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.

“I really don’t want to be anyone’s wife

But you're happy to be 'girlfriend' 'partner' 'live in lover'

Just a name really “

Words have meanings. Wife is a different word with a different meaning to partner.

This may have been mentioned, but gay marriage is not entirely the same as straight marriage, despite the Tories & Lib Dem's calling it 'equal marriage'. There is no process by which sexual infidelity can be used to end a gay marriage. I am about to become a gay divorcee, there has been infidelity but it is not legally termed as 'adultery'. It has been used as grounds for unreasonable behaviour & on that basis the court has granted us a divorce. My lawyer tells me that it is largely because the House of Lords couldn't face discussing what lesbian adultery would actually constitute

My STBXW & I formed one of the UKs first Civil Partnerships over 12 years ago, we were one of the first to convert it to marriage. Even our very enlightened family & friends struggled to see the CP as the same as marriage, they kept calling it a "commitment ceremony" & many came in very ordinary clothes, in contrast to the hats & suits they wore to my straight cousin's weddings around the same time. I don't know how that might be for gay people choosing CP over marriage nowadays, perhaps things have changed but my experience is that it just wasn't taken as seriously as a marriage. That said, there was no presumption of changing surnames to contend with for example. My younger sister married her wife a couple of years ago & went for marriage as she said it was easier to say

In law all participants in CP's are treated as husbands, in marriage gay men are husbands & lesbians are wives, so by converting I can actually say I have been both a husband & a wife!

The only words to have to say for a civil marriage in England are 1) I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I [name] may not be joined in matrimony to [name], and 2) I call upon these persons here present, to witness that I [name] do take thee [name] to be my lawful wedded wife / husband. Same for both partners.
Apart from that you can say whatever you like, as long as it's not religious (or obscene, I guess).

I think TV ‘comedies’ have a lot to answer for. They make out marriage to be a prison sentence, resulting in a nagging wife or a grumpy husband.

Then there’s all the scare stories about people losing their houses after their spouse has an affair and demands a divorce.

It’s no wonder people are scared. Some men also seem to resent ‘paying’ for a woman if she has his child and hasn’t to give up Work to look after them! I’ve seen people hesitant to make the ultimate commitment even in the most loving relationships. Usually they have a cynical older person giving them warnings and it’s enough to make most people question it all.

Can you point to any examples, where the vows are identical?

The standard legal ceremony. Mine. Most peoples.

Imagine a scenario where by a cohabiting couple are not married and one partner dies, that partner owns the property and his nearest relation is a cousin he’s never met.

We’d all like to think that the cousin would do the decent thing and give the assets to the partner BUT if that cousin is in a care home and self funded then they can’t give away their ‘inheritance’ because they’d be seen as depriving themselves of assets. All of that could be avoided by spending 20 minutes in the register office.

It can also be avoided by a will, to be fair.

But then, for all the posters on here talking about how they've got rock solid legal protections in place, that's another example of MN being unrepresentative. ONS estimates that 60% of the population in England and Wales die intestate. I suppose the Scots and Northern Irish could all be miles more sensible than we are and everyone ties up their affairs neatly, but I doubt it.

BUT if that cousin is in a care home and self funded then they can’t give away their ‘inheritance’ because they’d be seen as depriving themselves of assets.

You can deprive yourself of any assets you like provided you are not doing so in contemplation of later benefit claims (massive simplification, seek legal advice, value may go up as well as down, etc). Someone who is self-funded and likely to remain so (for a definition of "likely" which is why you need advice) does not need to cling on to every asset in the unlikely (previous comment applies) event that they run out of money.

True, but if the funding body found out you’d given a large amount of money to a stranger they wouldn’t fund you once your money ran out, they can go after the person you gave the money to, to get it back, so you’d be strongly advised to hold on to your inheritance. This is a situation I’ve actually seen in real life and it was heartbreaking for all involved.

Widows allowance is only for a year.

Just to correct this because a lot of people say it (as it was the initial plan), but it's for 18 months not 12.

If you have kids it's worth just short of 10k. 3.5k lump sum and £350 every month for 18 months. If you don't have kids then it's 2.5k upfrom and £100 a month for 18 months.

Also if you are under 45 and don't have kids you now qualify - which you didn't before.

*I am sure I read somewhere the average cost of divorce in the UK was around £70,00

That includes lost work, money paid in settlements, debts, moving house and all other costs*

So an average cost of £70,000 to get a divorce.

Said cousin could alternatively be a working age JSA recipient. Or just someone who's a bit hard up: I reckon if I were on a zero hour contract privately renting a shithole with a nasty landlord, I'd feel mightily tempted to prioritise my own welfare above that of someone I'd never met. Especially if I had kids. Or maybe not hard up but not that selfless either. There are all kinds of permutations.

Again though, WILLS!

I'm always surprised at the number of people who don't seem to realise a marriage contract in itself has nothing to do with religion. Vows schmows. A lot of it on this thread.

Also, any gay couple I know wanted nothing to do with the Catholic, or any church when they got married thanks! (to the poster who seems to think gay couples are banging on the doors of churches demanding to get married in them!!)

In this case the will had been made but was invalid, I think he had only printed his name but not signed it or something equally as simple, but it was still invalid.

The majority of those costs would also apply in the event of ending a cohabiting partnership though oliversmumsarmy. Regardless of whether you were married or not, one or both of you is likely to be moving and you're going to be splitting any equity- assuming you own jointly of course. The difference will be in any legal fees, though do bear in mind that these can be incurred at the end of an unmarried partnership too. Making TOLATA claims can be a rather expensive business, for example.

*I am sure I read somewhere the average cost of divorce in the UK was around £70,00

That includes lost work, money paid in settlements, debts, moving house and all other costs*

So an average cost of £70,000 to get a divorce.

No, most of that is the cost of splitting up, not getting a divorce.

A lot of "cutting off noses" on this thread.

I can understand not wanting to get married if:

you're the wealthier one and want to protect assets (I suspect this is the main reason men are less keen)

The can kinda understand or at least respect not wanting to while understanding it leaves you vulnerable but making a truly informed choice.

I DON'T understand

Not getting married ignorant of the vulnerability being defended.

Not getting married because of the ancient history of marriage - many (even most) legal entities have very dubious histories inc mortgages, wills, even employment! Would you not get a job because of the history of employer/employee legal relationships? Of course not!

Not getting married because of how OTHER people perceive it - your wedding/marriage can be designed and described exactly as you want in many ways inc not being called a "wife", not changing your name, not being defined by it - because you don't even have to tell people! I have an aunt and uncle who were married almost 5 years before anyone friends and family knew! They did a lunchtime registry office job and literally pulled 2 witnesses off the street! Aunt has retained her name, is not referred to as a wife, very strong partnership of over 30 years.

Not getting married because you think it has to involve an expensive fussy wedding. Not only is this not necessary at all but even if you do want this at some point and need to save for it, no reason why a couple can't do the legal minimum and at a later date have a big celebration inc all the frivolities if they so wish. Hell you can do it for £50!

The civil partnership argument is total nonsense, it's based on marriage so historically just as connected as ACTUALLY getting married. It was created as an exclusionary salve to homosexual couples who really wanted to be able to get married. Most of the motivation behind the push for gay marriage was legal rights. So many homosexual couples who'd been together and committed to each other for a lifetime were appallingly treated upon the death or serious illness of one party. As a nurse I saw some truly dreadful treatment up to and including long term partners being prevented from even visiting their very sick other halves.

Because it's "just a piece of paper" I think this thread has fairly well argued it patently is not.

I've seen live-in partners denied access to their partners at end of life, been prevented from having any involvement in or access to their partners funeral, THINK they'd get death in service payments, widows pension, pension payouts, life assurance payouts, inherit property, be treated as nok for purposes of medical decisions inc organ donation... Because they think "common law" Is a real legal identity. As a result of this ignorance I've seen families with young children at the worst possible time lose their homes, have their grieving disrupted and previously civil or even good relationships with their "in laws" completely disintegrate inc resulting in grandchildren never seeing grandparents again.

In addition I can also see how for some people NOT getting married and NOT being seen legally as being married because they live together would actually be advantageous.

If such a thing as "common law marriage" were created it would basically mean people who wanted to live together but not marry couldn't.

Plus how would you define it? As soon as you move in together? - how do you prove that? Or disprove it? (For those wanting to protect their assets) Based on having a joint mortgage? I'm sure there are people with joint mortgages who aren't couples.

You'd have potential for people who weren't actually couples but just flat mates to claim a common law relationship where it didn't exist for financial benefit.

"If I had got married I would have lost my house. I'm so happy I made the wise decision not to marry. Everyone has a different situation" exactly - you wouldn't want the responsibilities of marriage forced on you by a "common law spouse" law.

Very messy.

Sharron - in the example you give yes that should be disregarded - aside from other arguments, until the legal requirements are performed either party can CHOOSE to back out. There's no way of knowing if both parties would have gone ahead if something happens to one of them. A line has to be drawn somewhere and assuming someone's legal intentions without proof is a very dodgy road to go down.

"Marriage is an outdated concept.
I got married for the legal protection it afforded me as the SAHM to our DC" totally contradicted yourself there - and you didn't HAVE to do it, you chose to in order to get those legal protections. I'm guessing you also chose to be a sahm?

Regarding education here in Scotland we have a subject called modern studies which covers things like politics, legalities, rights and responsibilities inc marriage law. I'm struggling to find comparable stats but if anyone else knows I'd be interested if a higher percentage of scots marry than English/Welsh. I know there's more to it than this as there's I believe also a higher proportion of folk here who still marry for religious/traditional reasons and certainly still feel it's less than ideal to have children without being married too. But still interesting.

"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" sarcasm? How would you prove it? Witnesses? Signatures? Oh wait...

Southernnights - marriage is not the preserve of religion and certainly not Catholicism. Marriage hasn't had to have anything to do with religion in parts of the uk for almost 200 years.

Notice for marriage - 28 days required iirc

"being given away, the mans vows being different to the woman's, all that stuff." Neither of those are legal requirements did you think they were? I'm sorry the person conducting your wedding messed up. The only legally required wording is stating you know of no legal impediment and that you declare you wish to be married. The rest you can say whatever you want. Or nothing else

PaulDacreRimsGeese - in addition in Scotland even if you die intestate certain beneficiaries are still protected

Not getting married because you think it has to involve an expensive fussy wedding. Not only is this not necessary at all but even if you do want this at some point and need to save for it, no reason why a couple can't do the legal minimum and at a later date have a big celebration inc all the frivolities if they so wish. Hell you can do it for £50!

My registry office ceremony cost £185 because we wanted it on a Saturday in their largest room. When I was on maternity leave we used the married couples tax allowance which was about £200, so actually my marriage has already paid for itself

Great post, Graphista.

Brilliant post by Graphista.

BigPinkBall loving that your wedding was effectively free!

And erm thanks

Yes, brilliant post.

Haha @ BigPink’s free wedding.

We did our legal ceremony in January and we aren’t having our church wedding/reception until October.

My husband is in the army and gets about an extra €200 a month now we’re married. That’s a lot of “free” champagne for the wedding.

How long do you need to be together before you are recognised as a couple? A week, a year, 10 years? How long does it take to become a married couple. A few days? Just get married.

It would be a public service for there to be a free "facts about marriage" pamphlet, in order to knock down the myths like "you need witnesses who know you", "you have to be given away", "you have to change your name" stuff on the one hand, and also the myths like "it's just a piece of paper", "you can do it with a will", "common-law marriage is a thing" and so on on the other.

Because in this thread, we have people claiming to know the facts, as though everyone does, and to have made clear-eyed decisions based on those facts. But we also have people who clearly have believed the myths, particularly around what is involved in getting married. As MN is richer and better educated than the mean, that doesn't bode well for the population at large making those decisions, clear-eyed or not.