Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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:
Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 13:18

Its disgraceful that we can not have a civil partnership for heterosexual couples. Why should I be forced to get married to get my rights. We need equality.

nevereverhaveieverfeltsolow · 14/04/2018 13:19

Oh here come all the smug married woman Hmm

nevereverhaveieverfeltsolow · 14/04/2018 13:19

Women

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:21

Why should I be forced to get married to get my rights.

Your rights are that you are not forced to do anything! If you don't want to marry, you don't have to!

It's just that if you do, you are legalising your relationship and the law will protect you accordingly.

You're basically asking why you can't get legal rights in your relationship without legalising it! Without a contract!

You're effectively asking: "Why should I have to buy house insurance to get my house insurance rights?"

flowery · 14/04/2018 13:22

”So if you are living together and get pregnant/have a child/decide to be the main carer/put your career on hold/earn a non-living wage etc how do you 'force' your other half to get married if they really don't want to?”

You don’t. If your other half doesn’t want to get married then you either don’t have a child with him at all or at the very least don’t give up your career to support his.

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 13:22

YANBU OP, but I think UK law is a bit backwards in this respect.

In France, for example, you can get a pacte civil which is not the same as marriage legally speaking but it does legitimise your relationship in the eyes of the state. When you get married, you have to do so legally at the mairie, regardless of whether you want a church or other kind of wedding afterwards or not. The civil marriage ceremony is free and takes about 15 minutes. Many couples just do this and don’t bother with a big wedding.

My husband and I got married at the mairie a few months ago but we are still planning and preparing for our big “wedding”.

If he got run over by a bus tomorrow we’d never get our big day (or to spend the rest of our lives together), but I would have the legal protection of being his spouse rather than just his live in girlfriend.

Inheritance law can be a problem in the UK too. Someone above mentioned how someone’s estate went to their estranged wife rather than their long-term partner. A lot of people don’t understand the consequences of dying intestate, or that getting married or divorced invalidates any will you might previously have made. Some children from first marriages end up inheriting nothing because a parent dies without a will and everything goes to the second spouse who then passes it on to their own children rather than their stepchildren.

NewYearNewMe18 · 14/04/2018 13:23

So if you are living together and get pregnant/have a child/decide to be the main carer/put your career on hold/earn a non-living wage etc how do you 'force' your other half to get married if they really don't want to?

Quite simply you ensure you are (a) independently financially secure (b) choose a different partner.

TomRavenscroft · 14/04/2018 13:24

If you choose not to marry, you are choosing not to commit legally

That's what I have a problem with.

I'd entertain a civil partnership because it comes without the historical trappings of marriage. And yes, I know marriage now doesn't have to have a religious element and I know it isn't literally about giving away a woman like a piece of property; but I still find these trappings offensive and I don't want to be involved with them.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:24

Oh here come all the smug married woman

I don't care if you think it's 'smug', it's simply factually correct. Marriage is a legal contract, if you want the protections you have to enter it.

If the law reverts 250 years and common law spouses start to exist again, the advice will change. As it is, right now if you want to be married - i.e., get the legal benefits - you have to get married.

The alternative is denying people their right to cohabit without being married. Can you imagine the fucking mess there would be from the short-living cohabiting student relationships alone?

NewYearNewMe18 · 14/04/2018 13:25

Why should I be forced to get married to get my rights. We need equality.

You have the choice to get married. Or not.

notsohippychick · 14/04/2018 13:26

never yep this is what I was going to say.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:27

And yes, I know marriage now doesn't have to have a religious element and I know it isn't literally about giving away a woman like a piece of property; but I still find these trappings offensive and I don't want to be involved with them.

If you want the protections of marriage (which are better than in civil partnerships) I think you are an absolute fool to avoid it because you don't like what it was a bajillion years ago. The entire legal system on which civil partnerships also rest carries the 'trappings' of feudalism and obscene class division.

But you have the choice! You don't have to marry if you don't wish to.

ALittleAubergine · 14/04/2018 13:27

I would not have gotten married if we didn't have children or if we never wanted to buy property together. When you have kids and other big commitments together it just makes sense to have that legal protection.

DannyLaRuesBestFrock · 14/04/2018 13:29

Oh here come all the legally protected smug married woman

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 13:31

MinnieMousse, why doesn’t he want to get married?

He’s put you in a really difficult position where you have a child and a life together so you don’t want to just walk out, but he won’t give you any of the legal protection you would have if you got married.

If you take any time out of your career to raise children and then your relationship doesn’t work out, it’s tough. If he dies and his assets are above the inheritance tax threshold, you’ll lose out. If he has a pension, you won’t be entitled to a spouse’s pension.

If your relationship doesn’t work out then he will change his will and the only thing you will have will be your share of any joint property and all the happy memories. Hmm

Do you think he understands the position he has put you in?

Emily7708 · 14/04/2018 13:32

I had a relative who died in February. He was with his DP for 40 odd years but they never married. He owned a Victorian property in London and made a will saying that he wanted his DP to continue living in the property until he died and after that it should be left to his grandchildren from first marriage. Unfortunately the will didn’t leave any provision for paying inheritance tax so his DP was faced with the prospect of finding £110k just to be able to live in the property but ultimately for it to be left to someone else, or move out. She couldn’t raise the money so the house is currently for sale and she is on the council waiting list in her 70s, heartbroken and with nothing. Apparently in 40 years there was never a right time to get married.

I have two friends in their 40s who have had several children out of wedlock and say that the children are much more of a commitment than a piece of paper. Nothing will convince them otherwise.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:32

That French system sounds like it's on to something. It does still require two people to turn up at a registered place and go through an official process though. Which is the very least I'd expect for a serious legal commitment!

BonnieF · 14/04/2018 13:32

I agree that the level of smugness displayed by some married women is somewhat emetic, but in legal terms, they do have a point.

For women, giving up a career to have children without the security of a marriage contract is risky, and no amount of condescending smugness can detract from that.

Viviennemary · 14/04/2018 13:33

I think the rule is a good one. Because if a man had a mistress then she could claim the allowance too. No it should be paid only to the spouse. But it seems that marriage before children is coming back into fashion again. As probably people see the benefit of it.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 13:34

I want the legal protection of a contract, I do not want a 'marriage'. Its pretty simple its called a civil partnership and there is no reason why straight people shouldn't be allowed this.
What reason is there to deny people this protection?

Mightymucks · 14/04/2018 13:34

YANBU. It worries me because people are asking for rights without taking on the responsibilities marriage brings with a split & financial support. They want the benefits if they die but not the responsibility when alive.

LunaDoot · 14/04/2018 13:35

We’re not married and have one child, so I’m fucked. We’ve been together 16 years and have nowhere near £325k between us. Both joint on mortgage. Apart from the next of kin thing, is seems ok to be unmarried and poor Smile

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:35

I have two friends in their 40s who have had several children out of wedlock and say that the children are much more of a commitment

Well, they're right of course. But it begs the question, then, why they will happily make that commitment and not the lesser one that actually offers them protection.

It just still comes back to this crazy idea that marriage is a legalisation of LOVE.

It's not! It's never claimed to be! It's only in very recent times that we've even gone into this idea of marrying for love on a cultural level! For hundreds of years it was quite openly accepted as an institution for securing property, bloodlines and alliances, and you could find your love elsewhere (if you were a man).

I'm sorry, I know I get worked up over this. It's just that it drives me so absolutely bonkers to see so many otherwise intelligent people act this foolishly over something so mundane! And laying themselves open to so much trouble as a result!

TomRavenscroft · 14/04/2018 13:36

It worries me because people are asking for rights without taking on the responsibilities marriage brings with a split & financial support. They want the benefits if they die but not the responsibility when alive.

What responsibilities do you feel people are ducking?

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 14/04/2018 13:36

In my experience, the women who (smugly) protested that they didn't need to get married, that it was a piece of paper etc, were the ones who went full Bridezilla when they were asked by their partner.

It turns out that the choice not to get married was not their's, but their partners, but they happy to pretend it didn't matter to them. Until it did.

Swipe left for the next trending thread