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.

Yes, as bigamy is illegal I suspect even IF the option of popping to a solicitors was created I think it would still require public notification.

A will becomes public after death because that's when it comes into being - and for much the same reason - so that anyone who thinks its not quite legal can challenge it.

"wanted to marry me for my pension. Why can't they sort their own out?" In the case of sahp how are they supposed to do that? If your relationship ending was resolved in a fair and reasonably amicable way especially wrt finances then you're lucky - most people's don't. What position would you have been in if your partner had ended up in a coma or died?

As has been said numerous times, your choice, but make it based on all the potential outcomes and consequences and don't moan about not getting something married people are entitled to if you've CHOSEN not to marry.

bluelady there are clearly more than two choices when you feel something is unfair as in the instance of bereavement benefits. The third choice is to question the legality of a decision as is apparently being done by the lady with four kids. I also question the rationality of the reasoning. It is very easy to demonstrate a de facto relationship when the government chooses. The alternative is to remove the bereavement benefit completely which is probably where this is headed anyway.

The alternative is to remove the bereavement benefit completely which is probably where this is headed anyway.

Quite probably, it's already been cut massively for a widow or widower with children in terms of time.

And the extension of the provision for those without children won't have been something done willingly.

Getting married doesn’t have to be tiaras and sit down meals for 600 people. The law doesn’t care how much you spent on your wedding. It cares that you have entered into a legal agreement that determines rights and responsibilities. It determines your rights if your spouse leaves you, your claim over pension rights and property if they die, tax benefits, decisions made on your behalf if you are ill or incapacitated, and a whole host of other things. The only thing you can be sure of is that you do not have these protections if you are not married. If you choose not to get married, make sure you can rely on yourself, that you are not reliant on someone else for your income, or home, or pension, because none of that is guaranteed. Either one can walk away at any moment and you would be entitled to nothing, other than child maintenance if you have kids.

I'm one of those stupid women who have had dc without getting married. I met dp relatively late, and by the time i had decided on commitment my clock was ticking and i put ttc ahead of getting married. Now have 2 dc and dp is not so keen on getting married as he doesn't see the need.

We have wills, and nominated pensions abd death in service at work to each other. We also have joint ownership of the house despite dp putting in 80+% of the money (substantial).

I'm about to become a sahm as it fits us better. I'm aware this makes me financially vulnerable (to an extent - i have family support financially if really needed). However I've decided to prioritise children over long term finances. This does make me nervous but few other options.

As a pp said, at this point its hard as short of threatening to leave if he won't marry me (which i wouldnt do), you cant force someone to marry you. I will look into tax breaks though as that might tempt him...

Is there anything else short of marriage i can do to protect myself??

Really lozster? And how is that dependency established? Where's the proof? At what point is another adult your dependent? Because as was ALREADY argued upthread there are numerous ways in which this could be open to abuse. Especially when one party is dead and nobody can know what THEY wanted unless they have done something LEGALLY to indicate that.

Re New Zealand - how do they prove it was a relationship and they weren't just a lodger? Do they have to prove this in the event of one parties death?

It is very easy to demonstrate a de facto relationship when the government chooses.

Quite a few people have raised the issue of "if they can tell you're co-habiting for the purposes of housing benefit, why not for the purposes of bereavement?" To which the answer is pretty simple: all that matters for the adjudication for housing benefit is how you're living right now, and they can pop around and check. There's no restriction on housing benefit based on who you were living with six months ago, or whether you are planning to still be living with them in six months' time: it's just about what your living arrangements are right now. Whereas for bereavement benefits, it's a little tricky to ask more than one party to the alleged relationship.

My G.O.D! Why are women here against marriage? As it stands women on the majority are the ones who most need the protection that marriage gives with bearing children, career brakes and childcare duties falling to them wether married or not. Men don't want to get married because they know this. They usually earn higher wages because many women decide to put career on pause or work part time. It is silly not to get married because you think is patriarchal. You will make the patriarchs very happy. Want to make the world fair. Get you partner to share the childcare duties 50-50 to give you a chance to keep your career going. Divide up house work. Don't change your name. But not getting married is stupid.

But I do think that couples should be able to go down to a solicitors and register their relationships so that their relationship is as legally valid as a married couple and entitled to the same protection.

Well you’ve basically just described marriage, then.

graphista My point about dependency was in relation to how it is used to be exclude partners from benefits claims on an equal basis to those who are married. It may be assumed as a basis for bereavement payments but it is not a requirement so nor should it be if non married parents were included.

cuboid There is a whole paper trail of ‘evidence’ that most people could access. Presumably this is what the lady pursuing her case is going to do. Being asked to prove a relationship and residence in these circumstances is not a first. It’s needed in other circumstances as well. To follow the logic through, you may be married but not living together or even, as cited up thread, been together for five years.

I'm about to become a sahm as it fits us better. I'm aware this makes me financially vulnerable (to an extent - i have family support financially if really needed). However I've decided to prioritise children over long term finances.

Think again about this. Seriously. You say it "fits us better". So it isn't about prioritising children it is about prioritising the family. Except only one of you is doing this - you. You partner won't do this. So it is up to you to prioritise the children - because it "fits you better"

Honestly, my children (and those of countless other couples I know) grew up without a stay at home parent and are just fine.

My guess is your partner doesn't do much and you are finding it very hard and stressful and worry about this affecting your children. So you will sacrifice your job, your security and everything so he can continue as if he never had children.

Don't do it. If you were my daughter I would say do not do this. keep your job. You may need it. If he won't marry you, there is a reason. Don't make yourself and your children even more vulnerable.

YABVU re: allowances when a partner is deceased. That is a massive inconsistency. The state would ignore my relationship when it comes to giving this allowance on the basis that it is too difficult to define where a genuine relationship exists. However, the state felt pretty confident that it could identify my relationship when my partner was made redundant. Treated equally to a married person then and expected to provide for my ‘dependent’ Same with child benefit. No issue with my Partner being treated as such, it’s the lack of consistency that is irksome.

This It's the lack of consistency.

What is the widows benefit for, anyway? To help the vulnerable or to reward the wise?

To help with unexpected expenses like - oh maybe a funeral.

mintkat

**But I do think that couples should be able to go down to a solicitors and register their relationships so that their relationship is as legally valid as a married couple and entitled to the same protection.

Well you’ve basically just described marriage, then**

Except that 1. Solicitors are ten a penny 2. No witnesses (other than solicitors) are required 3. No vows need be exchanged. Seeing as you asked :-)

1. What's the number of solicitors got to do with anything?
2. Every legal document needs to be witnessed
3. You often need to swear an oath, eg to get probate

So, yes, just like marriage.

Seeing as a will, mortgage in fact most legal agreements require witnesses I can't imagine that wouldn't be the case with a solicitor alternative to marriage.

Aren't registrars ten a penny too? Is there any suggestion that people don't get married because they can't get an appointment with a hard to find registrar???

And at least their fees are regulated by the government. Would be interesting to see a free market "marriage" situation where solicitors could set the fee.

And if you think any solicitor (or the Law Society) would agree to a situation in which a legal contract which changes people's life-time obligations/next of kin etc could only be witnessed by a solicitor - ha ha. The possibilities for fraud and coercion would be huge.

Have you thought about how you would register such contracts signed in front of one solicitor? Like if a man invited you to sign one with him how do you know he hasn't signed 15 of them already? Would you have to register the contract - like you do -- oh say marriages?

And the vows? What vows? those don't matter. What matters is that it is a legal contract - whether you sign it in front of a solicitor, a registrar, a priest, or the akond of swat.

Lozster I'm confused by your reply.

As a pp said in terms of welfare benefits while someone is alive - UC, housing benefit - that's applied to the situation as it is now and can be attested to by both parties as applies only to living people.

When one party dies the other party could potentially claim anything. What if a cohabiting couple split the day before one dies?

To help with unexpected expenses like - oh maybe a funeral.

My question was rhetorical. Of course it's to help with unexpected expenses. So why not offer that help wherever it's needed, or not offer it at all?

When one party dies the other party could potentially claim anything. What if a cohabiting couple split the day before one dies?

What if a married couple are separated but not yet divorced when one dies?

What about it? They're still legally married.

What about it? They're still legally married

Circular.

Yep until the divorce is finalised they're still married. My ex was in the Middle East at one point during our divorce and was not happy that had he died out there I'd have received all the financial benefits as still his wife. But a line has to be drawn somewhere (And he'd been the one delaying the divorce in order to avoid marrying ow).

Most people would consider a co-habiting relationship over as soon as one party moves out. Or do you think that shouldn't be the case?

Tortycat

Don’t become a SAHM. Your partner won’t marry you which means you need to maintain your financial independence.

If he’s desperate for you to stay at home with the kids, he can put a ring on it.

At the very least, he should be contributing a generous amount each month to a pension in your sole name.

And he'd been the one delaying the divorce in order to avoid marrying ow

I've seen this an awful lot. Do these men have nobactually backbone?