Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 the legal protection of marriage then get married

947 replies

Sofabitch · 14/04/2018 12:19

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.

OP posts:
Bluelady · 14/04/2018 15:47

No, you can't get round inheritance tax. If you're married and leave your estate to your spouse, there's no tax to pay. If you're not married, you pay inheritance tax on everything over £325k.

LipstickHandbagCoffee · 14/04/2018 15:48

Posted too soon
Civil partners are inc in nearest relative
The order of NR is
a) husband or wife or civil partner; and cohabitee partner over 6mth
(b) son or daughter;
(c) father or mother;
(d) brother or sister;
(e) grandparent;
(f) grandchild;
(g) uncle or aunt;
(h) nephew or niece.

ladymarian · 14/04/2018 15:48

YANBU.

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 15:49

Agree with all the people saying that affording legal protection to “common law spouses” gives rise to all kinds of problems about where you draw the line, as well as preventing people from opting out of marriage specifically because they want to be financially and legally separate.

Also, my husband and I did over five years of long distance (living in separate countries). If we could have lived in the same place we’d have been married, but we couldn’t so we weren’t. If one of us had died just before I moved to his country, our relationship would have had no status in the eyes of the law, either in his country or in mine. But if “common law” spouses could get the same rights as married people simply by living together, a much less committed couple could have had more recognition and legal protection.

We all know couples who live together for years but aren’t in it for the long haul.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 14/04/2018 15:50

Why would you want commit your life to a man who is unwilling to commit to you and marry you?

That has always been the line in the sand for me.

I was always saying that Ally McBeal line. If it's so unimportant and meaningless than why not do it? What's the problem?

The only reason I have seen is men who want an escape hatch.

Speedy85 · 14/04/2018 15:52

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)?
No
www.gov.uk/tax-property-money-shares-you-inherit/joint-property-shares-bank-accounts

And life insurance where you name each other as beneficiaries?
Yes, if you have it set up the right way.
home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/insurance/warning-over-inheritance-tax-on-life-insurance-policies-11363970757027

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 15:52

Surely most people use ‘unreasonable behaviour’ rather than ‘adultery’ these days?

Ok, I am not a legal expert so I'm happy to be corrected on this. My understanding is that in a civil partnership, since there's no recognition of the sexual nature of the relationship, it's not 'unreasonable' to shag someone else.

I would imagine if the husband is shagging the secretary there are probably other instances of unreasonable behaviour that the wife could draw on, though.

People say their sex lives are none of the state's business, but in marriage this extends to being able to divorce someone on the grounds of an undisclosed STI and so on. Perhaps there is an alternative legal route around it in civil partnerships, I don't know.

I'm guessing not, though, because otherwise civil partnerships would have been utterly pointless and they would just have introduced same sex marriage from the start. There were reasons gay rights activists were not satisfied with CPs and pushed for marriage. CPs were brought in to give same sex couples something but not upset homophobic right wingers too much.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 16:02

You would not be able to dissolve it (the CP) and have your fair share of assets if your husband shagged his secretary.
NONSENSE - you can get a dissolution for unreasonable behaviour.

Or perhaps we could allow people to 'self declare' they are together?
Sounds like a good suggestion, an oral contract between two consenting adults conveying rights and protections. We could call them partnerships, I imagine you could even register it on Facebook.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 14/04/2018 16:03

I watched friends of mine separate. They had 3 kids, had been together for 19 years. He started shagging the marketing person at work. Tried to screw her out of any money, including monies contributing to the mortgage so that he should have the lion's share of the equity, because she had been a SAHM/Part time for a period. In the meantime, his career flourished unfettered by childcare issues.

It was incredibly ugly. He had been our friend too, but he made it impossible to be neutral, he was cruel. Monstrously cruel. He hid his earnings, his pension, all of it. It was shocking.

There's a terrible arrogance about men who think they are cleverer than everyone else. Except he wasn't. She was able to gain much of the information she needed by stealth and had a great barrister. She still didn't get what she would have done had they been married though.

He tried to screw her to the wall. True Jekyll and Hyde behaviour. He had been the mild mannered, lovely Englishman. Then he wasn't.

That's why you need the protection of marriage.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 16:04

Sexual infidelity is one of the grounds for unreasonable behaviour when getting a dissolution of a civil partnership.

Oliversmumsarmy · 14/04/2018 16:07

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

I think £70k is cheap.

Dp works with someone who has a solicitors bill for £80,000 over his messy divorce.
Read a thread recently where going through a divorce a violent husband was using matrimonial assets to defend against his domestic violence leaving the wife with nothing.
Others where exh's ran up thousands in debt that had to come out of joint assets.

The ones I know who have been married are worse off than those that were married.

Why would you want commit your life to a man who is unwilling to commit to you and marry you

Sometimes it is the woman who doesn't want marriage. A bit sexist to say only men can't commit.

I am aware it is a quote from Ally McBeal

southernNights · 14/04/2018 16:08

No. I was delighted (over the moon) to marry DH but we had the marriage part because he's lapsed Catholic. I also think my friend (2 DCs, with her partner for decades) has a point when she jokes that DH loved me so much he wanted state involvement to make sure I couldn't easily escape.

I think society needs to escape religion and its evil grip.

Despite thinking gays (including my brother and his lovely partner of 20 years) should have exactly the same rights as a straight couple, I wonder about them wanting gay marriage. The bible is clear about how it feels about homosexuality and I don't know why you'd fight to be accepted by people who hate you. It's no different to a black person demanding to be part of the KKK.

I don't know any gay couples who were for gay marriage.

I love the idea of (Dutch, I think) couples having civil ceremonies as standard and adding an extra level of religion on top if that's what they decide.

I like the idea of formal 'togetherness' and think it's important for partners to show commitment both together and in the eyes of the law. I don't like the idea of marriage being religious as there's so much wrong with using such a fucked up ideology as the basis of a life together.

Bluelady · 14/04/2018 16:11

All the gay couples I know were delighted when the law allowed them to marry. And proved it with some bloody good weddings!

DioneTheDiabolist · 14/04/2018 16:12

Marriages in the UK don't have to have anything to do with religion.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 16:13

Marriages in the UK don't have to have anything to do with religion.

Indeed, if you have a civil ceremony then any religious content is prohibited.

Caribou58 · 14/04/2018 16:15

The bit about needing witnesses for a marriage - in case no-one else has mentioned it - you need witnesses for a civil partnership!

southernNights · 14/04/2018 16:17

PoorYorik

Read back all you've quoted and said.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 14/04/2018 16:18

All the people saying that marriage is patriarchal - can you point to a single thing in law (as opposed to culture, social expectations, common beliefs about marriage and so on) which treats married women differently from married men?

I'm not aware of any. One of the last vestiges was when married women were finally responsible for their own tax, which changed some time in the 80s, I think.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 16:21

Read back all you've quoted and said.

Ok. Why?

Andrewofgg · 14/04/2018 16:28

It’s true that you cannot petition for the dissolution of a c.p. or indeed a same-sex marriage on the adultery ground; but you would call it unreasonable behaviour and that would succeed.

I have to wonder whether someone got queasy about defining adultery! Shades of the myth (I think) that the reason lesbianism was never criminalised was that nobody wanted to explain to Queen Victoria exactly What They Did!

southernNights · 14/04/2018 16:29

Because "indeed" seems to suggest you agree but surely you have the intelligence to know that you shouldn't compare civil ceremony and marriage?

Bluelady · 14/04/2018 16:31

A civil ceremony is a non religious marriage ceremony. You seem to be confusing it with a civil partnerships, Southern. .

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 16:32

Because "indeed" seems to suggest you agree but surely you have the intelligence to know that you shouldn't compare civil ceremony and marriage?

I wasn't. I quoted a line about marriage not having to have anything to do with religion, and added my own comment about religious expressions not being permitted in civil marriage ceremonies.Seemed relevant.

I'm not seeing the problem, sorry.

deadringer · 14/04/2018 16:33

I think the main problem with adultery traditionally was that a child might result from it. Maybe they thought that wouldn't be an issue for same sex couples?

BertrandRussell · 14/04/2018 16:36

"All the people saying that marriage is patriarchal - can you point to a single thing in law (as opposed to culture, social expectations, common beliefs about marriage and so on) which treats married women differently from married men?"
My view is not that modern marriage is patriarchal but that the institution is rooted in patriarchy. And the whole societal narrative around marriage as something women should want to do as exemplified by all the hideous expressions like "why should he buy the cow if he gets milk for free" and the threads by women who are making themselves miserable because they are waiting for a proposal......there is so much baggage strapped to marriage....