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.

Because we all cringe when we see people insisting that they “don’t need a piece of paper to prove their love” and they “know what they’re doing” and at the same time we hear countless sad stories of people who got turfed out of their homes or left penniless and holding the baby or excluded from important decisions about their partner’s medical care because they weren’t married.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0649c43

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0035.html

Issue(s)

Whether section 39A(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 which provides for payment of a Widowed Parent’s Allowance is incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol 1.

Facts

The appellant lived with her partner (Mr Adams) as man and wife for 23 years until his death in January 2014. During their 23-year relationship the appellant and her partner had four children together, all of whom lived with them. A key component of the family income is derived from state benefits. The appellant claimed Bereavement Payment and Widowed Parent’s Allowance but was refused by the respondent because she was neither married to nor a civil partner of Mr Adams at the date of his death. Both these state benefits are contributory and are based on payments by a deceased from occupational income and payable under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

The appellant applied for judicial review of the refusal. The judge granted her application, and made a Declaration of Incompatibility that section 39A(1) was incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read with Article 8, in that it unlawfully discriminated against her based on her marital status. The Court of Appeal overturned the judge’s decision.

There is a current case though where someone is challenging the law here.

Indeed. The case to which you allude is, I believe, the case whose discussion on the radio (Money Box, about ten minutes before the date of the OP's original post) triggered this very thread.

Without wishing to make judgements of overall legal education based upon income, that the summary you post says "A key component of the family income is derived from state benefits" makes me suspect - in a completely non-judgemental way, you understand - the the plaintiff in this case is unlikely to have carried out a detailed examination of her legal position and reached a nuanced position on marriage, using contractual and other legal documents where relevant to secure her position, but has now stumbled upon this one small anomaly. I could be wrong.

YANBU.

Times really do change. I remember joining MN years ago and reading relationships discussions where it was very much "I'm not married, live with DP and our DCs I like independence of not being married, not changing surname" etc. . It was looked at as admirable, a woman doing relationship on her own terms.

There are different types of traps though arent there? I could never see how "Wife without the ring" makes sense for a woman.

A colleague is off work at present, 23 years with DP, the DCs are now 18 & 19 and he's gone off with a woman he met at work. She's devastated.

House is jointly owned in that she gave him £15000 towards deposit towards purchase years ago, all mortgage payments there one were made by him, in his name. Obviously I don't know how the law stands exactly but she's of the mind that they were together, have DCs, and she is a wife in all but name. She's always worked part time, he full time.

But she's not a wife, is she? & apparently he's going to marry this new lady. I just wonder where that leaves her financially etc

I think women are taught to be too nice, non-cynical, accept man/relationship if he doesn't want marriage then don't give him ultimatums etc..young women should be advised if after 2 years max especially if you're living with him already and he's "not sure" about marriage, or being vague and your fertile years are flying by, then dump and move on.

N

I don't mind getting married but I want some way to protect my assets. My main and only asset I want to protect is my horse. He is worth a lot of money, although priceless to me, but if I got divorced, I believe my husband would be legally able to have half of the horse so to speak, if he chose to be a jerk about it. So I would have to sell the horse or give the ex half of what the horse is worth, which I doubt I would have. Am I right there and what can be done to be sure no one can have the horse?

Seems stupid to some people but I refuse to let the horse go. He's mine and won't belong to anyone else.

How much is your horse worth?

Cohabitation feels like a step towards marriage and commitment for many people, when in fact it's often a step away.

Alternatively there is cohabitation without the necessity or desire for marriage
As this thread attests not all women want to be married

if I got divorced, I believe my husband would be legally able to have half of the horse

It's highly unlikely that a court would overturn a pre-nup covering a previously owned horse which one party brought into the marriage, unless there were massively mitigating circumstances. It might be more complex if the horse was originally owned by one party, with a pre-nup assuring them of continued ownership, but they married a champion trainer who took the horse from hack to Grand National winner increasing its stud value by a million pounds, in the manner of a latter-day National Velvet.

But on the assumption it's your horse, and you don't see your prospective husband as increasing its value a hundred-fold by the power of his training talents, it's hard to see what you're worried about.

But she's not a wife, is she? & apparently he's going to marry this new lady. I just wonder where that leaves her financially etc

Fucked, most probably.

I'm interested to see some of these alternative systems. The thing I'm unsure about is whether they provide long term protection for people (women) who take long-term hits to their earning power. That's the point - that if you take the financial hit from childrearing (and if you're a woman, you probably will), this will be reflected in your settlement if you divorce.

It's a way of recognising the non-financial contribution you made, and protecting you so you aren't financially fucked for it. Given how many people on here agree that 'women's work' is not valued, it seems insane to me not to take the biggest protection and value there is for it.

It's all very well saying 'you just need to send off a form' or whatever, but marriage doesn't have to be a big hassle. As many posters have explained, it can be done very cheaply and quickly and you don't need to say anything sexist.

Even these alternative systems are just ways of legalising a relationship. How can you claim the benefits of a legalised relationship if you won't legalise it?

And it is possible to be cohabiting and financially responsible and aware - houses can be in both names.

I hate the hypocrisy of divorce and the expectation that a wife should be “kept” and that a husband “going after” his wife’s assets is wrong.
How is this a feminist or equal view?

Just over two years ago, I would have said YABU because I was all "I don't need a piece of paper blah blah", but then around that time there was a thread - I think on here - about a woman who found herself in a really difficult situation because her DP died and there were numerous issues with regards to legal rights, they had a child etc. I can't remember the exact issues but it all sounded awful. DD was 2 at this point and I suddenly realised the risk we were at if one of us died.

I asked then-DP if he wanted to get married, he said yes, we got married. Our love hasn't changed, but we - and DD - are more financially and legally secure now should anything happen.

Toomanytealights I'm bi with many gay friends and been to several cp's and same sex weddings, sadly it's not an inference it's a fact. Cp was created to pacify the calls for gay marriage.

I agree with loveintokyo making cp or even marriage "renewable" would potentially remove the very protections they provide.

Re armed forces while it's sad what pps friend went through I still think that's right. An engagement is not a legal contract plus intense relationships and frequent engagements (inc to more than one person at a time) that are then broken off are common among service personnel. If relationships that were not legally official were recognised it would be a bloody mess! And frankly the last thing their families need at such a difficult time.

Celtic - totally get what you're meaning but I think it's meant more as a warning to women to not leave themselves vulnerable.

My ex wasn't keen on marriage would have been happy to live together and have DC without getting married but I was clear that wasn't happening. Partly as his being in the army and me following him around as a non spouse would have been bloody expensive! But also because I was aware how vulnerable it would leave me - I'd already seen the mess that happened as a result of a relatives live in boyfriend dying very unexpectedly leaving her with 2 young children and no inheritance and no rights at all. It was disastrous.

His own mother had been widowed young (father in army, died overseas leaving her with his older brother then aged 4) but because she was married there was inheritance, no worries over keeping the home and all the other financial things were sorted relatively quickly and smoothly plus lots of pastoral support from the army.

We have since divorced, he turned into a total shit and if we hadn't been married I'd have been completely screwed as opposed to only 75%!

No you can't force someone to marry you - but you can refuse to leave yourself overly vulnerable as a sahm in a home you've no claim to with no legal dependence on your partner.

Dolly - you talk about death benefits but where would you stand if he just not only walked out but decided to kick you out? You seem really vulnerable to me. Is your name on your home? Savings? Have you checked the terms of the pension? Glad you're marrying soon.

Personally even having worked in the industry, I really don't understand spending £10,000's on ONE day the wedding industry is way out of control! Totally unnecessary. Plus all the angst now as seen on numerous threads about the cost, venue, who to invite, where to seat them, not "copying" someone else or being copied - madness! I'm hoping the bubble bursts soon and it goes back to simple services with the attendees being people the bride and groom really care about, nobody has 200+ "close" friends/family.

Have to say in my experience I agree with a pp, many of the women in hetero relationships who say they're not fussed about marriage are actually with someone who won't marry them and it's to save face. Soon as they get a proposal their true feelings are revealed.

"Make it socially unacceptable to be a twat about child support and that would help. At the moment too many women are of the opinion that it's scandalous, except for their poor DP/DH/son who got ripped off in his divorce and is now paying his ex shitloads which she uses for haircuts and false nails." Definitely. See it on here all the time "she wastes 'his' money" "he won't pay maintenance because she'd be irresponsible with it" or the worst one "he won't pay maintenance because he's not allowed to see the DC" - then when posters push for more info and sometimes the op needs to get more info - it emerges he's never TRIED to see the DC, actively avoids seeing them or even has been abusive and is only allowed supervised contact and won't agree to that. Women who are the subsequent relationship/sister/mother have a small amount of responsibility too, to pull men up on their shitty behaviour. My brother moaned about paying maintenance to me ONCE he didn't again cos I read him the riot act! When dn's mother died and bro became Lp he then realised properly how expensive DC are and was thoroughly ashamed of himself.

We do ALSO need to address economic sexism, abusive relationships, the more vulnerable partner having low self esteem and accepting shit treatment... But this is where the law and society stands now And that's where people need to live their lives in.

Regarding making provision in other legal ways for the more vulnerable partner - you can't force people to do that either. I can well imagine certain types avoiding/procrastinating on that score too. Plus it's dependent on good legal advice, having the money to access this and the knowledge to know what needs to be covered.

Greentulips - if he's the primary carer and she barely is home, just as where the situation is in the more common reverse, he'd likely get residency so the DC ending up in social housing etc with her only paying csa maintenance is entirely possible - seen it happen. Women who are the higher earners can be just as shitty as exes as men.

I hate the hypocrisy of divorce and the expectation that a wife should be “kept” and that a husband “going after” his wife’s assets is wrong. How is this a feminist or equal view?

It is not the view of the law of marriage. It protects the lower earning spouse and recognises the financial sacrifice of childrearing. If a man were the lower earner and took the financial hit for family, he would get the same protection. See a PP whose wealthy female friend won't marry her male partner for this very reason.

It's usually the woman who takes that hit. That may be wrong but it's a societal issue and a separate one.

I think it's very feminist to insist on commitment and protection before making yourself vulnerable in that way.

My issue with 'renewable' marriage is the lack of long term protection when someone has taken a long term financial hit for raising a family.

Also, what if your partnership is coming up for “renewal” and one of you gets terminal cancer and the slips through the net because, you know, you’re a bit distracted by the fact that the love of your life is dying, and then after they die you realise you’re partnership has “expired”?

To my mind, something you have to renew sounds like the worst of all possible worlds. More possibility of people getting caught out, more possibility for one person to hold it over the other as a form of abuse (“if you don’t do X I won’t sign the renewal papers”) and defeats one of the fundamental purposes of marriage, i.e. removing someone’s ability to walk away from the relationship without consequences.

Get married first. I wouldn’t have children until I was married. So glad I did this because my husband ended up leaving me & now I have financial security.

I understand the objection to the historical purpose of marriage and I see why it has negative baggage for many.

But surely the (rightful) implementation of marriage equality in Britain (and hopefully soon in NI) has already rewritten and reframed much of that? The people who oppose(d) marriage equality are those who cling to the antiquated framework of marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. Their objection to marriage equality is that allowing same-sex couples to marry fundamentally redefines marriage. Marriage has been redefined by the introduction of marriage equality, and for the better.

If there were a system whereby cohabiting for 3 years (for example) made you a common law spouse, I think all we'd see would be those same commitment-phobic men (and women) refusing to officially move in. They'll stay registered to vote at their parents' address, they'll go home every other weekend, or whatever they need to do to beat the system.

Besides (and I'm about to make a generalisation the size of Taiwan here), there seems to be an incredibly common story whereby a man strings a woman along unmarried for years and years, because he 'doesn't believe in it', it's 'just a piece of paper', etc etc etc. Then when she finally dumps him - or, worse, stays with him and misses her chance to have children that she wanted - he suddenly finds the 'right woman' and is married, even a father, within a surprisingly short span.

Of course there are plenty of men and women who sincerely don't want to marry, ever, and that's their business. There just does seem to be a metric fuckton of men who claim they don't believe in marriage until, suddenly, they do.

I understand the objection to the historical purpose of marriage and I see why it has negative baggage for many.

I don't. Honestly. I ACCEPT that it does, because plenty of people clearly do feel that way about it. I just honestly don't understand why.

If we abandoned every institution that was shit hundreds of years ago when it first began, we'd have no legal or societal system at all. We don't refuse to vote because it was once denied to women. We don't reject the legal system because it was begun in feudalism and class division. We don't dissolve the institution of Parliament just because it used allow only rich white men.

Of course it doesn't matter how I feel about it. If someone else does feel that way, to the point that they don't want to marry for that alone, that's 100% their decision. But I'm not going to pretend it makes any sense to me at all.

Don't you think that if the contract was renewable it would make couples think more about their futures? How many couples get married vowing that they don't want children & then ten years down the track they find themselves with a child that wasn't planned & a future they don't know how to deal with?

Instead call it an appraisal & forward planning agreement, I know that there is always something that can't be planned for but in the broadest terms most people have an idea of what they want from their relationship & couldn't a new system encourage more open society if every 5 years or so everything is laid out & discussed properly.

The role of marriage in this country hasn't changed but society has, the world is constantly changing & the act of marriage, relationships & families need to change to keep up.

Don't you think that if the contract was renewable it would make couples think more about their futures?

No. I think it would have the opposite effect.

How many couples get married vowing that they don't want children & then ten years down the track they find themselves with a child that wasn't planned & a future they don't know how to deal with?

That unplanned pregnancy would happen whether they were married or not, how does it change things? The only difference is that if the man decided to fuck off (or the woman, for that matter), the woman would be better protected for her future. Assuming she's the lower earner and the one who's going to take on the bulk of childcare, which she probably is.

The idea of 'renewable' marriage does not protect the long term financial consequences for the partner who takes the earning hit to have children. Very few women regain their same earning power after kids. I certainly haven't. Even if I had a live in nanny and had gone back full time, I'd still have pension losses etc from my year of maternity leave.

Working part time, and having a job that's flexible enough for family commitments, will come at a price.