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?

bertrand - if 2 adults want to live together without being married they should be able to. That's their choice. However, children should be protected, they don't have any choice in this.

I would like to see the end of marriage as a concept, though. Couples should be able to sign a contract if they want, pledging support of each other and agreeing the terms of ending the contract. They can even have a big party to celebrate.

But kids shouldn't need a contract to ensure that their parents support them. That should be an unassailable right.

BertrandRussell For many grown-up children it would be a serious matter if the death of one parent meant that the other had to sell the home to pay the Inheritance Tax. In most such cases the only protection against that is marriage.

PramWanker We have an opt-in system and it's called marriage.

I live somewhere you do cohabiting acquire rights. As someone said above, given the spread of marriage over class, it is going to be poorer people, women mainly, who are harmed by the failure of a cohabiting relationship and lack of common law marriage laws.

The laws here do give men pause I think. Don't live with someone long term and have children if you aren't committed. If you want to protect your assets, you still can. Don't live with someone. At least no one is then under the impression it's a committed long-term relationship, if it isn't.

The formidablemrsc 'From my own experience, it is vitally important that you marry if you have children'

If you were the higher earner, with the greater assets and share of responsibility for childcare provision would you have felt the same way when you separated? (Not having a go at you, just raising the question)

Genuinely interested if people consider that concept applicable to both marriage partners, or just the one (unfortunately often the woman, particularly when children are involved) who stands to lose the most in event of a marriage break down

I think if you could have a civil partnership rather than a marriage I would be more inclined towards a formal legal declaration, for me I don't agree with the process for becoming legally married.

I absolutely agree. My ex was an abusive prick. One of the few good decisions I made was to not marry him, which meant when we split up, he had no rights over my pension, my salary, the house I’d bought with my inheritance fund etc. My experience with him made me extra careful when I met DH and I am so glad I got to make an active decision to make that commitment.

I do think becoming a SAHP without marriage is exceedingly foolishly and I think education is needed, but there’s no need to change the law to penalise anyone who moves in with their partner.

Giving people automatic rights as a result of living together will mean that people with savings to protect will have to live alone or risk spending the last few decades of their life in poverty because a partner has fucked off with half their money.

People should have the right to live with other people on terms they've explicitly agreed to, not have ones that could ruin them imposed upon them.

Just a FYI about the price - I got married nearly a year ago, and to give notice was £70 per couple. To book a community room (cheapest possible option) with registrar on a weekday (again, cheapest possible option) was £150. So the lowest price I managed to do all the essentials for was £220. And I did look for better deals...

1DAD and genever, I thought you had to say a minimum vow at a wedding, even a tiny register office one, that you don't in a civil ceremony?

If you choose to give those who cohabit rights, they are very difficult to define - how many nights do you have to spend together to be cohabiting? Does it have to be a sexual relationship? Does it only count if the two of you (plus any children) have exclusive use of the property - otherwise housemates could be considered to be cohabiting. Is there a sliding scale on what you're entitled to depending on how long you've been together? How do you calculate the start date of the relationship? I could go on...

One of the legal definitions of marriage in England is that both parties entered it willingly, so there's no excuse for not knowing what you've committed to. You are either married or you aren't, but cohabiting is much less clear cut. As one of my colleagues put it, if my DH had died the day before we got married, I would have got nothing. The day after, and I would have inherited everything, which would have been very easy to apply (DH is still very much alive several years on), unlike a good number of cohabitation scenarios.

What Betrand said.

I get irritated as fuck over the sanctimonious assumption that because I don't want to be "a wife" my partnership of 18 years is somehow less worthy of legal protections.

Basically DP and I just want the right to be able to leave assets to each other with the same tax breaks as married/civil partnered couples get.

Getting married gives you those rights & responsibilities.

It should remain a CHOICE. It’s VERY cheap & easy to get married, not beyond anyone’s means.

People should be able to live together without it affecting their assets, their incomes, their wills or anyting else.

You can’t argue with stupid & you certainly can’t legislate for it.

"If you want married rights then you need to get married! "

Why?

So that people who do NOT want those rights and responsibilities remain free to live their lives the way they choose.

I think rather than giving marital style rights to cohabiting couples then there needs to be a complete rehaul of child maintenance provisions. It's currently far, far too easy for a NRP to avoid their obligations. It can't be that difficult to organise a system to do maintenance collection through tax codes. There also needs to be a societal change, imo, so that people who dodge their responsibilities are treated as the neglectful fuckers that they are. That would, imo, go a very long way to protecting the children in broken down relationships.

Then in PHSE or PSE or whatever we need to introduce a part that teaches children about the legalities of marriage. About inheritance taxes, about bereavement benefits and about the provisions of pensions in the result of divorce.

Once people are educated properly they then make a choice. If you know that being unmarried puts you in a vulnerable position and choose to do so then that is something you have to deal with (that's what I did and I acknowledge now I was bloody stupid), but the children should be protected. You can't, and imo shouldn't, protect adults from themselves. If people wish to not have the protection of marriage then it shouldn't be foisted upon them.

It's not the assumption that you're not worthy of legal protections it's that you haven't opted in to receiving those legal protections which are all available in one handy package at the registry office.

Basically DP and I just want the right to be able to leave assets to each other with the same tax breaks as married/civil partnered couples get.

Now that sanity has prevailed on gay marriage, civil partnerships could be opened up to everyone and become the administrative choice. Would that suit you?

I get irritated as fuck over the sanctimonious assumption that because I don't want to be "a wife" my partnership of 18 years is somehow less worthy of legal protections.

If you want the legal protections, why don't you get them? You don't need to wear a ring, have a traditional wedding or change your name.

'Wife' is just a neutral term for someone who's entered into the legal contract that gets these protections. What's the issue?

Yes, I agree and it's a shame that so many people still believe that 'common law' marriage would confer some sort of financial protection when it does nothing of the sort.

They are allowing themselves to be led up the garden path.

ninjapants I have no idea, because I wasn't in that position. I would have been in that position had I not given up a well paid job to support my ex-husband in his business and bring up our ASD son. I didn't say it was right, remotely acceptable or anything else, but it IS legal fact. Had it not been the case, the children and I would have ended up homeless because of my ex-husband's desperation to ensure we got nothing and the actions he took to try and ensure that happened. The law needs to change as family life/relationships most certainly have.

I think rather than giving marital style rights to cohabiting couples then there needs to be a complete rehaul of child maintenance provisions.

I think cohabiting laws work well in those places they exist. I hear much more bad in the UK than bad in Canada, where they have them. But if you had to do one thing ^ that is it.

If people don't pay properly, prison should be on the table. Exactly as it would be if a RP didn't feed their child.

Battleax, yes, I said earlier we would like a civil partnership.

I've come across one too many unmarried women that gave up their earning potential to facilitate their partners climbing up the tree only to be left with just the clothes on their backs once their relationship disintegrated.
And it's not always a walk in the park for married couples either.

Not relevant to this thread but I have a good friend who's rich in her own right; a few pointed investments and a hefty inheritance left her not needing to work a day in her life if she so chose to. She won't get married for love nor money. She couldn't countenance the thought of someone walking away with half her wealth.

As far as I know the Children and their wellbeing is covered by the children's act - so regardless if you are married or co habit their needs will come first regardless and a marriage certificate doesn't make
Much difference

Where this comes in is the money side of things . So actuallly for two people who are economicallly matched marriage doesn't make that much of a difference if they split fairly amicably

But for the unmarried SAHM and SAHD is this world it's massive for them . People need to understand this