Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married

947 replies

Sofabitch · 14/04/2018 12:19

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.

OP posts:
SoapOnARoap · 16/04/2018 08:02

There should be some consistency with the law & benefits etc.

Marriage is such an antiquated ritual yet, absolutely neccesary for woman with children. So sad in 2018

expatinscotland · 16/04/2018 08:02

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

Yeah, don't quit your job. That would be the height of financial folly. You're not prioritising the children by completely compromising your earning potential for an unmarried partner. You have only to look at the legion of threads on here from women who did just this to become a 'SAHM' and are now looking at living in utter penury with their children when 'DP' turned out to be a git.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 16/04/2018 08:02

Also on the subject of solicitors witnessing marriage type contracts as an alternative, whoever said there wouldn't need to be witnesses is on some very good glue. You have to have witnesses now even when you're signing a will with a solicitor, and that can be revoked 5 minutes later if you want to, and doesn't have the same implications wrt your relationships with the state (eg tax system) that a marriage does. This is the big difference really.

CuboidalSlipshoddy · 16/04/2018 08:02

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.

It would be cheaper to make register office wedding free for those in receipt of benefits. Much cheaper.

CuboidalSlipshoddy · 16/04/2018 08:03

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.

He would say that, wouldn't he?

CuboidalSlipshoddy · 16/04/2018 08:09

You have to have witnesses now even when you're signing a will with a solicitor

And have done since 1837, at the very latest.

Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married
lozster · 16/04/2018 08:10

graphista

** 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? **

At the risk of being crass, I think the administrative effort of ‘proving’ a relationship in relation to bereavement is less than that of other benefits precisely because it is a one off whilst other benefits relate to ongoing situations.

As for your question about what if the cohabiting couple split the day before one dies ... so what? That would be an equivalent situation to a marriage where one individual has walked out and could have been absent for up to five years!

I’m speaking on the issue of bereavement here. I can accept the general principle that marriage improves the ‘security’ of women who are lower earners, PT or Sahm. It does not offer the cast iron security that many believe though. The route to maintaining your security is to maintain your earning capacity and not be complacent that a divorce would see you right for a lifetime.

Also, if you aren’t married, there are things that you can do short of that, if you wish, that mean that the situation is not as black and white as some paint here. This includes wills, pensions (most will allow nomination of a cohabitee) and purchasing property in the manner that best reflects the relationship and input.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 16/04/2018 08:15

Important to note that the things people can do outside marriage are mainly in their control to reverse, without telling the other person. I'd advise any cohabitee to put them in place, but also to fully understand that.

KERALA1 · 16/04/2018 08:19

You've needed two witnesses for a will since Jane Austen's time its not hot news Grin

CuboidalSlipshoddy · 16/04/2018 08:28

Also, if you aren’t married, there are things that you can do short of that, if you wish, that mean that the situation is not as black and white as some paint here. This includes wills, pensions (most will allow nomination of a cohabitee) and purchasing property in the manner that best reflects the relationship and input.

That's an incredibly middle-class perspective. All the numbers say that most people don't do that; aside from anything else, to do those things properly is actually more expensive than just getting married.

For most married couples, dying intestate, for all the complications, does "the right thing". You can have wills, and it might simplify matters, and it might be necessary for complex situations, but intestacy works; when you see shock horror stories about 60% of deaths being intestate, what it leaves out is that in the vast majority of those, the will would have made no substantive difference to what happened, and what happened was actually "the right thing".

The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to parental rights, powers of attorney, pensions, agreements about communal and individual property. People will claim that you needs powers of attorney even when married and, sometimes, you do: sale of joint property in cases of incapacity, notably. But in reality, doctors will grant spouses wide latitude in "best interests" decisions even in the absence of a PoA provided the family is reasonably united, as often will financial institutions ditto. And in the limit, it's a lot easier to obtain a court of protection deputyship if you're a spouse than if you're a co-habitee.

Of course, instead of being married for £200, you can sort these issues out one at a time, paying your solicitor several times that £200 for each. But marrying gets a bundle of sensible defaults. Even if you then have to override one of those defaults with a more complex document, you're still almost certainly in profit; you'd have needed a document at least as complex to do the same job unmarried.

That's before considering that separating as a married couple grants you access to divorce law which, messy and imperfect as it is, at least has the power to sort things out; messy, unmarried separations are just that, unless you want to sue each other.

I have an entirely unsentimental view of marriage: I got married because it didn't matter to my relationship so long as it was working, but would make life a lot easier if we separated or one of us died or was incapacitated, particularly with children. It's like contracts: business deals which are going well don't need contracts, you only need to revert to the contract when you fall out with the counter-party or the deal goes off the rails. Then you're bloody glad of a decent contract, drawn up by decent lawyers. Or, alternatively, a boiler plate marriage.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 16/04/2018 08:30

Indeed not.

We do also already have some contradictions built into partner rules even setting aside marriage. If you lose your job, regardless of marital status your cohabiting partner's income and assets will be taken into account if you want benefits. But you not earning won't affect their tax status. Most people are aware of this, I think.

Slievenamon · 16/04/2018 08:34

'm not a fan of marriage as personally see it as an outdated religious tradition whereby a man can take over ownership of a woman from her father

Well you see it wrong then, don't you!

moreofaslummythanyummy · 16/04/2018 08:47

I am one who has never really thought about it. We got together late teens and by 24 we had 2 children.
We could never afford a wedding as there always seemed to be more important things to spend money on.
I have been a SAHM for 12 years.
One of the main reasons is he was building his career and also I have helped him build his business over the last five years. Which provides for us very well and we do see it as 'our' business but on paper it is all him.
It was actually mumsnet which made me stop and think how ridiculously stupid I have been. If anything happens I would walk away with nothing !
I have said we need to get married now as I am vulnerable and he agrees .

LoveInTokyo · 16/04/2018 09:04

“We could never afford a wedding as there always seemed to be more important things to spend money on.”

The reason people have to get married at the town hall in France is because of the principle of separation of church and state. So the legal contract is made at the town call, with 2-4 witnesses, and conducted by the mayor. It is completely free. You can then follow it up with a religious ceremony and a party if you wish.

Even though the Church of England is the official religion in this country and a legal marriage can be performed by a minister, I think perhaps this needs to change.

I think we should completely separate the legal part of marriage from the rest of it, like the French do.

Because at the moment there are too many people who associate marriage with a big expensive party and say they can’t afford to do it, when the reality is that they can’t afford NOT to do it.

frankchickens · 16/04/2018 09:06

YANBU - and the lawyers keep trying to get it changed, but they are wrong and you are right.

CuboidalSlipshoddy · 16/04/2018 09:13

Even though the Church of England is the official religion in this country and a legal marriage can be performed by a minister, I think perhaps this needs to change

Why? Only a third of weddings take place in religious premises anyway, and a proportion of those will require a registrar present as not all ministers are able to officiate alone. Two thirds of weddings take place in registry offices or (non-religious) approved places. What's the relevance of the relatively small number of church weddings conducted by ministers license to perform marriages to the question? It's an historical anomaly and if we were starting from scratch we wouldn't do it like that, but aside from it opening up the chasm of culture wars that would be disestablishment, what would be the benefit?

Because at the moment there are too many people who associate marriage with a big expensive party and say they can’t afford to do it,

And most of them aren't getting married in churches anyway, so what you can and can't do in churches is entirely irrelevant. Hot news: Asian weddings aren't cheap. And a lot of those are exactly what you're asking for: a small registry office ceremony (until recently the largest room in my city's registry office held only 30) followed by a big event in a mosque/temple/etc and a reception at a banqueting suite. What's the relevance of the Church of England's ability or inability to form marriages to that?

Slievenamon · 16/04/2018 09:14

I think we should completely separate the legal part of marriage from the rest of it, like the French do

We already have done long ago. There is no need to have any religious aspect to a wedding unless you choose to.

LoveInTokyo · 16/04/2018 09:18

No you’re misunderstanding me.

Make it so that the only place you can legally get married is in the registry office. If you want to have a ceremony in a church, synagogue, hotel or on the beach afterwards, knock yourself out.

But the legal bit should be free, and in the registry office. No need for all your guests to come or for it to be on the same day as the rest of your wedding celebration. This is what the French do. Some people do it all on the same day but by the time my husband and I get “married” in church and crack the champagne open we will already have been legally married for nearly a year.

lozster · 16/04/2018 09:19

You may need two witnesses for a will but you don’t need to assemble them in the solicitors office so it’s not the equivalent of being a wedding witness.

Wills can cost nothing (diy or use will week to pay what you can afford with a solicitor). The admin needed on a house purchase is part of what happens during conveyancing anyway. You may like to deem this a ‘middle class view’ but these are facts exactly the same as common law marriage being a myth is a fact. If you are genuinely interested in educating people then they should know this and not just be told ‘just get married’. Not least because the trend for marriage is a downward one.

As I said, each to their own in their personal life. My key objection here is on death/bereavement benefits where a clearly inequitable situation exists for no good reason. Just don’t assume that people who are not married are a bit dumb nor that any educational message should conclude with a recommendation of marriage.

Slievenamon · 16/04/2018 09:22

No you’re misunderstanding me

No, I'm disagreeing. i think the way the French do it is wrong: forcing people to do it one way instead of another is bad either way. Its much simpler and better in the UK: if you want a religious wedding you can have one and its legal, if you don't want a religious wedding you can have that and its legal. Best of both worlds, proper choice. Your argument makes no sense,

LoveInTokyo · 16/04/2018 09:25

“Just don’t assume that people who are not married are a bit dumb nor that any educational message should conclude with a recommendation of marriage.”

Maybe, maybe not.

There seems to be a bit of a double standard emerging here where women who have less money or earn less than their partner or are considering being a SAHM are told they are stupid for not getting married, whereas women in the opposite position are being encouraged/congratulated for NOT getting married, to protect their assets.

Whatever your views on that, I think the key point to take away is this.

If you are the lower earning partner or the one with fewer assets or the one staying at home to raise children and your partner is saying they “don’t see the point” in marriage and “don’t need a piece of paper to prove their love”, you should be very very very wary.

Either they don’t understand how vulnerable your position is and if someone pointed it out to them they would say, “shit, let’s get married then”, or they know full well what the score is and are reserving their right to completely fuck you over.

DanceDisaster · 16/04/2018 09:26

My key objection here is on death/bereavement benefits where a clearly inequitable situation exists for no good reason

I agree with this and I’m married and we qualify for no benefits whatsoever. The case which is in the news at the moment is very sad. Of course they assumed that they would be treated as a couple by the benefits system after one of them died, because they’d been treated as a couple when both of them were alive; they will have received less because they were cohabiting no? That’s what totally stinks. At the very least they should have been repeatedly warned that they should marry, and that service should have been free to them as they were reliant on benefits. And the children in this case didn’t have a choice whether or not their parents were married, so it does seem very unfair.

It’s^^ totally different to someone who knows all the facts and chooses not to get married. That’s their choice and if that means they lose out financially, (not that they necessarily would), then it’s their funeral, some people might say!

Slievenamon · 16/04/2018 09:27

There seems to be a bit of a double standard emerging here where women who have less money or earn less than their partner or are considering being a SAHM are told they are stupid for not getting married, whereas women in the opposite position are being encouraged/congratulated for NOT getting married, to protect their assets

There is no double standard there, women should protect themselves any way they can. Fuck knows society is weighted enough towards men.

LoveInTokyo · 16/04/2018 09:28

Slievenamon my argument makes perfect sense, thank you.

The legal ceremony here is free and takes 15 minutes.

By legally separating the two it makes it very clear that marriage is a legal contract and that the rest of it is optional, and you get far fewer people putting off getting married for years because they “can’t afford it”. They can get their legal position sorted out as soon as that’s what they’ve decided to do, and then have the party in their own time, as and when they can afford it.

Slievenamon · 16/04/2018 09:30

We have already legally separated the two, its just that we give people the option of doing both at the same time.

Many of us do not want a free 15 min wedding at the town hall, thank you very much, and would not appreciate being forced to do it your way ebcause you don't understand that it is already legally separate. Hmm