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.

Of course you're not stupid ), but you'd have benefited from the education several posters have talked about.

Education about what marriage is and is not, I mean. That's the problem, simply that so many people aren't aware.

I don't think there is any possibility of removing licences for marriage from Christian churches or Jewish synagogues any time soon. I think what is more likely is the extension of these powers to allow the legal recognition of weddings conducted in mosques or Hindu temples. There is a huge problem in the Muslim community for women whose Islamic marriages are not recognised in UK law, who are therefore left totally vulnerable and without any legal recourse if the marriage breaks down.

CuboidalSlipshoddy

A party is a party, not a wedding.

If you want to get married in a hotel or other similar venue, and you want to put on a wedding dress, stand up in front of 100 of your friends and family and make entirely secular vows promising a lifelong commitment to each other AND THEN have a party, you can’t legally formalise your relationship before you’re in a position to pay for that.

Annie you are absolutely right on all counts there.

To my mind that’s actually a very good reason for removing the right of the Church of England to conduct marriages and separating out the legal part so all marriages take the same format from a legal point of view and then people can organise whatever celebration they like.

But you’re right, it’s not going to happen.

Of course you can. You might decide not to, but the ability and right to access a cheap civil ceremony doesn't evaporate with a desire for a more expensive one.

Then why did we face so many unnecessary obstacles when we tried to do just that?

I have no idea why Love, but the reality is that it remains a possibility in the UK. It doesn't stop being one because you had problems, very sorry as I am to hear about them.

I’ve been to a wedding in this country where the bride and groom were already legally married and have heard of others.

Well then that’s also news to CuboidalSlipshoddy, who not only thinks it can’t be done, but also that it is a ridiculous thing to expect to be able to do.

Nearlyadad

Was there any religious or spiritual aspect to the ceremony?

@loveintokyo I get what you're saying. I think it's probably more of a cultural than a legal issue (in that there is a general expectation here that the legal bit and the celebration all happen at the same time although it would be perfectly possible to do them separately as things stand, just not hugely usual). I think a humanist celebrant could do a "ceremony" of sorts in the uk if that's what you wanted.

I think it's all a moot point though to be honest. It's unlikely that anything will change anytime soon so personally I think efforts are best directed toward educating people in the current position so they can best protect themselves.

As an aside my earlier comments about relabelling were really directed at those who would prefer a CP or to "register" a relationship at solicitors. It's really all semantics and I suspect the government have bigger concerns when there's already an option that does the job perfectly well.

Yes definitely would have benefited from the education. One thing though, it seems like having children is what really kind of changes things for the worse, and I don't really know how that could be improved. Everyone knows you should be financially secure before having a baby and we were/are but I didn't know that it would all fall on me. The ins and outs of looking after one I mean. It all seemed to fall on me. I know there are men who give up their jobs or families where both parents reduce hours etc, but it seems to usually be the woman. Or where the baby has childcare sorted out so both can continue working. I don't know how we could have done things differently in my situation. I suppose not have a baby is the answer. What I mean is, even if I'd got married and was protected in that way, chances are I'd still have ended up giving up my job the way I did and still be unhappy about that. I don't know how that could be different. I know some couples make it work. I felt overwhelmed by it all. At the time I was working mon-fri 7.30-7.30 (that's including commute), but often stayed at work until 8/9 even later. I would have stopped staying late with the baby but 7.30-7.30 still seemed too long out the house to me. I did ask for some kind of flexible arrangement but they couldn't offer me much.

I suppose what I'm saying is, in my situation and I'm fully aware it's different for everyone, although I'd have better protections if I'd got married, I think the reasons those protections are needed is more the problem. And being married though it would make some things easier, it wouldn't make the problem go away?

My DP and I am not married. We've been together for over 30 years but have a house and are joint tenants so the survivor gets full ownership of the house. All our money is in joint accounts so if one dies, the other has the money.

Whichever way you want to do it. Get the piece of paper if one of you were to die tomorrow the surving member would have a fight on their hands, which when you are grieving really is not needed. My friend baulked at marriage until she was told his relatives would have first call on much of his substantial estate. Not her not their children. The law has yet to amend this.

Well it's a fundamental point of English law that everything not forbidden is allowed. You have the rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech, which you can use to hire a venue and say some things in it, provided you and a venue are able to come to mutually acceptable arrangements. Neither of those are absolute rights, there are situations in which eg the police could prevent it if there were public order concerns, but these are rather unlikely to apply to a secular, legally meaningless ceremonial celebration of a union.

I suspect the problem here is that while you have the right to do this, it doesn't have a name or established procedures?

It absolutely won't solve the problem but realistically we are a long way from equality in matters like these. As you say, it's common for the woman to take on the lion's share of the burden of child rearing in almost every possible way (physically, emotionally, financially).

Being married helps a bit if things go wrong is all, it's not a fix all for everything but, as we can only deal with the situation we are in right now, it's better than nothing.

Except when we tried to do in the UK what you can easily do in France and was met with blank stares and confusion.

We spoke with lots of venues booking a space that would allow us to have a celebration of our union and then a party afterwards (so ceremony and 'do). We said we'd already be legally married and thus didn't didn't need to have a registrar - we just said we were having a humanist celebration, we'd bring the celebrant, we just needed to have the rooms / seating for this as well as drinks / dinner / dancing . Not one had an issue with this! They didn't know it had any Jewish traditional flavours to it, we just said it was a humanist celebration and we'd bring a celebrant. Not challenging and no blank stares.

No, it was a total pain in the arse. No wonder it isn’t the done thing in the UK (which is a shame because if it were more people would get their legal position sorted and save up for their dream wedding celebration at their leisure).

Why did you have to pretend to be humanists?

That's very true sunshine girl. I don't know how things can change long term though. I posted in another thread this morning and said how my mum still runs around after my 28 year old brother. She went through it all with dad and she's raised my brother to be exactly the same. I can't blame her because she's had a shit life and been through a lot, but then in other ways I get angry about it because if my brother ever does get married/have children I know exactly what kind of partner/husband/father he would be, and so it all will continue. Doesn't seem fair to blame her after all she's been through, and she really thinks it her job to look after him the way she does and won't have it any differently. I don't know how that mindset can be changed. Sorry I know this isn't the point of the thread.

Well then that’s also news to CuboidalSlipshoddy, who not only thinks it can’t be done, but also that it is a ridiculous thing to expect to be able to do.

They haven't been to a wedding, as understood in English law or culture. They've been to an event at which people celebrated their existing (or future) wedding, presumably. You've stood "wedding" and "marriage ceremony" on pinheads and are complaining that the angels are dancing slightly differently in different jurisdictions.

If you want to call the party after your trip to the marie a wedding that might be accurate in France. It isn't in England.

Hotels organise wedding receptions all the time. You want wedding reception, but with a slightly different speech or something. That you can't organise it is not something that needs primary legislation to fix, it needs you to spend two minutes on the phone asking for it, rather than assuming that everyone in English wedding venues is au fait with the minutiae of French matrimonial practices.

I don't think you have to pretend to be a humanist, just that they didn't mention the Jewish elements as there was no need to.

A humanist celebrant helped us with a among ceremony for our son. There was no requirement to be a humanist you just can't have any religious content at all during the ceremony as humanists are entirely secular.

We said we'd already be legally married and thus didn't didn't need to have a registrar - we just said we were having a humanist celebration, we'd bring the celebrant, we just needed to have the rooms / seating for this as well as drinks / dinner / dancing . Not one had an issue with this! They didn't know it had any Jewish traditional flavours to it, we just said it was a humanist celebration and we'd bring a celebrant. Not challenging and no blank stares.

Precisely. You presumably weren't trying to prove a point about the innate superiority of French law, or something, so you just figured out what you wanted, phoned up and asked for it.

You're talk to hotel receptionists, not cross-cultural mind-readers.

Where did she say they pretended?