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?

It’s not a “contract by stealth”. It’s an openly known and acknowledged thing.

How is requiring somebody to undertake the administrative hurdle of entering into a binding financial agreement to pre-divide assets and opt out of this system more onerous to the bulk of people than requiring them to undertake the administrative hurdle of getting married?

In terms of practical outcomes it costs the state a lot less to assist people who have some assets from the breakdown of their relationship compared with those who are destitute because they didn’t put a ring on it.

It’s also vanishingly rare that it gets used for people without children separate. They just sort their own shit out without resorting to the law.

I really think there’s a lot of implicit moral superiority in this thread about people who did things the “right way” vs those who somehow “deserve” to be disadvantaged due to poor or less informed life choices. Is this the English class system?

If you are both on the deeds the split is 50/50. Unless you have a trust deed registered. I was actually better off not married

It is smug. It’s saying “I’m alright Jack” and those of you who aren’t... well, should have thought twice! Gives no consideration as to why the women are in the position they’re in and offers no solution to the problem at hand.

What is your suggestion for dealing with the multitude of unmarried women who find themselves up shit creek without a paddle, struggling to support themselves and their children while the partner who refused to marry them skips off into the sunset? Or would you simply cross your arms and pity them for their lack of foresight?

I think it defininatly poses a case that couples discuss the what it's of breakups and who covers what before deciding to start family's. Maybe a system where couples can make individually tailored contracts to meet the need of their circumstances? Then with the legal protection in place they are both happy with they could then go on to start a family.

It is smug. It’s saying “I’m alright Jack” and those of you who aren’t... well, should have thought twice! Gives no consideration as to why the women are in the position they’re in and offers no solution to the problem at hand.

Your projection is not my problem. If I had no consideration for the women this affects I wouldn't keep trying to let people know that there's no such thing as common law marriage and that simply cohabiting does not protect them. I can sympathise till kingdom come but it doesn't change the fact that under the current system, the only way to get marital rights and benefits is to be married.

Should that change in the future, I'll change my advice.

Until then, if a woman asks me if she should have children with a man to whom she is not married, I will continue to tell her no, because she is not protected. And you can whinge as much as you like about that being "smug", it doesn't change the fact that I am right.

What is your suggestion for dealing with the multitude of unmarried women who find themselves up shit creek without a paddle, struggling to support themselves and their children while the partner who refused to marry them skips off into the sunset?

To improve the child maintenance and benefits systems, because those are what are needed in that situation and they do both suck balls at present. Parents are already legally responsible for their children, whether or not they are married. The system needs improving badly, but it doesn't need creation.

And if they haven't had children with him yet, yes, I will advise them not to until they are married. Again, you can call that "smug" but it doesn't stop it being right.

There are plenty of women on this thread who are very adamant that they do not wish to be married. I wouldn't force, trick or otherwise creep a legal commitment upon them either.

Btw my flippant “is this Brexit” comment is a reflection of how bizarre the attitudes on this thread appear to those of us outside the U.K. - I just wondered whether this was part of the general swing to the right the U.K. seems to be in the middle of. Looks like it isn’t.

@entirelywhelmed therefore I’m with you -
I suspect this is the English class system at work. Sorry for the DM link, but if you don’t want to click on it the article points out that while fewer than 45% of working class people in the U.K. are married, 65% of people in the highest social class are married (based on ONS statistics). www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283727/Less-half-working-class-people-wed-marriage-rates-rise-high-income-earners.html

So presumably by shouting about the values of marriage and showing a complete lack of concern for unmarried and vulnerable women, posters are doing the “look at me,
I’m so middle class” dance and, weirdly, that class consciousness/ concern seems to trump any feminist leanings.

I often suspect the weird/ surprising attitudes on here are related to class, actually - the name boards are pretty shocking for their snobby and at times racist responses to names perceived as lower class/ belonging to a non-white ethnicity...

As for improving the benefits system, why the hell should the state pick up the bill for irresponsible men? Bananas.

You haven’t addressed the vulnerable aspect - no-one has an explanation for why it’s helpful to preach “get married” at a woman for whom that isn’t an option because her partner is a dick.

How is requiring somebody to undertake the administrative hurdle of entering into a binding financial agreement to pre-divide assets and opt out of this system more onerous to the bulk of people than requiring them to undertake the administrative hurdle of getting married?

I had to read that three times, sorry. I think you're saying 'why is it any harder to opt out than opt in?"

I guess if you live in a country where it's well known that you have to opt out, it's not such an issue. This thread, as far as I can tell, is about the UK.

I'd be interested in how such an opt-out system could work given that contracts have to consist of offers and acceptance and cannot be assumed, but I am not a lawyer. I imagine there'd be a lot of administrative faff in working out exactly how many nights you have to spend at home per year to be considered cohabiting, how you'd prove it, what to do if someone's leading a double life with two families, etc etc.

What would Forces families do? House sharing students? Not saying it's unworkable but Christ it sounds like a headache. Seems much simpler to me to simply say "there is a legal contract available between two people and if you want to be a part of it, come along and sign it." Marriage is really not an administrative hurdle, it's a couple of appointments and a piece of piss.

As it is, we have an opt in system and too many people THINK it's an opt-out one. Education either way seems to be an issue here. But apparently I'm "smug" if I try to warn people.

As for improving the benefits system, why the hell should the state pick up the bill for irresponsible men?

It's more picking up the bill for low earners with childcare responsibilities, since if the system were properly improved, fathers would be paying their proper share of the child maintenance anyway. Not everyone has a significant estate to leave to their partner even if they are married.

Children don't need to be married to be protected under law and that's how it should be. Once again, the system needs improvement but it does not need creation. Fathers are already legally responsible for providing for their children, although the system is woeful at implementing it.

no-one has an explanation for why it’s helpful to preach “get married” at a woman for whom that isn’t an option because her partner is a dick.

Yes I have. I've explained over and over that I would always advise a woman who doesn't have the option of marrying her partner not to have children with him, if she hasn't already. Because she isn't protected. Again, you can call that "smug". It's still right. You basically want to know 'well what if she goes ahead and does it anyway?' My answer, as I have said before, is that she's an adult. But if she's left high and dry, I'd like to see a decent child maintenance and benefit system in place so that her ex is paying for his children, and she is protected like any other low earner.

Your Brexit comment was just sheer inanity. If that's how you reason, it's probably just as well you're not going to be signing any legal contracts about your estate.

As for improving the benefits system, why the hell should the state pick up the bill for irresponsible men?

Don't you mean parents? Children have two and both are responsible not just one. The benefits system shouldn't have to pick up the slack for poor parenting.

Kiwi - I'm a working (well underclass actually as on benefits) Scot. So no it's not about class or being smug it IS about being feminist because we DON'T want other women being screwed over the way some of us have been.

why the hell should the state pick up the bill for irresponsible men?

I and others that you seem to be criticising agree on this! It is what already happens in the uk because the paltry child maintenance fathers (it's mainly fathers that are nrp) are supposed to pay isn't enforced. Being married to them doesn't make that much difference so neither would applying marital rights to co-habitees as it kind of works as a separate legal issue.

When I first split from my ex and was on benefits then too maintenance was included in means testing, even if the nrp didn't pay the full amount or regularly. This meant the amount of maintenance he was SUPPOSED to pay was deducted from the benefits provided for dd. The result was I really struggled inc going without food. Thankfully I was only on them a few months at that point and before I needed them again the law had changed (precisely for this reason - it was leading to far too many children and Lp families in poverty - what SHOULD have been done is going after the deadbeats!)

Oh and my ex was forces - they are NOTORIOUS for having children by multiple women that they don't pay maintenance for.

I'm ignoring yellow because their views on benefits generally are disgusting.

This fashion for not getting married before having children is now at last being seen for what it is. Not really helpful to women in the main. If women are going to have a career and be self supporting then fine don't get married if you don't want to

But you can't rely on a partner to do the right thing if the relationship breaks down. You are in a better position if you're married. Benefits are reasonably generous for people with children (though some would argue with this) but are very tight indeed for single people living alone and whose children have grown up. There will be a lot of women facing a not very comfortable middle age especially now retirement age is raised to 67/68.

Children aren’t always a choice, for heaven’s sake. Are you suggesting women who get pregnant accidentally should be punished for not aborting if unmarried? Again - very out of whack with the general consensus on here and something I would expect to hear from very traditional conservatives, really.

I won’t repeat notentirelywhelmed’s explanation of why this argument is misogynistic and wrong - far better than I could have put.

Why wouldn’t I be signing legal contracts re: my estate? Odd comment...

I won’t insult your intelligence by posting links to basic contract law, but feel free to google. You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand it.

The reason why I suspect battleax, notentirelywhelmed and I have come onto a UK thread and mentioned what the situation is in NZ/ Australia is because in our englightened corner of the globe, there was a problem - people were getting married less and less and many women (yes, mostly women) were finding themselves in a sticky situation many years in. The state therefore moved to address this reality and issue. Now those women and children are protected, it still being open for those who want to be in relationships but don’t want legal rights/ protections to choose not to have them. This seems sensible to us.

In the UK you clearly have the same problem, but instead of looking to implement a practical solution, you seem to think just telling the women “don’t have children” is the answer. How’s that working out for you guys? Problem suddenly gone away? All those stupid women suddenly woken up?

@graphista getting married is a joint decision. Shouting at women is missing at least half the point (and in many cases where the woman would like to be married but her partner won’t) entirely missing the point.

The reason why I suspect battleax, notentirelywhelmed and I have come onto a UK thread and mentioned what the situation is in NZ/ Australia is because in our englightened corner of the globe, there was a problem - people were getting married less and less and many women (yes, mostly women) were finding themselves in a sticky situation many years in. The state therefore moved to address this reality and issue.

Yes absolutely.

It's a PUBLIC POLICY issue. Children are harmed by the status quo and so are women on low pay.

Moralising isn't a good enough reason to do nothing.

Oneupmanship isn't a reason to do nothing.

Complacency isn't a reason to do nothing.

I would suspect an opt out systems would result in many LTR not happening into the cohabiting. I don't think a lot of men and women want to put their money where their mouth is so to speak with relationships because often they do end in failure. Especially if one earns and/or owns considerably more than the other. That's why plenty of LTRs don't result in marriage.

Imagine Oh I love you baby let's move in together. The other partner say great but we just need to opt out because I don't want the potential of sharing what is mine with you should it go wrong. How do you imagine how for most couples that would go down?

Imagine Oh I love you baby let's move in together. The other partner say great but we just need to opt out because I don't want the potential of sharing what is mine with you should it go wrong. How do you imagine how for most couples that would go down?

Then it serves as a clear watershed; Are they committed? Am I? What are my options?

Additional thought; even if you ARE married, it is really important too make a will, particularly when there are children/blended families/complex family situations. People make a lot of assumptions about what they will legally inherit if a spouse dies intestate. For example, if you and your husband died together in a car crash, the older of the two is presumed in law to have died first. I had a colleague who was a couple of years older than her husband. They both had children from prior relationships. My colleague blithely said to me 'Oh, we don't need a will because everything would just get split down the middle anyway'. I pointed out that as she was older than her husband, if they died together she would be presumed to have died first. All their mutual property/assets would pass in law to him, and then his daughters would inherit everything. Her children would get zilch. She took her husband to the solicitors to make wills that week!

I used to work in a University Law Dept, and the Family lawyers always said that the biggest cause of family rifts were disputes over inheritances. It was very sad....

Wills also save the stresses of dealing with letters of administration, and if people trying to sort between them who should be the administrator. It cuts down on time, paperwork and hassle and it doesn't take long to do. It's quite unfair on the people left to sort the mess not too really.

”I would suspect an opt out systems would result in many LTR not happening into the cohabiting.”

Don’t know about Australia but here in NZ you don’t need to cohabit for the relevant act to apply and for all relstionship property to be divisible if the relationship breaks down.

@RaqsMax quite.

LittleKiwi - you're not helping your argument by slagging off an entire country. Other people on this thread, with the same view as yours, have managed to get their views across without being rude about it.

How do people calculate the start of the 2 years of cohabitation? If the bills are in one partner's name, how do you prove the start date (and thereby length of cohabitation)? With a legal partnership you have a certificate with a given date - curious how the NZ system works? Not being goady, just curious to understand how it works in practice

Apols cross post - just seen post saying you don't need to cohabit. So that being the case how do you demonstrate how long you've been a couple for?

If the problem is with financial support re bringing up children, let’s reform the rules on that (and yes, enforce the rules we already do have). Not apply it as a blanket to a multitude of relationships that are about as far from SAHP as it’s possible to get.

The net effect of a system where you gain rights (and as I’ve said previously, any mention of responsibilities in all this?) if you live with someone for a couple of years (let alone if you don’t ) is to have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to trust each other. Unless a couple are fairly evenly matched financially, there will always be something at the back of one’s mind, “Is this worth it for the possibility my girlfriend/boyfriend is going to have a claim to my stuff?” They would be unlikely to verbalise it (hence may well not get as far as discussing an opt-out), but would just keep the relationship as casual as possible instead. Expect a rise in middle-aged men realising they can get mostly what they need from a combination of friends for company and prostitutes for sex instead of an actual real-life girlfriend/lover .

There was a thread yesterday bemoaning the difficulty of affording old age. If we are to address this successfully, one element is that as a whole we will need to have less atomised lives: it has never been the historic norm spend vast swathes of one ‘s life alone. A system that says in for a penny, in for £20k when it comes to cohabiting, does nothing to encourage a more shared attitude to living.