the right thing. By getting married I've made my control over my own affairs (financial, medical etc.) vulnerable, and simply have to trust my husband would go along with my wishes if necessary, when the 'protections' of marriage mean he could more easily not. I find that infuriating.

Andrewofgg · 27/11/2017 13:48

purits I think c.p. was as far as public opinion would go at the time and was 95% of marriage - not bad for 2004.

As for the cost: in England and Wales you can get married before the Registrar for £120.00 - £35.00 each for the notices, £46.00 for the ceremony, and £4.00 for the certificate. Not exactly exorbitant, is it?

CoyoteCafe · 27/11/2017 13:51

Question -- under British law, aren't parents jointly financial responsible for their children, regardless of marital status?

In the states they are. It varies a little from state to state, but to reduce the burden on the social services, parents are held responsible to financially support their child whether or not they were ever married.

Poor women still get screwed over on this. They often have children with men who don't hold steady employment, end up in jail, etc.

Mummyoflittledragon · 27/11/2017 13:52

Yes, you should get married. I know some mums living long term with partners, who won’t get married for various reasons such as their mother has dementia and won’t be able to share the occasion properly. Perhaps she may wander or create a scene idk. The situation will never change though. They can’t turn back the time. They wear wedding rings. I don’t really get it. I got married despite my dad being dead. I don’t really see the difference.

paperandpaint · 27/11/2017 13:52

Except that one partner in the relationship may not want to get married. Everything else may be wonderful except for this. Does this mean that that other partner has no protection at all, especially if they are the partner that gave up work to look after the children. Just another point of view....

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 13:52

Maybe a system where cohabiting couples can pick and choose which aspects they want to be legally subject too? Rather than legal implications by default just because they have been cohabiting say for x amount of years? Although I think this may be problematic too, just throwing the idea out there.

I could see this set up leading to more brake ups when push came to shove on signing contracts on aspects such as assess being a 50/50 split. There are many legal reasons why people don't want to marry that maybe they don't tell their dp.

Barbaro · 27/11/2017 13:53

Wouldn't making pre nups legally binding in the UK help? So if you already own a home, it can be protected in the event of a divorce.

I would want something like that really to just protect my horse from being sold as an 'asset'. Might seem stupid, but I don't want him ending up neglected like he was when I got him and he's worth a lot of money now.

stopfuckingshoutingatme · 27/11/2017 13:55

God what a harsh post

So let's just fuck off all the people who have kids and maybe don't have acess to your wisdom and resources

Plus people can't afford to marry !

Basically people need to know that if you have kids and stop
Work and you are not married you are FYCKED if things go to pot

It's reallly a worrying trend