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.

(You also get fewer people obstinately saying they don’t want to get married because of the “cultural baggage” or some other nonsense, because the legal ceremony is completely free of all the baggage. No one is “given away”, you don’t exchange rings, you don’t change your name. Nothing. They just recite parts of the civil code to both partners and you both say “oui” and that’s it, job done.)

It’s not legally separate, that’s nonsense. If you get married in England then the minister or registrar who performs your ceremony is doing the legal bit as well as the rest of it, so it’s all bundled up together.

Make it so that the only place you can legally get married is in the registry office

As Slievenamon I don't misunderstand, I don't agree.

You're welcome to campaign for this. The chances of it happening are approximately zero. It would be a massive political firestorm for absolutely no benefit whatsover. It would involved the repeal of a Part II of the Marriage Act 1949, and good luck with doing that without "government abolishes church!" and "government abolishes marriage!" protests. And for what? Who would benefit? People who don't want to get married in churches would still not get married in churches. People who do want to get married in churches would now have to make two, instead of one, bookings. Aside from your enthusiasm for all things French (and American, I think), and a certain sense of tidiness, who would actually benefit? Who would be writing to MPs to say "ignore the massive pressure from every member of the CofE, at least I think it's a good idea?"

It is far, far more likely that we will move in the other direction and extend the ability of other denominations to officiate without the need for a separate registrar.

I might be convinced that we should make weddings in registry offices free, but I suspect that's a small part of your proposal.

No need for all your guests to come or for it to be on the same day as the rest of your wedding celebration.

That's true now. If you want to get married in a registry office with two randoms off the street or two officials from the office itself, and then have a party a year later with your family, you're entirely welcome to. You appear much more interested in removing another route to marriage, even though the route you want is precisely available now (aside from the fee in the registry office, which I agree could be reduced/abolished).

It’s not legally separate, that’s nonsense. If you get married in England then the minister or registrar who performs your ceremony is doing the legal bit as well as the rest of it, so it’s all bundled up together

You just don't get it. It is separate in that anyone who chooses (and the majority do) do not have any religious aspect at all. No minister, no church. So legally seperate. If you CHOOSE TO then you can get religious crap added into your ceremony, and conveniently the legal and religious bits can be done at the same time.
What are you not getting? Just because two bits can happen at the same time does not mean they are not separate.

Not sure where I’ve demonstrated any enthusiasm for “all things American”.

You’re free to disagree, but my experience of both systems has convinced me that the French way is better.

Of course people are already “free” to do it this way in England, but the system isn’t really set up for it. Say you don’t want a religious ceremony, you want to do it in a hotel. You don’t just want a party, you want a ceremony with music and poems and all your friends and family watching you make a commitment to each other. If you already got legally married at the registry office a year ago, what the hell do you do? Pay a registrar to come and pretend? If not, who performs your ceremony?

From my own experience I can tell you that wedding venues do not understand this approach.

It would be easier to have a “blessing” if you wanted a religious ceremony, at least there’s some structure to that.

So there are a lot of customs and cultural expectations which encourage most people to do the legal part at the same time as everything else, and put some people off doing it at all.

My experience here is that people get PACSed, get married, don’t get married, have a party, whatever they want, but there is a far better understanding of the legal implications of it, you can get those legal rights sorted whenever you want, even if you haven’t saved up enough for your party yet, and you don’t get otherwise intelligent women spouting complete bollocks like “I’m not getting married because I’m an independent woman and not a chattel and I’m not at any risk because wills!”

No need for all your guests to come or for it to be on the same day as the rest of your wedding celebration.

Er, we did that. In the UK. Loads of people I know did that. We got married just us two with a couple of witnesses in a registry office. We ran in, said I do, signed the register then went to the caff opposite for all day breakfast

We elected to have a Jewish humanist ceremony a few weeks later with lots of friends and family

I know loads of people who've separated the marriage from the wedding

You can have it together if you want. Or separate if you want. What's your point?

but the system isn’t really set up for it. Say you don’t want a religious ceremony, you want to do it in a hotel. You don’t just want a party, you want a ceremony with music and poems and all your friends and family watching you make a commitment to each other. If you already got legally married at the registry office a year ago, what the hell do you do? Pay a registrar to come and pretend? If not, who performs your ceremony?

You can get legally married in a hotel, you don't need to go near the registry office.
you should probably learn the basics of how it works before you start telling us its better elsewhere

The fact that you had a religious ceremony afterwards helps there (as I explained above).

“You can get legally married in a hotel, you don't need to go near the registry office.
you should probably learn the basics of how it works before you start telling us its better elsewhere”

Oh Jesus wept, I understand full well how it works.

And I understand that people who get married in hotels often save up for years for their fancy hotel do and meanwhile they don’t have those legal rights. Because you’re not going to have a wedding ceremony in a hotel if you have already got married in a registry office.

It is actually easier for people who want a religious ceremony to separate the two parts.

The fact that you had a religious ceremony afterwards helps there (as I explained above).

We crossed posts

However my point still stands. Lots of friends had humanist ceremonies with celebrants that were separate from their legal marriages

My cousin had a ceremony where a mate was master of ceremonies and he and his wife said vows they'd written for each other. Friends did readings. No celebrant needed. They'd got legally married in a registry office

Another friend did the same as we did, then had a ceremony where her friend officiated in much the same way as my cousin

Some just had a nice party separate from the marriage with no ceremony

I also know people who did civil ceremonies with lots of friends and family in attendance

And lots who had religious and civil ceremonies all in one

Isn't it lovely how we can celebrate in different ways?

It is actually easier for people who want a religious ceremony to separate the two part

No it isn't! Not if they want them together.
As it stands now they can have separate legal and religious, or they can have them together. Your way forces them to have them separate. How does it help to take the choice away from people and force them to do it in a way they could have chosen anyway, had they wished to?
It doesn't.

And I understand that people who get married in hotels often save up for years for their fancy hotel do and meanwhile they don’t have those legal rights. Because you’re not going to have a wedding ceremony in a hotel if you have already got married in a registry office

This doesn't even make the slightest sense, you do know that?

“Isn't it lovely how we can celebrate in different ways?”

Yeah, very lovely, for the people who actually get married and legally formalise their relationship (accompanied by whatever kind of celebration they want).

Less so for the people who don’t get married because they think they can’t afford it, or because they don’t understand the legal implications, or have ridiculous ideas about feminism and cultural baggage, or because their fiancé gets run over by a bus or killed in Afghanistan during the two years it takes them to save up for their wedding.

Slievenamon

I think you’re being wilfully obtuse and I don’t know how to explain this using words of fewer syllables, so you will just have to continue to misunderstand my perfectly simple point.

Because you’re not going to have a wedding ceremony in a hotel if you have already got married in a registry office.

Aren't you? I've been to an event which did precisely that. A legal wedding at the registry office, and homespun vows which were heartfelt in a rather charming homespun ceremony at a hotel.

If you're saying "quick trip to the registrar, followed by a ceremony which matters to you even if it has no legal force" is your ideal, then you can have exactly that. At the moment, there's a simplified route to do that if your chosen route is via the CofE, but unless you're one of those people who doesn't like other people having the right to do things you don't want to anyway, what's it to you? Precisely how do you think the current registry office process could be made shorter or simpler?

Less so for the people who don’t get married because they think they can’t afford it,

So tell them that they can afford it. Campaign for registry office weddings to be cheaper, if you want.

But saying "some people mistakenly won't do X because they think it involves legally unrelated thing Y, therefore we must change X" is just magical thinking. If registry office weddings were free, do you seriously believe that suddenly people would stop saving for a big party?

I was living with my partner for almost 30 years when he passed away 9 months ago.
We have a 12 year old and a joint mortgage. We both worked and we had joint accounts for savings. And bills.

We knew there were issues around not being married and we kept saying we need to sort wills..but like I suspect many people there were a lot of other things that took priority

I was shocked at how little protection I had but at least our mortgage had a survivor clause and we had a joint life assurance.

To be honest the bereavement allowance is a minor irritation,that moment of oh for gods sake we are as good as married.

But if we had known how many issues there are if you die unmarried without a will. We would have taken the concerns or more seriously and done something about it.

But if we had known how many issues there are if you die unmarried without a will, we would have taken the concerns far more seriously

Indeed. Which rather gives the lie to the claim that people who are living together unmarried have a clear-eyed understanding of the implications and are taking complex legal measures to assure their position. Largely, people who are living together unmarried with children don't understand the implications of their decision. It's perfectly possible to campaign for change while availing yourself of the current position; to do otherwise is basically to drag your children into your politics.

I think you’re being wilfully obtuse and I don’t know how to explain this using words of fewer syllables, so you will just have to continue to misunderstand my perfectly simple point

Your point is totally wrong and you are utterly confused. Also for some bizarre reason you think all weddings should be changed to the French way because you are convinced people need saving from themselves and their mistakes, even though it wouldn't help anyone and wouldn't actually change anything.

You're wrong, in various ways. Just accept it.

When I was looking at hotel wedding venues in the UK and explained that we would already be legally married, a lot of them were like, “so what is it you want to do then?”

Maybe I just stumbled across some particularly hard of thinking people, but there you have it.

“If registry office weddings were free, do you seriously believe that suddenly people would stop saving for a big party?”

If they were free and necessarily separate from the rest of it, more people would secure their legal position at an earlier stage and not put off getting married because they “can’t afford it”.

There is a much better understanding in France that the legal contract has nothing to do with the expensive dress and the party, and you don’t have to do the two things contemporaneously, or indeed at all.

People are better informed here and less likely to expose themselves to the kind of risks that the anti-marriage brigade (or the “not until we’ve saved up £20k” people) accept in the UK.

If they were free and necessarily separate from the rest of it, more people would secure their legal position at an earlier stage and not put off getting married because they “can’t afford it

So the fact that they can do it for 50 pounds today is too much somehow?

You don't get it. People say they can't afford to get married because they don't want to do it the cheap way that you propose (and that they could already choose if they wanted). They WANT a big white wedding, and they can't afford that.
Your plan would change nothing at all.

That’s funny because it seems to change quite a lot here.

I have experience of the two systems and my view is that one is working much better than the other. That’s all, really.

When I was looking at hotel wedding venues in the UK and explained that we would already be legally married, a lot of them were like, “so what is it you want to do then?”

Why did you need a "hotel wedding venue"? If you're not holding a legal wedding, you don't need an approved venue, you don't need a registrar. You just need a room and some food, and whatever entertainment you fancy; you're booking a birthday party, or a sales conference, or some other thing that involves "room hire, catering, a bar and a DJ later". It is hardly unusual for people to get married in registry offices and then have a party afterwards, and your inability to book that successfully doesn't require primary legislation to fix. "Hello, I'd like to book a room for a party, please. Yes, balloons, too, if you have them".

There is a much better understanding in France

Is there? Really? You'll have some evidence for that, presumably, rather than the ex-pat's idolisation of their adopted country? And if it's so much better in France, why were you looking for a wedding venue in the UK?

People are better informed here

Are they? Really? Charming.

Is the marriage rate higher in France than in the UK?

For me, it all comes down to this: disagree with the way things are as much as you want. Write to your MP, start/join a pressure group, get a petition going etc. but, if based on your current personal circumstances you would be better off getting married then think very seriously about whether you want to remain personally exposed until some distant point in the future when things might possibly change.

As discussed up thread, Brexit is likely to dominate the political landscape for the next decade. Relabelling the way in which a relationship is "legalised" is going to be a pretty long way down the to do list of any government for a long time I would think.

So I would say act according to what is best for you with things as they stand. You can still try to change things but exposing yourself to personal risk because it's not set up quite how you'd ideally like it to be seems foolhardy to me. The government will quite happily collect the IHT, can't imagine it will keep Teresa May up at night.

CuboidalSlipshoddy

We wanted a ceremony. We wanted to make vows to each other in front of our friends and family. And when people are travelling a long way (half of them from abroad) to see you get married, they want to see you get married.

But we wanted to get married legally - and in France - at an earlier date. It was administratively easier to get married in France and will help matters considerably when I apply for citizenship. Plus we wanted to legalise our relationship for all the reasons discussed in this thread.

We originally wanted to have our wedding celebration in the UK because traditionally it should be where the bride’s family is from and we though it would be nice to do it in my country since we are living in his.

But the UK wedding venues we spoke to couldn’t get their heads round the concept that we wanted to have a ceremony without the legal part, and combined with a few other factors (such as the UK’s draconian licensing restrictions and everything having to stop at midnight) we abandoned the idea.

And yes, I stand by everything I said about the French system working better and people being better informed. (I don’t have an “ex-pat” view, by the way, I’m fully integrated into French life.) A lot of things about the French administrative system are an absolute nightmare and in general I would say the UK functions better, but marriage is definitely an exception.