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.

Graphista

Why should the line be drawn there, though? Why not draw the line at demonstrable financial need?

A dear friend of mine was vehemently against marriage. She gave up her career to raise 4 kids and run the home to facilitate her partners high flying career. And yes, after 25 years and several affairs on his part the relationship was over leaving her with no protection. She does regret not getting married and with hindsight, her Ex had all the advantages and it's clear to her now why he didn't want to get married.

One of the main reasons I married my dh was to make sure I was secure and had legal rights.

We’ve been together over 10 years mortgage/dogs, as committed as you can be but had no legal protection. It was when we had our first child and i was considering giving up work that I realised what a poor position I would be in if anything happened to him. Being married offers me more protection, simple really and dh didn’t object.

I know a couple of people who have been shafted by not being married, and I feel for them but they said to me ‘it only a bit of paper’ how they regret that now

I do think it’s unfair that the state should only give widows benefits to married people when they are quite happy to recognise non marital relations when it suits in relation to other benefits.

Grim

Horrid for your friend. I agree that marriage is a highly important legal protection for the mutual finances of the parties involved. I am married for these reasons, among others.

However, the government has decided to give additional financial help to certain people, presumably because it is deemed these people need it.

The bereaved are deemed to need this help to cover funeral costs, child care, the loss of a household income.

How do we know the person claiming this financial help is the person who needs to cover these costs?

A marriage certificate alone does not prove this.

If it can be proved by other means, why not?

Ok , so just once - I got married ( v small wedding not a big fancy deal ) because I wanted to stand up and say - this is my chap - so that's the first thing.

The legal things I think are just beyond argument - you and your partner are a legal entity ( as are your children)

If you have assets below circa £300k then inheritance tax is not a big deal if you have wills etc.

But like it or not marriage is the one legal thing the state recognises as being a "unit" . You can put things in place , wills , who looks after children if anything happens to you both , and all that. You can also nominate people for a work ( i.e. private pension) . But Today , just now , for a heterosexual couple , marriage is the one legal way you can be joined . And I did not promise to obey . I do think there should be a civil partnership for heterosexual couples , if they would prefer that. But then , I am not one who believes that marriage is some ancient rite which gives away a woman . I have said this before - in Anglo Saxon times , women could own property in their own right - I never thought of myself as a chattel. I think it is fine if people choose "not to have a piece of paper " or , " I am not going to be a chattel " but , really , I do think it is a sensible thing to do and it can be done in a way which does not describe a woman as being " owned" . Look , anyone one who doesn't want to get married - fine - but look at the rules and the law and if you are happy giving that up - then , great. 20 mins in the registry office gets you more than 3 hours in a solicitor's would , by and large.

I'm about to become a sahm as it fits us better.
dp is not so keen on getting married as he doesn't see the need.

You are about to give up your career, income and ability to financially provide for your and your DC's future Tortycat, but he can't be arsed to sign a bit of paper that will protect you and your children!

Please don't do it. Seriously, if he wants you to give up work, he needs to marry you.

Greentulips my ex certainly turned into a spineless twat! When I found out he'd been telling her it was ME delaying divorce I made sure she knew it wasn't - with proof. Suspect he got an ear bashing that night - the following week paperwork he'd been sitting on was finally sent to my lawyer.

"Why should the line be drawn there, though? Why not draw the line at demonstrable financial need?" And HOW would that be decided and by whom? Because potentially you could have a couple split, 10 years later ex is still in financial need - are they still entitled to death benefits?

Basilisk

I agree that getting married is a sensible thing to do. That's why I did it this time round.

But I'm discussing certain state benefits and how we ought to determine who does/doesn't get them.

There is a difference between marriage as a way for a couple to legalise their private financial affairs, and marriage being used as a lazy shorthand by the government to determine whether someone deserves financial help.

If benefits are there to help people, give them to those that need the help. A marriage certificate is not by itself a guarantee that bereavement benefit is needed.

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.

Years ago, I think there was still a tendency to think of the married/not married divide as being primarily about religion/conservatism/traditional sexual morals.

Over the years, the marriage divide has increasingly become one that is about class/education levels, with better-educated women being far more likely to insist on marriage.

Am struck by the number of women who wear wedding rings, change their name, give their boyfriend's name to their child and adopt traditional divisions of labor in the home, for a man who won't marry them.

And Tortycat, PLEASE do not become a SAHM. Whose idea was this? Yours or his? Why does your partner refuse to do something which could protect you and the children?

Graphista

Hmmm, potentially yes. For example, if the dead ex was supporting children from a previous marriage.

I should have clarified what I mean by 'demonstrable financial need' in my last post - I was a bit vague. What I mean by 'financial need' in this case is when the dead partner was supporting the surviving partner financially. This should be pretty easily demonstrated through bank statements.

...marriage being used as a lazy shorthand by the government to determine whether someone deserves financial help.

The state doesn't have the the resources to examine every individual case. And I would prefer for my taxes to be spent on things other than investigating the relationships of people who have died.

Signon

I think I understand you & yes there are nuances - I think my point was for the avoidance of doubt being married avoids the doubt. I am not trying to say others don't deserve help , but given it is an option , it is open to all. In no way am I saying that long term partners are not necessarily deserving of help - I think more my point was - a line sometimes has to be drawn , and a legal contract is a way of doing it. I am not sure I would agree with marriage as a "lazy shorthand" , but I think I somewhat get your point . I hope you will take that in the spirit intended.

The state doesn't have the the resources to examine every individual case. And I would prefer for my taxes to be spent on things other than investigating the relationships of people who have died.

The state appears to have the resources to require more paper than a marriage certificate for most other benefits. If this benefit is not as important, why are we funding it at all?

The state does examine every individual case - by demanding proof of marriage.

Basilisk

Yes, 'lazy shorthand' was me allowing emotion to cloud my argument!

I do see your point about drawing a line somewhere, I really do. I'm still in the process of working out where I think that line should be drawn.

Threads like this are a good way to have my thoughts challenged.

Gahh, I need to go to bed now or I'll be good for nothing tomorrow!

Thanks signon I did not mean to be contrary - thank you for reading my post. I still think heterosexual couples should be allowed to have a civil partnership if marriage is anathema to them - because I do think there is a "a thing" with couples who have decided they have entered into a legal partnership. But , hey ho , what do I know. And I do not ever wish to tell anyone else how to live their life. ( And also I do not live in New Zealand )

Beardy when my folks got married, one of their witnesses was my dad's solicitor.

*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.*

I thought pre-nups counted for nothing in Britain? That was my worry, but hey, if there is no chance no one can put a claim against the horse, I don't care then. My worry is just if they can, as I'm not risking him falling into the wrong hands again. He suffered enough for 6 years before me.

I thought pre-nups counted for nothing in Britain?

They can be overturned if unfair, either at the time of signing or in light of later developments. But reasonable agreements about prior wealth will be valid.

www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/family-law-blog/present-and-future-laws-on-prenuptial-agreements-will-they-or-wont-they-stand-up-in-court

Is there a thread discussing whether divorce should be easier?

My friend went to a wedding where the groom did a speech and showed a large picture of their accountant as he was the reason "everyone is here today" ha ha.

Do what you like but I struggle to understand why anyone would be an unmarried sahm unless they had a serious private income. Also if you in a committed relationship and over IHT brackets. But then the extra tax benefits everyone so no bad thing except for the couple themselves.

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.

True cuboidal!

Speaking as one of the people who's pointed out the inconsistency, I do think it probably contributes to the widespread societal ignorance and confusion on this point. As I said upthread, you move a partner in and they affect your benefits but if you die intestate they're nowhere. Of course people get confused by that.

But you're quite right to point out that there's a massive difference in how to assess when one of the parties is dead, and the reality is that the state would have to devote much more in the way of resources to assessing cohabitation than they would to assessing whether a marriage certificate exists. Take it from someone who's spent quite a lot of time proving people's cohabiting relationships to the state. If we are going to do extend bereavement benefits to cohabitants, we need to accept how time consuming and costly it will potentially be and budget for this accordingly.

I'm about to become a sahm as it fits us better.
dp is not so keen on getting married as he doesn't see the need.

In the above situation is the DP ( who is not keen to get married) better off not being married in the event of a breakdown if the assets involved don't trigger IHT?.