Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married

[Sofabitch]

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about how widows allowance isn't paid to couples that weren't married, even if children are involved.

Aibu to think marriage is essentially the legal joining of people and if you want to be recognised legally and finacially then you should get married.

I guess the supreme court will ultimately decide if I am being unreasonable. But i can't help but think people dont realise the legal security marriage offers and they should.

Should be part of basic life-skills at school.

I really, really agree with this. Because my issue with this is not that people marry or don't marry - that's 100% up to them.

It's that so many people just don't actually know what marriage bloody is and are not making an informed decision. That it's 'just a piece of paper', that its purpose is to 'prove love', that it's about white dresses, that common law spouses have existed in the last 250 years, that all its protections can be replicated in wills...

None of this is true. And given how many people do seem to want the protections but are refusing them based on utter misinformation, it would appear to be a serious problem.

I shit you not, there was one young woman in the last thread about this who admitted she wanted to be married (she was pregnant with her and her partner's first child) and he was refusing. But it was all right because he had told her she could still take his name and had assured her that they 'didn't need a piece of paper to prove their love'.

How can anyone read this and not start screaming??

So you're seriously saying that nobody who's married has any self respect? We've all got enough of it to protect ourselves in the event of bereavement or divorce, I'd say that was plenty of self respect.

Having seen the cost of getting into a marriage and the £1000s, sometimes £10s of thousands to get out of it I am unsure of the benefits.

Only a handful ever get any child support from their ex let alone spousal maintenance.

As long as the property you live in is in both names and pensions, life insurance policy and wills are written I can't see the problem

The stuff I have witnessed makes me glad dp and I have never married

^I'd even go so far as to encourage (young) women to always keep their foot in the door of their careers even if at times it means working for a net loss. The days of alimony are well and truly over and it seems spouses can have an almost overnight personality change.
Marriage or not, what I would encourage women to do is to always know and have the capacity to stand on their own two feet if it comes to it^

Completely agree

See it on mn,notion of automatic spousal maintenance payment
No, recent rulings judges are not routinely awarding maintenence

If civil partnerships were available to heterosexual couples, I'd have one of those please instead of marriage.

You would not be able to dissolve it and have your fair share of assets if your husband shagged his secretary.

That may be fine with you, which is great, but it's an extra protection you wouldn't have.

I have no problem with the idea of straight people getting civil partnerships. I just don't understand why they'd want to.

his parents were his next-of-kin and took over in the hospital, regarding resuscitation, made all the funeral arrangements, headstone wording etc. She was powerless as they weren't married, and if they had been married she would have been his next-of-kin

This alone would be worth it for me :(

Marriage is an outdated concept.
What utter rubbish! It's a legal process that confers certain rights and obligations on two people. It won't be obsolete until this is no longer the case.

If you don't like this, then don't get married. But don't then come complaining that you got shafted by your partner. Nothing is certain in life apart from death and taxes. Certainly not relationships.

OP, YANBU. How do people think the law could even draw the line as to when unmarried partners gain the rights of marriage?

Imagine the scenario:

My name is Tom. I have a 3 bed terrace I inherited from my grandma. I’m 30 years old. I have one brother Jim.

(a) I smile at Anna in a coffee shop then get run over and when I leave. Should she get to decide to switch off my life support when Jim wants to ‘wait and see’? Should she get my house or half to her and half to Jim? Should Jim get everything?

(b) I’ve worked with Brenda for a year and snogged her at the Christmas Work party. I am run over as I leave the party.
Should she get to decide to switch off my life support when Jim wants to ‘wait and see’? Should she get my house or half to her and half to Jim? Should Jim get everything?

(c) I met Cathy at a nightclub and had a one night stand. The next day I have an accident at work. Should she get to decide to switch off my life support when Jim wants to ‘wait and see’? Should she get my house or half to her and half to Jim? Should Jim get everything?

(d) I went to Uni with Debbie and have been on off ‘friends with benefits’ for years. I get menengitis. Should she get to decide to amputate my limbs to save my life, when Jim wants to ‘wait and see’? Should she get my house or half to her and half to Jim? Should Jim get everything?

(e) Emma is my cousins friend who is staying at my house in the spare bedroom from a week, while her plumbing is sorted out. I am killed in a plane crash. Should she get to decide to scatter my ashes in London when Jim wants to scatter them in Scotland were we grew up? Should she get my house or half to her and half to Jim? Should Jim get everything?

(f) My lodger Fran has been living in the house for two years. I’m killed. Should Jim get everything? Should Fran get some?

(g) I meet Gina on match . com and hit it off. After how long should she get rights? After 5 dates, 20?

(f) I’m also seeing Freya from plenty of fish. Who has more rights if I die, Gina or Freya.

In 2020 I’ve lived with Gina for 2 years but I pay Freya’s bills and spend time with Debbie, my friend with benefits. It also turns out that the one night stand had a baby. Who should decide to get to decide to switch off my life support when Jim wants to ‘wait and see’? Who should get my house? Should Jim get everything?

In 2040 the situation is the same. I’ve lived with Gina for 22 years. Does she have more rights than the others? When did she get them? When I closed my online dating profile? After 3 years, 5 years, 7? 10?

Or

I meet Maggie, get married in jeans and a tshirt. The witnesses are registry office staff. Anna and Brenda and Gina and Debbie, Freya and Even Jim or whoever else can’t interfere.

I get so frustrated dealing with the aftermath where people think they are ‘common law’ spouses.

I don’t think some people realise that ‘common law’ wife or husband means diddly squat.
When I worked in the coroners office I remember a very upsetting time that I could not give details of how a death occurred to a woman that had lived with a man for 10 years. He wasn’t her next of kin so I had to get permission from his sister who was NOK to be able to tell the partner. We never think of stuff like that, do we.

tom the witnesses don’t have to be someone you know.

We slipped off to Las Vegas and the photographer and chauffer were the witnesses

There have been more than a few threads on MN where a couple are going to the registry office and have asked if anyone wanted to be there witnesses. You could also grab 2 people off the street!

None of these people will have to keep your secret, they don’t know your family and friends

But what if you own a house with someone and have a child together, but you don't want marriage because you want to leave your assets elsewhere sharron?

The thing I find ironic about this is that so many people presume that marriage gives them all sorts of protections that it simply doesn't.

OH and I will get married at some point, once it becomes tax-sensible to do it. However at present it would be massively stupid, particularly from my point of view, to marry him as I am the high earner and own all the physical assets.

However we have actually bothered to draw up proper detailed wills (not just the cheapo "mirror wills" so many married people get), name each other as pension beneficiaries, name each other in our life insurance policies and make each other our welfare and financial powers of attorney. We are lucky in that between us we have the legal knowledge to do this extremely cheaply. Working in healthcare I'm always astounded at the number of people who think they can make welfare and financial decisions on their spouse's behalf simply because "I'm his wiiiiife".

A big thing is the idea that if you get married you'll be "next of kin". Nope, has no legal meaning. Any person can choose any other person as their next of kin and in fact in mental health there is something (in Scots law at least) called a Named Person who does have rights to be invited to meetings, tribunal hearings etc but has to be chosen by the patient and who can be anyone at all.

I think there should be a lot more focus on that sort of stuff in schools, rather than a blanket "marriage protects you" - as actually in many situations it doesn't.

Hopefully in future things will be more equal - more men taking SPL, a split in part-time working, so either way one partner is less likely to be "expected" to stay at home and therefore be reliant on the other partner financially. We plan to split our parental leave down the middle and both drop to 70 % ish work-wise when kids arrive so at present there isn't much of a financial incentive to bother with the trip to the registry office.

Isn't next of kin who the person puts down on any form.

Dp is terminally ill and I am his next of kin. Drs always speak to me as opposed to his mother or sibling because dp put me down as next of kin when he registered at the GPs.

Hopefully in future things will be more equal - more men taking SPL, a split in part-time working, so either way one partner is less likely to be "expected" to stay at home and therefore be reliant on the other partner financially.

I'd love to see this too. But it's a separate issue to marriage. Gender roles and expectations are a cultural issue.

*Because my issue with this is not that people marry or don't marry - that's 100% up to them.

It's that so many people just don't actually know what marriage bloody is and are not making an informed decision. That it's 'just a piece of paper', that its purpose is to 'prove love', that it's about white dresses, that common law spouses have existed in the last 250 years, that all its protections can be replicated in wills...

None of this is true. And given how many people do seem to want the protections but are refusing them based on utter misinformation, it would appear to be a serious problem.*

This is exactly it.

Although I did really enjoy DoctorWhatTheFuck and her many many “not quite wives”.

doctor

NZ have common law or de facto relationships. Apply to anyone who has
: cohabited for 3years, over 18yrs old
: has children in the relationship

More info here:
defacto

It’s worked quite successfully for many years, no reason it couldn’t in the UK, but until then, you want protection, you need marriage

Oliversmumsarmy
*Having seen the cost of getting into a marriage and the £1000s, sometimes £10s of thousands to get out of it I am unsure of the benefits.

Only a handful ever get any child support from their ex let alone spousal maintenance.

As long as the property you live in is in both names and pensions, life insurance policy and wills are written I can't see the problem

The stuff I have witnessed makes me glad dp and I have never married*

Can you afford £70k inheritance tax or would that mean you would have to sell your home? Being married means you don’t have to pay that.

What about when you are 70. Could you do with an extra £700 per month from a pension? You may not have that option unmarried.

What about when his mother insists she wants to spread his ashes in Skegness and have a gaudy tombstone there when he told you his uncle abused him on family holidays in Skegness?

What about when the doctor says there is a chance an operation would help, but dp said to you in that scenario he would want to be left alone?

Or when his dad says for religious reasons they don’t want him to be an organ donor, but he had a donor card and was atheist...

and and and

There are enough problems in the world, don’t create more for yourself which could be easily avoided.

t might sound simple to just get rid of CP and deny people rights unless they get married. But the cat is out of the bag and its not that easy to take away peoples rights. There are a lot of people who want these legal protections but don't want to get married and they know CP exist, so they will be fighting for these rights and will keep fighting for them until they get equality.

It isn't a matter of 'denying people rights'. They HAVE no rights without being married!

If we gave everyone in a relationship legal protection, where would we start? Would they have to live together? Would they have to be in a monogamous relationship? Would they have to prove this? Have been together for more than 6 months? It would be impossible to define and impossible to have enough certainty to have legal status. It would probably be more onorous than marriage is.

Or perhaps we could allow people to 'self declare' they are together? That would be chaos! Although the legal profession would have a field day.

The obvious answer, is if you want protection - get married. And if you don't get married, stop complaining.

Oliversmummy next of kin is ill defined and has no formal statutory definition
Medical NOK yes you notify GP in writing and nominate an adult with capacity
Under mental health act nearest relative is the person who is approached, not the partner or cohabitant

There are ways around getting married.

DP and I aren't married. We own our house as tenants in common - but our stakes are the same amount. I'm the sole beneficiary of his life insurance (£500k). He has written into his will that his half of the house should be held in trust for our children but has made me trustee and has given me a tenancy of the trust so that I can live in the house until the kids want to sell their share. I'll probably have moved by then anyway. His mum (if she survives him) and I are beneficiaries of his private pension. True, I won't get his state pension or widow's allowance. But that's it.

If he leaves me, we just sell the house and walk away with our share and a car each. He would have to pay CMS for the kids. And he wouldn't be able to touch my savings.

I took extensive legal advice about this when we decided to have children. I wanted to just get married because it's easier. He's very anti-marriage. Maybe he just doesn't want to marry me? I dunno. He's made some very big financial commitments to me over the years that would suggest he wants me as a life partner.

And also, with more and more women becoming the breadwinners in their households, marriage isn't always to their advantage. It basically protects the weaker spouse - the one who doesn't earn as much, or at all, the one who doesn't have any money to put towards a house purchase, the one who doesn't have a career or any prospects after childrearing. But that isn't always the woman. A woman breadwinner could find herself having to hand over half of everything, plus custody of the children to a SAHD. That's gotta sting if he cheats on you.

Question re:- inheritance tax.

Is it possible to get around by having most of your assets in property (where you are both joint tenants) or cash (in a joint account)? And life insurance where you name each other as beneficiaries?

(I’ve been married since dh and I had no assets and lots of student loans so not something I have ever had to worry about!)

@Oliversmumsarmy and that would be great...until Dp was unconscious or dead and you and his family disagreed on something.

It basically protects the weaker spouse - the one who doesn't earn as much, or at all, the one who doesn't have any money to put towards a house purchase, the one who doesn't have a career or any prospects after childrearing.

Which is as it should be. As you say, this isn't always the woman, but it's absolutely right and fair that a man who takes the same financial hits as a woman traditionally would should have the same protection in law.

As it is, though, this affects women disproportionately and is likely to continue to do so for a long time. So we'd be wise to educate people about marriage even while we try to strive for equality in society.

Thanks New Year. Terms of the mortgage are very important, then, if not married.

”You would not be able to dissolve [a civil partnership] and have your fair share of assets if your husband shagged his secretary.”

Surely most people use ‘unreasonable behaviour’ rather than ‘adultery’ these days? I am married, as it happens, but I don’t feel I need the state to recognise our sexual relationship. That’s between us.

Is it really any easier to divorce if one can use adultery as the reason, and does it really affect the share of assets a divorcing spouse would receive?