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.

In some ways the irreligious have the most skin in the game when it comes to limitations on freedom of religious expression. Most democracies have case law making it clear that the rights to hold and speak about holding no religion are part of religious freedom.

Titanium, you say that having children is legally binding enough. That doesn't create any legal bond or obligations between the parents at all. Were you saying that you knew this and you think the state shouldn't recognise or sanction relationships any more than this, or did you think having a common child conferred something it doesn't?

In some ways the irreligious have the most skin in the game when it comes to limitations on freedom of religious expression.

That's true, and particularly true in the USA. But I'm relatively comfortable that in my remaining forty years the Test Acts are unlikely to make a return. Perhaps I shouldn't be quite so sanguine, but I am much more concerned about my Jewish friends being the subject of vile anti-Semitism than I am being hounded in the street for my lack of belief.

Following

Well that was a selective representation of your position - examples you’ve cited Are examples of discrimination and patriarchy enacted upon women . It was male academic staff and dons who didn’t want to award full degrees to women. The fact that women were denied their degrees stem from patriarchy.

Marriage usually results in decrease in female earnings as women give up work,go PT
in comparison Degree increases female earning.
So there is a clear incentive in getting a degree.

It was only in Oct 1991 that rape within marriage became a crime. Get that 1991, and only after years of campaigning

The convention of taking the male surname,is patriarchal.persisting in notion women are Property ,chattels to be owned and labelled. The patriarachial notion of bride being given away,like a gift.

None of that has anything to do with modern marriage which is basically a legal transaction in a registry office if that's all you want it to be.

Marriage usually results in decrease in female earnings as women give up work, go PT

No, parenthood usually has this effect - regardless of whether or not the parents are married. Very few child-free married women sacrifice their earning potential; many mothers do, and some without the protections afforded by marriage.

I’ve made this point upthread but no-one making the patriarchal argument has addressed it: surely marriage equality has redefined marriage? How can marriage still be considered a patriarchal structure in those countries where it is available to same-sex couples?

Where can I find out the legal benefits of being married for me and my partner? We have been together 20 years and have 2 children but have never got round to it! Now I'm worried! Sorry if I sound very ignorant!

Yes, as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that unmarried women suffer less from reduced earnings when they have children. It's true that women only outearn men in our 20s and then they pass us, but then 30 is the average age both of women at marriage and at first birth.

A solicitor would be your best bet lolalotta. People can give you generalities on here but you may well need more than that. If you don't have wills then you need to go to one with particular urgency.

I fully understand cohabitation vs marriage.and yes I think marriage is patriarchal
I’d advise any woman to make an informed choice that suits her

But you don't have to be given away. You don't have to change your name (hardly any woman I know has). You don't have to wear white, or a ring, or make different vows, or be a Mrs, or describe yourself as a wife.

@lolalotta
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/#h-legal-status

@Lipstick It is society which is patriarchal, but as things currently stand women have more legal rights and protection in a patriarchal marriage than in a patriarchal living-together arrangement.

Marriage usually results in decrease in female earnings as women give up work,go PT
No, having children usually results in a decrease in women's earnings. At least if you are married, the courts will take this decrease in earnings into account if the marital assists are to be split. If the woman is not married she's in a very precarious position if she goes PT or becomes a SAHM.

The convention of taking the male surname,is patriarchal.persisting in notion women are Property ,chattels to be owned and labelled. The patriarachial notion of bride being given away,like a gift.

The marriage contract I entered into didn't involve any of the above.
It can be any way a couple wants to do it these days, right down to giving the children both or neither of the parents' surnames etc.

The convention of taking the male surname,is patriarchal.persisting in notion women are Property ,chattels to be owned and labelled. The patriarachial notion of bride being given away,like a gift.

Convention. Notion.

That's got nothing to do with the legal status of marriage. Neither of those reflect marriage as it stands in the statute book (nor indeed is it a reflection of modern attitudes)

I'm married. I'm not property. I'm neither owned nor labelled. I wasn't given away. My relationship is no different the day after I was married to the day before I was married. Except in the eyes of the law. Nothing else changed.

Someone said this up thread.
If this is the case - the individual who gives up the most is least protected in a cohabiting situation - then there is a tension between the partner that stands to benefit (protection) from marriage and the partner who potentially stands to lose out. I am surprised there aren't more people cohabiting. What is in it for the individual who earns more which is still typically the man?

Of course marriage is part of the patriarchy. Everything is part of the patriarchy - this whole bloody world was set up to benefit men.

But I don't see people refusing to own property because there once were entails. I don't see people refusing to go to university because they once refused to educate women. I don't see people refusing to run in, for example, the Boston Marathon, because it once refused to let women run.

Marriage is actually one of the more nuanced institutions of the patriarchy. I think men realised early on that they needed to know their children were theirs so needed to regularise the relationship. To do this, they had to give something to the woman - so matrimony -which imposed obligations on a man as well as confining a woman - and let's face it being a single woman wasn't exactly freedom on a hilltop back then. Marraige was a way of knowing whose baby was whose (to a point), whose property was whose, and passing on that property to legitimate heirs. Women got something out of matrimony too - it wasn't just a tool of the patriarchy.

To chose this hill of the patriarchy to die on when there are so many others seems odd - but your choice. It is fine for posters like, for example, Bertrand who are clearly educated and well-off. They know what they need to do if they don't chose marriage. They probably won't need the widow's pension. If someone told them they weren't their partner's next of kin because not married, they'd deal with it competently. But a lot of women aren't like that.

So it isn't about a bunch of smug married women judging others. It is about a bunch of women telling other women what the realities of their rights and responsibilities are, hoping that they will then make informed choices about what is best for them - not what is best for the men they are not married to.

Haven't ALL the thread, just some of it, (couldn't be arsed to read 900 posts,) so apologies if I repeat what has been said!)

YANBU @sofabitch

And @hoppinggreen said it all (on page 1)

People who say they don’t believe in marriage or don’t need a piece of paper are daft and have no right to complain if they don’t have the same legal protection as married people.

The 'it's only a piece of paper' brigade do my head in. No it's NOT.

And no you CAN'T have the same rights as someone who is married. If you are living with someone, and not married, you may as well be his flatmate. The milkman will probably have as much right to his assets as you, and you will have no more right to switch off (or keep on) a life support machine, than your local mechanic. In fact, his parents and siblings rights will trump yours.

Oh and yeah there is no thing as a common law spouse.

Lots of people in so much denial. It's quite shocking and worrying...

I’d advise any woman to make an informed choice that suits her

Anyone who describes marriage as 'a piece of paper', 'meaningless', 'patriarchal' (in its modern form), 'unnecessary because we don't need to prove our love', 'religious' or something in which women have to be 'given away' is not informed.

What is in it for the individual who earns more which is still typically the man?
Shared parenting, childcare costs, shared home maintenance, extra income and lower costs of living in general, increased access to credit, inheritance and widower benefits. And that's if his wife works.

What is in it for the individual who earns more which is still typically the man?

I think the statistics show that marriage is better for men on every level and the happiest people are single women and married men.

That said, I don't really care what is in it for a man who earns more. I only care about the woman who is having his children. She is better off in most cases if she marries so I would advise her to marry.

I would advise my son that if he wants to have a baby with a woman he doesn't trust enough to marry he should reconsider having a baby with her.

This is a very interesting thread and I'm ashamed to say I'm shocked by the information. My partner and I have been together 15 years, we have a child, a house, a dog everything together. But I now read that I potentially have less than someone who got married within months/weeks! of meeting their partner.
Why didn't we get married? Because I've never been interested in marriage. Because it seems like a lot of fuss and bother not to mention money. I KNOW we could just zip down to the registry office and do it on the quiet but then families, and friends, on both sides would be upset. I know we're not married now but everyone jokes about how we'll get round to it one day and we probably will - but.
I'm afraid I do feel like I now feel forced into getting married. And I dislike that. I can prove easily that our lives have been intertwined financially as well as emotionally for 15 years but that means less than my friend who married after 2 months - and separated shortly after although is still not divorced several years later.
Well, fuck.

I think what a lot of people who don't/won't see the benefits in being married is that when everyone is happy, and healty, then the benefits are miniminal. There's very little difference - especially if you don't have a SAHP and the married tax allowance doesn't come into play.

It's when the shit hits the fan that the legal protection comes into play. Especially when it hits the fan unexpectedly.

Which, unfortunately, means people find out they are not entitled to things at the very, very worst moment.

psicat but you've a choice - you don't have to get married so why feel "forced?". Don't do it if you don't want to - it's about what you want surely, not about what your mate down the road has or does.

Marriage is not fuss and bother. People inclined to fuss and bother make it so as they're caught up in doing it the "right" way, and what other people think, catering for others, obligations that in the scheme of things really don't matter, to the point they're more focused on all that than the ceremony.

There are people who marry in a registry office then go off to the pub. They're no less married than the fussies.

But if I didn't want to get married, I simply wouldn't. Most women I know who've gone the live together kids etc but no marriage and say it's just a piece of paper, are just repeating what their man says to them. They wouldn't refuse a proposal if they got one.

A lot of this thread is pie in the sky picking apart marriage, talking about how things SHOULD be for unmarried couples.

Newflash - if you're not married you don't have the same rights as a married couple. Simple. Wishful thinking or whataboutery won't change that. Try living in the here and now, and seeing it ad it actually is. It's a good starting point.

then families, and friends, on both sides would be upset

Don't tell them.

They'll only ever find out if something awful happens and the vast majority of people are decent enough that if one of you dies they aren't going to have a pop at the widow/er about a wedding.

DH's Aunt and uncle did exactly that. We only found out when he died, and no one questioned it. In fact, people were relieved because in her shoes there would have been issues had they not been married.