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?

I think it's only widows pension, some workplace pensions and inheritance tax that are anomalies.

That's because they are legal benefits afforded by government institutions, not private agreements between two partners

You've said you don't want a legal partnership - tax rights and responsibilities are for those who've entered into a legal partnership (which you don't want).

Cohabitation agreements cover mutually agreed financial arrangements.

I would be interested to know how many posters who have said they don't wish to enter into a legal partnership but do wish to have some financial protection, have drawn up cohabitation agreements in addition to wills. If not, why not?. It may be imperfect but in the absence of a change to the statute books that you may wish to see, that's a legal framework that exists today and can be implemented immediately.

You wouldn't come to the same conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's not a rational conclusion. You're putting a different weight on factors that are important to others, or discounting them entirely based on your opinion. Which is fine. But it doesn't make either conclusion irrational.

an out dated institution which has its roots in patriarchy and misogyny?

It can't be that outdated if you want to replicate it and enjoy its benefits.

It has come a long way from its roots. Pretty much every institution we have started in a worse time, but they have reformed and evolved over time and suit their purpose now.

You are denying yourself benefits that you want and could easily get, and want a completely redundant replica so that you can satisfy a philosophical point based on semantics. I wouldn't object to your preference if it came in, I'd just think it was a massive waste of time because it already exists. You just don't like its name.

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?

too funny!

*My partner and I got married for the romance, the dress and the honeymoon but I totally understand why some don’t get married.

We certainly didn’t have “and you get half my shit if you screw around” in our vows*

You can have a wedding and romance and a dress and a honeymoon without a civil marriage. We did. We had a non legal wedding celebration that was completely separate from our civil marriage, which was simply a contractual arrangement entered into at the registry office in the presence of two witnesses

The vows affirm that you take your partner to be lawfully wedded. Lawfully wedded is a legal term and the marriage contract has a wealth of rights and responsibilities that come with the legal status of marriage. No one should enter into a legal contract without being fully mindful of what it is they're signing

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?

Fair enough.

So you want a copy paste of marriage that isn't called marriage but is called civil union. But not an amendment to the existing civil partnership legislation to include both same sex and opposite sex couples within the framework of civil partnership, because that's homophobic. Have I understood correctly?

Until such time as this change to the statute book happens, have you entered into a cohabitation agreement, out of interest?

"So you want a copy paste of marriage that isn't called marriage but is called civil union."

No, I don't.

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? This... My house is mine, my partner is rubbish with money - he signed a legal 'no claim' document for the house, however he will be entitled to live in the house if anything happens to me, but it will belong to my ds - we both have death in service and are eachothers beneficiaries to provide for ds. I do not want the same rights as a married couple!

YABU in terms of the getting married bit. Many partners who co-habit do not agree with marriage & its associations with church and patriarchy and want to be offered the same rights as same sex partners who have the option of civil partnerships. For them it doesn’t just equal a piece of paper it goes against their belief system. Now whether you agree with them or not it is a reason why many don’t marry.

@PramWanker open to the couple to contract out, but both parties would have to take legal advice and both would have to explicitly agree. No way to sleepwalk into it.

The surviving partner has priority over beneficiairies of a will. The way to deal with this would be again for both partners to enter into a contract agreeing how everything will be dealt with on death.

The act doesn’t stop people choosing to set themselves up however they want, but it DOES address the situation where a woman finds herself in a vulnerable situation with children and a man who won’t marry her. For example.

I see far more women complaining that men won't marry them than vice versa. If marriage really is so bad for women and good for men, someone better set all these guys straight.

One legal question - so I understand that wills , including provision for children re guardians etc can be sorted out with other contracts. As I understand it , the tax benefits ( i.e. in a will cannot be replicated ) - What is the situation with Next Of Kin - is that put in place via an LPOA ?
Ie what exactly can't be replicated with other contracts.

People sign a contract for many reasons......

A Job description
Buying a house
Renting a property
Marrying.
A phone contract etc etc.

Once you’ve signed that piece of paper you are afforded legal rights.

If you don’t sign, you can’t have the rights.

It really is that simple.

I just don’t understand and please, feel free to explain to me, why so many married women who are safe and secure against the threat of future relationship breakdown are determined to keep the very many vulnerable unmarried women and their children in their current precarious state.

So you chose to get married. Well done. Should women who weren’t able to make that choice suffer so you can feel smug?

To someone who isn’t English this seems so outdated and misogynistic it’s untrue.

Actually fuck it, I’m being too polite. You lot are stuck in the dark ages.

Exactly Yorick

Marriage = protection

If you want protection get married.
If your partner refuses to get married then LTB.

I feel very strongly about this at the moment as my BIL is seriously ill. His partner of 20 odd years has no protection. He’s refused to marry her and refused to even have a will, for many years.

She’s now in an horrific position and is so angry with herself for letting herself be in this position. I feel so so sorry for her (Dh and I are helping her and the dc, practically and financially), but she has absolutely no rights.

As I said earlier, either insist on marriage or LTB.

Agree OP. & If one doesn't get married then don't expect those rights. Only today I was on the phone with a friend who's split from partner. Together 8 years, lived together in his flat for 3 years. I couldn't keep up with what she was explaining, it was so convoluted. But gist of it is she believes she can make a claim to property and relationship. I don't know the ins and outs of the law on that aspect but I truly doubt there's a "common law wife" 'law' that bestows same rights as a married woman. She insists there is so I just said ok.

But they’re not getting married because they don’t want to get married, a lot of the time. They’re not getting married because their partners won’t marry them!

How is chanting “get married” at women who don’t have that option a helpful or practical response?

@LizzieSiddal and why on earth is this woman angry with herself, rather than your BIL? The situation she is in is his fault!

Of course it’s his fault, I’ve told her that numerous times. She just feels angry with her SIL for allowing the situation to continue.

But they’re not getting married because they don’t want to get married, a lot of the time. They’re not getting married because their partners won’t marry them!

And as we keep saying, you cannot force someone into a legal commitment that they don't want. Marriage is a contract between two people. If one person doesn't want to enter it, that's their right. It would be the same as forcing a woman to marry a man when she didn't want that either.

So if your partner won't marry you, you have a choice - continue with the risks of no protection, or end the relationship. That's all you can do.

It's not fair that some women find men to marry and others don't, but the law can't do much about that. All it can do is create legal frameworks between people that they can choose to enter, or not, as they wish.

How is chanting “get married” at women who don’t have that option a helpful or practical response?

Because it's the only thing that will help them!!!!!

And if their partners won't marry them, all we can do is inform them of what this means, and then they make an adult choice about their own lives!!

I truly doubt there's a "common law wife" 'law' that bestows same rights as a married woman.

There isn't, and there hasn't been since the Marriage Act 1753.