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.

So what you’re saying is that they an only perform the legal part of the ceremony if they are also a registrar.

Authorised ministers aren't registrars, because there are other things a registrar can do they can't.

But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You started out by claiming that marriages in the Church of England had some special status such that you could only go there as a one-stop shop. We're now pointing out that mosques, synagogues, Catholic churches, Quaker meeting houses (I've been to several such weddings) can hold weddings on the premises which result in a complete legal marriage, under the sole custodianship minister of the religion in question. You're now splitting hairs about the precise basis for the authority of the minister to grant marriage certificates. Yes, CofE ministers can do it by virtue of their job, while non-CofE ministers require personally authorisation. That affect the happy couple how, would you say?

you did address it, but you were wrong yet again. You know you could just acknowledge that you know nothing about UK weddings since you are oh so French now? It would be much easier.

So in other words, there are additional obstacles applying to other religious groups which don’t apply to the Church of England, and additional bureaucratic hoops they must jump through to be able to perform the legal part of a marriage ceremony.

That looks like discrimination to me.

How common do you think it is for a woman who has got married in the Church of England to later find out that she was never legally married because the vicar wasn’t licensed to perform the legal part of a marriage ceremony?

Quite.

I’m not sure why we have ended up having this stupid argument. I merely expressed my opinion that - for many reasons - the French system works better than the British system. You are free to disagree, but since my opinion is based on my experience of both systems, it is a perfectly valid and informed opinion, and I’m not sure what you bring to the debate by relentlessly jumping down my throat and insisting that my opinion is wrong.

Anyway, we have derailed the debate sufficiently, I think. There is some useful information in this thread and we are currently putting people off reading and acting on it.

Have a good evening.

So in other words, there are additional obstacles applying to other religious groups which don’t apply to the Church of England, and additional bureaucratic hoops they must jump through to be able to perform the legal part of a marriage ceremony

No, not really. But keep trying, I'm sure you'll eventually wander into a point that makes sense.

No, I’m not going to keep trying. I’m going to do what I should have done hours ago, which recognise that you just want a pointless fight, and not waste my evening.

No, just want people to not come in here telling everyone how much better something is where they live when then clearly don't understand the first thing of what they are talking about.
We've established that everything you think about UK marriage and the laws is wrong, therefore you really can't say if they are better or worse then in France. Why did you waste your time?

If you were already married and wanted a ceremony, you’d have to get someone - be that a humanist minister or whoever to do fulfill that role but I wouldn’t have thought that was too difficult. Given there would be no legal function of the ceremony literally anybody could do it.

My friends have done precisely that - they've had friends of theirs as celebrants, at ceremonies in the UK and abroad. My cousin also had this for their wedding - a mate of theirs was the celebrant and just served as master of ceremonies to invite him and his (already legally married by signing a marriage register at the registry office) wife's vows, and readings from their friends.

(and it's not just, or even primarily, Muslims: it's a huge problem in parts of the Jewish community as well

On a recent C4 documentary (I think it was Dispatches) called 'The Truth about Muslim marriage', a contrast was clearly drawn between the fact that Imams are not required to be registered to conduct legal marriages / the number of Muslim wedding ceremonies which take place in the home, with the requirement that Christian and Jewish weddings are required to be legal marriages as well

That said, in order for a rabbi to conduct a legal wedding, the marriage must be in accordance with Jewish law - the celebrant for our wedding was a Rabbi who officiated at interfaith / Jewish secular weddings, and he was very very clear that he could not legally marry us because it was not a Jewish wedding, and that my husband and I could not be married in accordance with Jewish law because I am Jewish (under Jewish law) and he is not.

There are most certainly issues with women needing to get a Jewish divorce (known as a 'get') in addition to a civil divorce in order for the marriage to be considered dissolved under Jewish law (and for the person to get remarried under Jewish law).

However, unlike in the Muslim community, it isn't a widespread issue that a large number of couples believe themselves to be legally married when in fact they are not. A Jewish wedding has to be a civil wedding in addition. If it's not, it's explicitly not a Jewish wedding. A liberal Rabbi may perform an interfaith blessing, or act as a celebrant for a ceremony like ours, but it cannot be a Jewish wedding unless it's in accordance with Jewish law. In these cases the Rabbis make it explicitly clear that these ceremonies are neither considered marriages under Jewish or British law - they are a celebration only, and the couple must have a civil marriage, conducted by a licensed registrar, to be married in the eyes of the law. This Guardian article summarises the key themes from the programme

"Three out of five of the British Muslim women surveyed did not, in addition to their nikah ceremonies, have a civil marriage, rendering them outside the legal protections and provisions that marriage brings...In the documentary, Rabbi Herschel Gluck described British Jews benefiting from a marriage “package deal”, going on to say: “When you get married in Jewish law, you’re also getting married in civil law."

For “other registered religious buildings” I am told you need a registrar present to perform the legal part of the ceremony even if the rest of it is performed by your priest/imam/etc.

From: The legal requirements of a Jewish wedding ceremony in the UK

"CAN ANY RABBI MARRY ANY JEWISH COUPLE IN THE UK?
Any rabbi can marry anyone in the UK or abroad but the couple need to arrange the legal aspects separately. If the couple are both Jewish then they can get married anywhere in England (maybe the UK) under the auspices of a synagogue anywhere else in the UK.

DO INDOOR JEWISH WEDDING VENUES NEED TO BE LICENSED? IF SO, IS A CIVIL CEREMONY LICENSE SUFFICIENT? WHAT ROLE DOES THE REGISTRAR PLAY IN A JEWISH CEREMONY?

As already mentioned, Jewish weddings do not need to take place in a licensed venue. If a wedding takes place under the auspices of a synagogue then the couple, who need to be both Jewish, arrange their civil marriage with the synagogue’s registrar. This person is a member of the synagogue (it can be the rabbi) who is licensed to look after the legal aspects of the wedding. This person will sign the legal paperwork after the wedding. The couple do not need to get any other registrar in addition.

I’M JEWISH, BUT MY PARTNER ISN’T. CAN WE STILL HAVE A JEWISH WEDDING CEREMONY WITH ALL OF THE JEWISH SYMBOLS?

If you or your partner are not Jewish then they can still have a wedding with all of the Jewish symbols but it cannot take place in a synagogue or under the auspices of a synagogue. (However, some liberal synagogues will do a blessing that is different to a wedding.) Some rabbis who are independent of any synagogue can help mixed and interfaith couples wanting to have a Jewish part to their wedding.

Such couples need to either go to a registry office before the wedding or get a registrar to come to their licensed venue."

My issue is imposing financial rights and obligations on unmarried couples is that it's incredibly problematic.

What would that even look like - after a certain number of years? After children? After property purchase?

There is always often an imbalance of power and resources. The party with the power (money) will always have access to advice and means to protect themselves.

Will there be periods of "separation" at convenient times to circumvent rights after a certain time limit?

Will there be an increase in litigation to determine the dates of cohabitation or the "trigger event" for the gained rights?

The powerful party will have the resources to fight this, but the other may not.

Legal fees to deal with joint ownership for unmarried couples is already incredibly expensive and prohibitive for so many people. Would this add an extra barrier to "justice"?

Will we just be creating a third tier of disadvantaged people?

It would also do away with the notion of Choice. Some couples simply don't want to infer legal rights and obligations upon each other. How on earth would an "opt out" be determined?

I totally agree awareness and education is the key. We need to know what we're entering into, but people will still make "mistakes". I regularly see unmarried couples who have jointly purchased a property together with differing contributions. They were advised on the option to hold as Tenants in Common with a Declaration of Trust, and decide against it because "s/he would never shaft me". It's only when the relationship breaks down that they then want the protection. It's the insurance point made excellently above.

You can't obtain all the "rights" of marriage securely - Wills can be unilaterally updated, Joint Tenancies severed, pension nominations changed (if they can be obtained at all). You can't get round IHT.

CP's are not the answer in my view - they are homophobic and shouldn't have been legislated in the first place.

I'm astonished that people will forgo legal protection on the basis of what they perceive marriage to be to society, when surely the important thing is what it means to them.

Synagogues wouldn’t come under “other registered religious buildings” because Jewish weddings have their own entry on that list. I didn’t know that there was a similar situation in favour of Jews, so that is something I have learned today anyway.

I still think the British system is unnecessarily complicated and rather discriminatory.

Legislation which makes certain forms of words spoken by certain groups of people in which they consentingly agree to things illegal is incredibly hard to police without persecuting people. I think it's perfectly OK for two people to agree to a thing which isn't a marriage, but looks in a certain light like one, without the law intervening. For example, I think that the not-weddings that were carried out in the gay community when marriage was illegal are absolutely fine.

Mmm cuboidal. I can understand the arguments for not allowing religious marriages without legal marriage first, but it seems to be to be a pretty fucking nuclear option. It does a big shit on freedom of religion, for a start. I'm agnostic, but from a Catholic background, and marriage is a sacrament in that faith. So we would literally have the state limiting when people can receive sacraments. I am very uneasy about that.

It's basically the marriage ceremony equivalent to imposing the legal status attached to marriage on cohabitants after a couple of years. I'm not saying it might not be acceptable if nothing else works and the problem continues to worsen, on the grounds of causing least suffering, but you're basically taking rights away from one group of people because of the ignorance of others. Seems to me that shouldn't happen until a significant education campaign of some kind has been tried and failed.

I'm astonished that people will forgo legal protection on the basis of what they perceive marriage to be to society, when surely the important thing is what it means to them.

This is what I absolutely cannot get my head round every time this discussion comes up. We don't refuse the vote just because we didn't always have it. We don't reject the entire legal system just because it's rooted in feudalism. We don't refuse to stand for Parliament just because it was once restricted to white men. Why in God's name do so many women refuse to marry because it was once patriarchal? When it's now almost the only way of legally valuing and protecting the very 'women's work' that we pretty much all agree is usually shit upon? When it's in fact so anti-patriarchal, it makes a certain type of man reluctant? In this very thread, we've even had people saying that one of their reasons not to marry is that they don't like the legal term for a married woman. I believe someone said, "Words have meanings." Yes - a wife means a married woman, and that is ALL. And you can go your entire life never referring to yourself as a wife, if you like. It's just got to go on the marriage certificate, because it's a legal term.

It makes absolutely no sense to me.

That makes three of us.

In the 2000s it was very fashionable amongst certain right-on, lefty types, to state that you would not marry whilst there was no marriage equality - 'because we shouldn't benefit from hetero privilege when our gay brothers and sisters are fighting for the same rights'. Funnily enough it was often the men who trotted out this line - and guess what? None of those people of my acquaintance have married since the introduction of marriage equality.

I think there are just quite a lot of people who dislike the idea of being legally bound to someone else. Fair enough but it would simplify things significantly if they were honest about this, rather than spinning spurious excuses.

I think in this day and age YABU. People don't always want to get married even with the option of a non religious ceremony. I think if there are children involved thats legally binding enough. Or perhaps if there were a simple form that you sign that didn't then require a divorce a lawyer etc to cancel should you decide to split. I don't know there should be another way rather than just marriage, IMO but what that could be I don't know either :-)

@Titaniumpins

What's "legally binding" about having children?

Exactly Yorick.

Though lots of those lefty anti marriage hippy types who are baby boomers and bought beautiful houses in the 1960s go quiet when I talk through the IHT position. And quietly go to the registry office

FYI the Law Commission are currently reviewing the law on giving cohabitees more rights, in the context of wills, but would affect other areas. Though I imagine with all the resources being poured into Brexit it will slip down the list of priorities...

I think if there are children involved thats legally binding enough.

It's not.

Or perhaps if there were a simple form that you sign that didn't then require a divorce a lawyer etc to cancel should you decide to split.

What would this form provide for in the case of a split? 50:50 division of assets and 50:50 residence of children, no matter what the circumstances, every single time, no opportunity to contest it?

I don't know there should be another way rather than just marriage, IMO but what that could be I don't know either :-)

That's kind of the issue. People saying they want something other than marriage, and then everything they describe is exactly that!

Titaniumpins you should probably read the full thread.

A marriage in a non-Anglican religious building (not a synagogue or Quaker meeting house) requires the attendance of s Registrar (for a small fee) - but after it has been registered for marriages for a year the trustees can have someone - or more than one someone - authorised to do the registration work. They have to have a fireproof safe and pay for a special ink which will never fade!

But there is a Bill before Parliament - nominally a Private Member’s Bill but in fact a government handout Bill - which will simply the system of registration without changing the substance. And it will allow the names of the parties’ mothers to be included on the certificate. Say not the struggle naught availeth!

If you want to have a fully legal Hunanist wedding that can take place pretty much anywhere then take a trip to Scotland. It's the humanist celebrant that's registered there rather than the place.

I cannot get my head round people who want the legal protection that marriage affords with the contract ohwellcan'thelpthestupid

Why in God's name do so many women refuse to marry because it was once patriarchal?

I'd place a bet that most people holding that position have degrees. Universities have only awarded degrees to women since long after the passing of the Married Woman's Property Act 1870, which pretty much put an end to couverture. Wasn't it the case that Cambridge didn't grant women full degrees until 1947? Why refuse marriage on the grounds of its (undeniably) sexist past, while accepting degrees which have just as much baggage?

So we would literally have the state limiting when people can receive sacraments. I am very uneasy about that.

The French are less uneasy about the state regulating religious observance. That's arguably their right, but it's not something - and it's perhaps worth noting I am an atheist from three generations of atheists, so have no skin in this game - that I would be comfortable with. I think that countries which claim to be liberal democracies should give freedom of religious expression very, very high regard.

I don't get the patriarchal objection either and I'm a proper old humourless feminist.

Someone said down the thread Marriage is an anticrated (sic) ritual based on the division of property in death. Society evolves and so should the laws. People nowadays are more likely to have assets than at any other point in history. When common law wives existed, they'd have had not a bean. Richer people married.