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 here in New Zealand where I live, there is such a thing. If you live with someone in a relationship for three years or more then unless you both have signed a Property Relationship Agreement (which basically sets out who owns what) then in a split all assets are considered "relationship property" and split accordingly. You can tryprotect your assets in a family trust but even they can be attacked by ex partner in certain circumstances. As you can imagine, even discussing a PRA with a new partner can end a relationship! It's pretty much the equivalent of an American "pre-nup".

Just a thought, and forgive me if this is wildly out - I’m not English - did the people banging the “relationship rights only for married people” drum also vote to leave the EU?

No. I voted “Remain”.... Inreresting that the tendency of those not from the U.K. to have a different perspective though, and equate the prevailing view on here with reactionary conservatism.

In NZ, I wonder if you get a number of cohabitees “splitting up” for a short period so as to avoid being in a partnership for the necessary continuous period and thus acquiring “married” status.

How would protecting unmarried women and their children legally affect married people?

I’m married so it doesn’t affect me personally. I just think we have a straight forward and fair system as it stands here in the U.K. and they giving cohabitees marital rights makes the situation far more confusing for all, and increases the risk that someone will find themselves unprotected when they thought they were, as I don’t see how the State can clearly determine someone’s relationship status unless married. You can live together but not be in a relationship for instance. It’s not uncommon for relationships to break down but for two people to continue to share a property whilst they sort themselves out. Are they cohabitees over this period accruing “married rights”? How would a court know if one of the partners insisted the relationship was continuous through this time in order to gain advantage over their ex?

And there are countless permutations like this where it’s debatable as to whether a relationship was continuous or not. This makes women more vulnerable, not less. If they know that marriage gives those rights, but cohabiting doesn’t, it’s crystal clear. And if a man won’t marry them, they need to take responsibility, have some self- respect, and not settle down into a family with him and take on the lead career role.

I’m married so it doesn’t affect me personally. I just think we have a straight forward and fair system as it stands here in the U.K. and they giving cohabitees marital rights makes the situation far more confusing for all, and increases the risk that someone will find themselves unprotected when they thought they were

That makes absolutely no sense, I'm afraid.

How could a reformed system, giving all couples similar protection, possibly increase confusion?

How would protecting unmarried women and their children legally affect married people?

It doesn't. It affects people who don't want to be married. That's the issue.

How could a reformed system, giving all couples similar protection, possibly increase confusion?

Because at present there’s clarity. You acquire these rights by marriage. If you are unmarried you don’t - it’s a binary position.

If you included cohabitees then there are a myriad of potential interpretations over when such a relationship would count... Has it been continuous over required period? (Cue arguments whether going off to Mum for fortnight to sort head out constitute a “break) Are they living together but not in a “relationship”? (Cue arguments over whether the relationship actually ended months before but they were living under same roof out of necessity) How many nights do you need to sleep over for it to count? (Cue arguments over whether working away for periods counts).

The Australian law is perfectly clear.

Just a thought, and forgive me if this is wildly out - I’m not English - did the people banging the “relationship rights only for married people” drum also vote to leave the EU?

Is this the most asinine comment on the thread? Or does Bertrand's 'you only got married because of ME' post top it?

The Australian law is perfectly clear.

How would it seal with the issues I raised?

On a preponderance of evidence like most civil law. Have you even read anything about it? The link I posted? Anything?

I like our opt-out system. If you feel really strongly that you shouldn't be treated as married for the purposes of the law, you can sign a binding financial agreement (after both partners have obtained separate legal advice) and that has legal force.

Surprisingly, we tend not to have any more issues about determining if it's a marriagelike relationship than I imagine your social security system has in determining whether people are a couple for the purposes of receiving welfare payments. It's just not a thing.

Plus the existence of these rights isn't always acted upon. BIL lived with a woman for a shade over two years. No kids. They were on the marriage track, but then She Done Him Wrong with her boss. Legally, she could have made a bid for a portion of the property he owned but they both lived in during this time but she didn't. They just moved on.

A cynic writes: laws are hardly ever perfectly clear, or we wouldn't have much of a legal profession.

Interesting thread. Education is the key. Young people of both sexes should get clear information on what their position would be in law if they end up co-habiting, having children, pooling their finances, considering marriage. It wouldn't stop everyone drifting into a vulnerable position out of ignorance, but it might stop some.

I think at present far too many people think marriage is about having a big wedding and that the importance of the ceremony is that you get a chance to demonstrate your love in front of all your nearest and dearest. It isn't.

As so many have said already, entering into a marriage contract is something two people do to get legal acknowledgement that their relationship exists and thus to acquire some legal rights (and responsibilities).

I'm not a Leaver, I campaigned for Remain

Thank you for posting information about the Australian law provision, it's really interesting reading, and very helpful to understand how such a legal framework might work in practice

In an 'opt out' system (whereby long term cohabitees are granted rights after 2 years, unless they decide to formally opt out of this arrangement, ie sign a contract to be removed from this rights and responsibilities, rather than the reverse) is there public awareness that these rights apply by default unless you make legal provision otherwise? (If we compare vs the UK system where many people assume these rights are applied by default, when this is not)

It's really interesting reading, thank you once again for sharing

I would say it's broadly known. The laws changed almost a decade ago, so it's not a new thing.

I imagine a lot of the UK issue with people not being aware of their legal position relates to the assumption that the law has caught up with social mores, the way it has with same sex marriage over there. We're just about to catch up with same sex marriage finally over here.

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned , but I heard a radio programme last week which explained that Muslim religious weddings are not recognised in this country unless there is also a civil ceremony. This does not apply to Muslims who have married abroad. Apparently only CoE church weddings do not require a registrar.
While most people are very aware of this, and some RC priests are also registrars, many many Muslim women do not know and if their marriage breaks down are left without legal protection. Many of their menfolk do know and say nothing (obviously not all).

@thegreylady I posted up thread about this. Definitely not just CofE ministers. Presumably other Christian ministers (eg Catholic) can be legal officiants, rabbis are definitely licenced to conduct civil marriage as long as the wedding is conducted according to Jewish law, no registrar required

The documentary featured a rabbi who said that being licenced was the obvious solution, to ensure a marriage was legal in the eyes of both religious and civil law

My husband and I couldn't marry according to Jewish law as I am Jewish and he is not. We had a Jewish wedding blessing ceremony, but it was not a legal marriage because the rabbi was not licensed to conduct an interfaith wedding. So we had a civil marriage (went in and signed the contract, came out again), and a Jew(ish) wedding ceremony. If we had both been Jewish then we'd not have needed a separate registrar

There are so many different situations and circumstances whichever option is gone for there will be losers.

I am a remainer and think the current system, though flawed, is the least worst.

I am instinctively uncomfortable with the automatic granting of rights if you live together. There needs to be some positive choice to formalise - otherwise those later in life with their own children who do not want to support a partner in a similar position but want to cohabit are prejudiced.

People, particularly women, need to be more hard headed in their personal lives and not drift into relationships where they compromise their earning power with minimal protection. I think the state should be much much harder on parents who walk away from their responsibilities leaving the state to pay for their families.

I too Voted Remain and am still hoping something dramatic happens and we don’t leave.

I agree Lizzie but I think you may be on the wrong thread!

Oh, sorry, I see someone has managed to bring Brexit into it.

My fellow-classicists will recognise the allusion if I say Ceterum censeo.

Andrew unfortunately I’m not

Someone upthread asked if the people voicing opinions re advising getting married inorder to benefit from the legal protectiond, also voted for Brexit.