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’d say Graphista has summed it up pretty well.

Yes, Graphista you summed up exactly what I wa thinking!

I love a bargain however the reception, dress & suits all cost about £5k, but our parents paid for those, the only bit we paid for was the ceremony and now we’re about £15 up

@cubiodal I’ve even heard of people who think you HAVE to have a baby baptised, as in they don’t know it’s optional and they don’t know it’s about religion.

I love a bargain grin however the reception, dress & suits all cost about £5k, but our parents paid for those, the only bit we paid for was the ceremony and now we’re about £15 up grin

But the ceremony needn't have cost your folks anything either if you did it in the register office!

I love a bargain grin however the reception, dress & suits all cost about £5k,

Parties are expensive. And optional. If you choose to throw an optional party when getting married, it's entirely your choice.

@bunny we did have the ceremony in the register office, it cost £185 because we wanted guests there, I believe it is nearer £100 if you don’t have guests.

£46 in uk registry office minimum.

I also married army (but no extra €200 sadly) but it did mean married quarter, removals costs for each posting covered, much simpler to sort things out if anything had happened to him in service, death in service benefits would have come to me, pastoral support easier to access. It makes a huge difference for military couples.

Parties are expensive. And optional. If you choose to throw an optional party when getting married, it's entirely your choice.

Yep, I know a few couples who just didn’t bother.

@cuboidal that was my point, the ceremony didn’t cost us anything because we benefited from the married couples tax allowance.

We choose to have a party afterwards, but anyone who says they can’t afford to get married is wrong, what they mean is they can’t afford to buy dinner for everyone they know.

Yanbu but I really wish civil partnerships were an option for heterosexual couples. I don't understand why they are not.

@ Bertrand please read the post on pg 15 by Graphista .

I had fun writing my scenarios on pg 10 of this thread. To Bertrand and those who’ve said ‘people should just say they’re together!’ , please tell me as a judge, how you would decide these scenarios. And can you be sure that the same decision would be made if they saw a different judge the next day?
(I’ve changed them a bit)

How to 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. It’s in Slough £400k. I’m 30 years old. I have one brother Jim.

(a) I smile at Anna in a coffee shop. Anna is a nutter. (I’ve been watching orange is the new black). She tells her friends we are soulmates and will be together forever but don’t live together because we need our space. She moves into 124 Station Road in Luton. You also live at 124 Station Road but in slough. You get run over. She tries to say there is a mistake on her driving license and it says Luton by mistake. 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 10 years and snogged her once at the Christmas Work party. I she is my carer when I get old.
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 she’s my best friend and we 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 live 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?
Fran says that she was my partner and Gina is a lying nutter and Gina was the lodger.

Or

I meet Maggie, go to a registry office. Say ‘There is no legal impediment and I intend to form a binding union.’ I’m in jeans and a tshirt. The witnesses are registry office staff. There’s no dress or reception. Our friends don’t know. No one changes their name.

Anna and Brenda and Gina and Debbie, Freya and Even Jim can’t interfere.

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

One aim of the law is to achieve certainty. By paying £95 you can be sure what happens next. Especially at a stressful time, facing illness or bereavement.

I know I’m going on and on, but if it makes one person think again it’s worth it.

Graphista,good extensive post
For me as a capacitous adult,having weighed up the pro and cons and having availed myself of the information I continue to believe marriage is not an arrangement I wish to enter into

I wholeheartedly agree women and men must understand being the legalities of being married vs unmarried. Marriage simply is not just a piece of paper it carries and conveys significant entitlements

I think some of the hardest posts on mn are those written by women who are waiting on a man whom they’d expected to marry them to actually progress to getting married. This notion of being stuck waiting on him proposing and him stalling cause it’s not the right time/too much on/bit of paper blah blah excuses.

I would advise anyone when relationship is becoming serious have discussion regards
Marriage y or n
Kids y or n and how many
School private or state
Two working parents or 1 sahp
Nursery or cm. ft or pt
Finances joint or individual

Check your both ideologically suited
And share parenting styles

It is a bit unfortunate that this has ended up in the usual discussions about whether a cohort of relatively privileged and well protected women are going to be quite as well protected with their personally tailored legal arrangements than they would be by marriage, and vice versa. And about whether homophobic CP is better than patriarchal marriage.

The much more important societal issue is the larger and more vulnerable group of people who aren't married, don't have any wills or anything in place, have taken no legal advice and don't understand that they need to do at least one of those things and ideally all.

Paul you're being selective with your recall.thread is pretty unanimous in advising all women to seek advice

Several of us have vehemently sought to disavow the myth of common law marriage

Examples have been cited of how being unmarried affects property, inheritance tax gain, payment of benefits

This isn’t a cosy mc club excluding others from the convo.far from it
It’s been interesting & open and the enduring theme has been get good advice make an informed decision

I'd rather douse myself in petrol and then proceed to dance around a campfire than get married but that's my personal choice. I think the problem lies where people don't understand the implications or otherwise of marriage. It isn't a fancy day out and it isn't selling off a woman. It is a contract of sorts, in the same way that I might sign an employment contract or a tenancy contract. The most painful lessons in life are the ones we learn the hard way.

True, Paul. This is the fallout of a huge change in society since the 60s. First the stigma attached to extramarital sex pretty much disappeared. This was on balance a good thing, as it had always happened, but there was a huge amount of hypocrisy and deceit.

Then (inevitably) it also became socially acceptable for people to live together and/or have children without being married. Fine, but nobody seems to have worried too much about explaining to those who weren't getting married how this would affect them legally.

Probably not very surprising as I don't think in previous generations most people were very clear about the legal consequences of getting married. It was just the expected thing, and the only way to save your children from being labelled as bastards. If you did live together as an unmarried couple, you often pretended to be married, even to the extent of the woman wearing a ring and changing her name.

The thing is, that wills can be revoked, become invalid, get lost or in one case I know of be destroyed by someone who was unhappy that they wouldn’t inherit, when they would’ve inherited under the rules of intestacy.

Most people won’t benefit from being married until their partner dies, and no one likes to think about dying. I think if we could separate the idea of marriage from the idea of a wedding reception then more people would benefit from it.

Haha you’re v funny Vladimirs,great turn of phrase

I think rather than telling people they should marry for financial security we should be petitioning to get the laws changed!! Especially if there are kids involved. It seems we place more respect for a piece of paper rather than security for children. As far as I’m concerned having children should be far more of a commitment for both parents than a ‘legally binding contract’ of marriage. No wonder there are so many struggling single parents out there. It’s 2018 not 1918 FFS!

Nobody said it was excluding anyone from the conversation. The reality, however, is that there have been a great many posts that are as I described. And given what we know about the lack of wills amongst the population, for example, and the numbers of people who think they're common law married, they have taken up a disproportionate amount of space compared to their importance in general.

It's not that the homophobic connotations of CP and the patriarchal history of marriage isn't worth discussing. If nothing else, hopefully the poster who thinks gay couples ought to tailor their life choices to participate in her preferred response to biblical homophobia has learned a few things, for example. It's just that we could have universal CP and the problem we face would still be virtually unchanged: as I mentioned upthread, people who object on principle to marriage are better informed as a cohort than people who think they're common law partners and thus probably better protected.

I am still glad we have these discussions so regularly though, because we know that people do learn from them.

I agree I’d like to see something akin to a cp for male/female couples to offer protection & entitlements

What sort of legal changes do you have in mind WTF?

Parents are already legally bound to provide for their children. The law exists, it doesn't need invention, but it badly needs enforcement. It's a joke at the moment.

people who object on principle to marriage are better informed as a cohort than people who think they're common law partners and thus probably better protected

^^^Completely agree

It’s about making an informed choice, considering all the what ifs and carefully considering your own individual circumstances

Sorry but I slightly cringe when intelligent adults refuse to get married on "patriarchal" "sock it to the man" "won't change my name sista" type grounds. I get 18 year olds thinking like that but smart adult women? Really?

If you already have children and don't want your partner having a claim on your estate I get it. If you are the higher earner and abit of a shit I get it (but disapprove). Anyone else in a committed relationship with kids I really don't.

WTFiswrongwithpeople
Yes but people can and do have children with many people... which relationship would then get the support? Could 15 widows of a feckless father then claim widows allowance? Many people have children with out committing to each other at all