Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Battleax · 27/11/2017 14:30

Sorry, can't keep up with the spend of this thread Smile

upperlimit · 27/11/2017 14:30

Maybe if they forge ahead with common marriage laws they could have opt-out provisions for people who don't want that relationship status.

Admittedly, it wouldn't be very romantic to skip down to the registry office to opt out but then, at least, everyone knows where they stand.

BabyDreams2018 · 27/11/2017 14:32

YANBU. I don't get couples who call each other Husband and Wife when they're not legally married. It makes no sense to me.

IceFall · 27/11/2017 14:33

It is a bit of a 'no shit sherlock' situation - want to protect yourself and your children, get married. Not bothered about that? Don't get married.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 14:33

"Wife" is not a neutral term.

I would have a civil partnership, if I were allowed. It is odd that this is available for same sex couples but not for opposite sex couples. I understand that it's come about due to its history as a stepping stone to same sex marriage. But if it's going to continue then it should be available to everyone.

OlennasWimple · 27/11/2017 14:34

This is a complete no-brainer to me

If you want the rights and protections of marriage, get married

If you don't want the responsibilities of marriage, don't get married.

Simples

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 14:34

The issue is we should be able to contract with one another without having to enter the institution of "marriage".

lalalalyra · 27/11/2017 14:34

It doesn't take much to get the protections offered by marriage. I was a witness for a couple at the registry office last year. Their wedding was about 12 minutes long. A few sentences and legal wordings and that was that. Apparently it cost them just over £100. No fancy wedding, no big do. Just them and two random strangers in an office.

OlennasWimple · 27/11/2017 14:35

Assassinated - you have to weigh up whether the benefits of marriage are sufficient in your situation to bite your lip and go against your principles. For most people there are, for some people there aren't. Which is fine, provided the decision is made in the knowledge of what is being sacrificed for a principle

itshappening · 27/11/2017 14:35

It is all very well saying that those who want those protections should get married, but what if their partner is unwilling to do so? Do they split the family up and end up without the protections anyway and outside what may have been a happy relationship?

lalalalyra · 27/11/2017 14:37

It is all very well saying that those who want those protections should get married, but what if their partner is unwilling to do so?

No-one should be obliged to take on marital style responsibilities for someone when they are not willing to do so.

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 14:37

So that's two recent posts that suggest I'm irresponsible and not bothered about protecting myself or my children because I don't want to be married.

BabyDreams2018 · 27/11/2017 14:38

I think stopfuckingshoutingatme is confusing getting married with having a wedding. There are very few who could not afford to get married if they really wanted to

VioletHaze · 27/11/2017 14:41

leftbehind - I don't think your relationship is worth less than mine. But I guess I would ask why your choice to not get married would mean that I would have no choice in whether or not to make that commitment?

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 14:41

The benefits would be financial/tax/inheritance related, which isn't sufficient for me to go against my feelings on this. It feels like being bribed to agree to participate.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 14:42

It is all very well saying that those who want those protections should get married, but what if their partner is unwilling to do so?

You can't force someone to enter into marital responsibilities and nor should you be able to. So if they are not willing to marry you or draw up a will to your satisfaction, you need to make an informed choice about what you want to do.

I do agree that child maintenance needs to be much better handled.

lalalalyra · 27/11/2017 14:42

So that's two recent posts that suggest I'm irresponsible and not bothered about protecting myself or my children because I don't want to be married.

I don't think it's irresponsible, it's a choice you are fully entitled to make. It is a choice though. The problem is that some people make that choice seemingly without realising what it means for them.

Protection of children should be sorted with a better maintenance system. The current system is shit.

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 14:44

I don't think you should have no choice. I think there should be an alternative to marriage for heterosexual couples who wish to enter into a contractual arrangement.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 14:45

The benefits would be financial/tax/inheritance related, which isn't sufficient for me to go against my feelings on this. It feels like being bribed to agree to participate.

You don't have to participate.

GrockleBocs · 27/11/2017 14:45

I know someone who was a SAHM and wasn't married. She wasn't on the deeds either.
Her partner literally changed the locks one day. Her and the children were out on the street.

AssassinatedBeauty · 27/11/2017 14:46

Quite! So I'm not participating in marriage. However, I'd like to be able to have a civil partnership, as same sex couples can. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be an option.

Viviennemary · 27/11/2017 14:48

It simply couldn't work. If people don't want to get married that's up to them but they should be aware of the consequences which quite often they're not. Can't believe for example people agree to be SAHM's without marriage.

embo1 · 27/11/2017 14:48

we're not married, but everything is in both our names and we have made wills...??

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 14:48

Quite! So I'm not participating in marriage. However, I'd like to be able to have a civil partnership, as same sex couples can. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be an option.

Or what Assaninated says - much more eloquently.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 14:48

So that's two recent posts that suggest I'm irresponsible and not bothered about protecting myself or my children because I don't want to be married.

It's not irresponsible, it's simply a choice that may have consequences some day, just as marrying may have consequences some day.

I would never advise someone to give up their job to be a SAHP if they weren't married though.