Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
PurpleTraitor · 27/11/2017 16:07

I actually don’t think the rights and protections of marriage should apply to all cohabitees on an opt out basis. I think that would be madness. I spend a lot of time asking friends to think about their financial situations should bad things happen and many of them remain unprotected. I suggest to several of them the easiest way is to get married. I’m actually on the same page as many here.

What I really object to is the ‘if you want financial protection, get married’ posts. Especially in this context. Especially directed at his majority female audience.

No. Just no. If you want financial protection, get financial protection. That may or may not come from marriage. Many women would be disadvantaged financially by marriage. Many more still by divorce.

Prudent financial planning and safeguards are a great idea. Advising marriage as some kind of panacea, just tie yourself to a man and you’ll be OK, as a blanket policy is very bad advice.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 16:07

When me and DH first lived together as co-habitees I wasn't very keen on the idea of marriage as being someone's 'wife' was a bit twee and made me feel that I would be somehow owned by DH. And then I realised that the legal and financial protections of being married were far more important than my discomfort over the term 'wife'.

This appears to be what a lot of the reluctance comes from.

"Ok. So what else is in the marriage contract that you don't want to sign up for?"
The bit about marriage.

Well that's the bit that includes IHT exemption. There's obviously something in there that puts people off and I'm curious to know what.

People fought long and hard (and justly) for the right to same sex marriage.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 16:09

Are we getting too much focused on the term marriage rather than the legal implications. There are a lot of people upset that their LTR is not recognised legally. In general is the issues for these people the lack of a legally binding similar but alternative to marriage that they can both sign up to or that their LTR should become automatically recognised by defult?

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 16:10

But you have reminded me of another irk. I am not formally my DP's next of kin nor he mine. That's a bit shit really. But it's ok because as long as we agree to get married it proves to the world that we really do love each other enough to deserve that recognition.

Elendon · 27/11/2017 16:10

It's a piece of paper that gives protection especially if there are children involved.

However, I'm never getting married again. (Done it twice).

Simply put, I'll happily co habit but what's mine is mine, what is my partners is my partners. (I'm going to presume that my future partner will have had children).

We will simply enjoy living in each other's company and halving the bills

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 16:12

I am not formally my DP's next of kin nor he mine. That's a bit shit really.

Again...that's in the marriage bit. What else is in the marriage bit that puts you off? It must be quite a big thing because, understandably, these are protections you would like.

Again, this is a genuine question.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 16:13

There are a lot of people upset that their LTR is not recognised legally.

Yes. Marriage is the legal recognition of a relationship. I just don't understand how you can be upset that your relationship has no legal recognition if you don't want to give it legal recognition.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 16:14

PoorYorick The fact that some people have fought long and hard to have the right to marry and others have argued against it is an indication that personal choice is key. To give people the rights to opt into such a contract or not.

KERALA1 · 27/11/2017 16:14

Still none the wiser as to what the logical objections to marriage are. You don't even have to tell people if you don't want to, or refer to yourself as a wife.

I don't think the current situation is perfect but its the least worst set up. Giving cohabitees rights would be very hard, impossible to draft that legislation - what rights, how long lived together confers which rights - headache. Totally agree state needs to get tougher on deadbeat parents.

Kr1st1na · 27/11/2017 16:14

I think it’s morally wrong to impose the legal obligations of marriage on people who have specifically chosen to live together without such obligations.

And Is be interested to know how cohabitation will be defined. It might be easy for couples who have a joint tenancy or mortgage and who pay council tax at that address.

But how will it work for those who have this in one persons name only? I’m sure many people will be quick to claim that their ex was a lodger, or that they had a casual relationships and often spent nights elsewhere .

Lots of flatmates and lodgers share bills. Lots of people are known as BF or GF but don’t cohabit.

What about people that work away from home? How will they prove that they spent the required number of nights together to be a couple ?

amicissimma · 27/11/2017 16:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KERALA1 · 27/11/2017 16:16

Elendon perfectly illustrates why giving cohabitees rights is unfair. It would mean she could never cohabit because for very good reasons she does not wish to enter into a marriage, or a relationship that confers anyone else rights to her property.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 16:17

leftbehind would you want the state to automatically recognise legal obligations to each other based on assumptions on the nature of your relationship?

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 16:19

Your question Yorick is that, because marriage would give us these things, why don't we get married ?

I can only repeat that I do not wish to be married or to be someone's wife.

So my question to you in response is why such rights should be exclusively reserved for heterosexual people who get married?

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 16:20

1DAD no. I don't think I've said that anywhere.

littlebillie · 27/11/2017 16:21

I think if you live with someone and you haven’t committed to a legal contract how can the legal system work it out? Marriage is really a much smaller commitment than having children with someone. For me getting married was important as we were buying property and planning to have children and well I love him.

PoorYorick · 27/11/2017 16:21

So my question to you in response is why such rights should be exclusively reserved for heterosexual people who get married?

Well I would be totally in favour of civil partnerships for straight people, but I still don't understand what's in marriage but not in a civil partnership that is putting you off. You want IHT exemption and to be your partner's next of kin. There is obviously something else in the marriage contract that you really DON'T want if it's stopping you from getting these protections. So what is it?

You said you're a lawyer. I'm not so I'm asking.

WyfOfBathe · 27/11/2017 16:21

Like others have said, marriage is much easier to define than cohabiting. When I was doing my masters, I lived with my then boyfriend and two other people. We each had our own bedrooms, but bf and I generally shared mine. Were we "cohabiting" or not? I wouldn't have wanted the legal and financial obligations which came with marriage.

One of my friends at uni had a "roommate with benefits" in halls. They definitely wouldn't have wanted their finances entangled!

Whereas now I'm happily married, which was a decision which DH and I made together for various reasons (legal, financial, religious, familial, etc).

DeepPileTinsel · 27/11/2017 16:22

But being married means having those protections specific to the relationship with your spouse. I didn't marry DH because I loved him any more than I had done for the rest of the time we've been together. We married for the practical considerations. Husband/Wife describe our positions within that contract. I don't see why calling yourself a wife is any worse than calling yourself a girlfriend/partner/whatever.

1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 16:22

leftbehind then would it meet your criteria if we rebranded marriage?

We could call it co-dependant obligation contract or something.

genever · 27/11/2017 16:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
KitKat1985 · 27/11/2017 16:23

But you have reminded me of another irk. I am not formally my DP's next of kin nor he mine. That's a bit shit really. But it's ok because as long as we agree to get married it proves to the world that we really do love each other enough to deserve that recognition.

The problem (and I speak with my nurse's hat on) is if you are hit by a bus tomorrow and are in a coma and can't speak, how do I know whether you want your cohabiting partner to know all your medical information? Not all couples would. For all I know you could even hate each other but just still live together because you can't afford to move out (again, I've known it to happen - even had couples who divide the house up and don't allow each other into 'their' rooms)! I also know some cohabiting couples who are very clear that their DDs/DSs are their next of kin, or that their parents or siblings are, and not their long-term partner. Without you being married, we (we meaning hospital staff) simply don't know what you would have wanted, unless you have made an advance directive or similar stating you want your partner to be told medical information and to be the decision maker about your care in an emergency. And to be honest, in nearly a decade of nurses I've literally hardly met any patients who have made an advance directive in this way.

OP posts:
1DAD2KIDS · 27/11/2017 16:23

leftbehind understood on the auto marriage thing, I thought that's what you were implying. wrong end of stick

KERALA1 · 27/11/2017 16:28

But what is wrong with being married?!?! Sorry I still don't get it.

leftbehind · 27/11/2017 16:29

Nope. People can get married if they want to. I'd just like the option of a civil partnership which I'm currently denied.

To be clear I don't think cohabiting couples should automatically acquire rights. I just think it's restrictive that in order to obtain them one must be "married". The rights associated with marriage should be open to all. An adult couple should be able to form a contract (if they want to) in a way that suits them, their situation assets etc.

The answer to the problem of women (mostly) ending up in dire positions is education and choice not just saying "you women - get married" or at least it shouldn't be the answer.