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.

Psicat some people don't get married because they don't actually want the legal ties. If the legal benefits were implied for long term relationships, people would not have the freedom to cohabit on a no strings basis. There is currently an easy way to opt in to the legal benefits - by getting married.

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

I got married in 2004, so that is relevant how?

" 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. "

Why would they be upset? Just say that you did it for legal reasons. Or don't tell them.

Loads of people do it.

psicat, the only thing that would 'force' you to marry would be if the law considered you married without you choosing to do it (which is the problem with the idea of a common law spouse). The entire point of there being a simple legal process for it is precisely so that people CAN cohabit without being married if that's what they want.

I'm sure you can prove the length and depth of your relationship. What you can't do is claim that you've chosen to legalise it, because you haven't. As long as you and your partner have not consented to the commitment of legalising it, the law will respect that.

Why didn't we get married? Because I've never been interested in marriage.

Sounds like you might be now? It does not have to be fussy, bothersome or expensive, as you know.

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.

You can choose not to marry for that reason if you want, but it's a terrible reason to change the law.

And yeah, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to mention the 'rape in marriage not a crime until 1991' thing. It is absolutely shameful how long it took to sort that out. But it's been sorted for 17 years now, so to deny yourself the protections of marriage, if you want them, on those grounds is daft.

Nobody on this thread has denied that marriage has patriarchal and sexist roots. We're denying that it still exists in that form today. Because it doesn't. It's evolved, like everything else.

jewel1968 Best thread on the post. So balanced.

If being a 'wife' comes with a load of patriarchal implications of being owned as chattel and given away as a gift, and 'husband' of having ownership of his wife like property

Can someone tell me how this applies to same sex couples?

The Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013, s.1(1) states:
"The term husband will include a man married to another man, and the term wife will include a woman married to another woman"

When there are two wives, or two husbands, how does this baggage that's being imposed on these terms translate?

Marriage has existed for thousands of years all over the world as the glue which ties responsibility to bloodlines.It must obviously have some merit.

This is the one that hits the nail on the head for me.

lalalalyra Tue 17-Apr-18 00:48:41
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.

Can someone tell me how this applies to same sex couples?

I don't think the patriarchal past is a good reason to deny oneself the benefits of being married, but I suppose they would argue that, for them, the concept of marriage and it's patriarchal roots don't bother them because same-sex relationships don't have the historical gender roles that mixed-sex relationships have.

Frankly, I have never understood why gay people want to get married. (although I do of course understand why they want to have civil partnerships) But I don't understand why gay people want to be members of any of the official branches of monotheistic religions either. But that's another kettle of worms!

I don't think the patriarchal past is a good reason to deny oneself the benefits of being married, but I suppose they would argue that, for them, the concept of marriage and it's patriarchal roots don't bother them because same-sex relationships don't have the historical gender roles that mixed-sex relationships have.

Many of these same posters are espousing the benefits of civil partnership over civil marriage, and how they should be extended to opposite sex couples - despite the fact that CPs come with a huge amount of baggage, being created purely as a 'not marriage' to appease the homophobes. Women haven't been chattel for a long time. Civil partnerships have been othering and reflecting homophobic societal attitudes far more recently. Trying to understand the logic!

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

The wisest (and most successful) manager I ever worked for used to say that contracts only matter when things have gone wrong and relationships between the parties have broken down, and should be both read and written in that light.

If you're assuming that everything is going to go well and stay that way, then a shake of hands and a scribbled note is all you need. It'll be fine.

And if you assume that things might go wrong but underneath it all you're all friends really, then you still don't need a contract: your friendship will see you through any problems.

But if things go wrong and you fall out with each other, you need a contract which is watertight and has clear routes for resolving conflict in the complete absence of good will. Because then you can't rely on anything other than the contract and the legal framework it's resolved in, and have to assume your counter-party is actively trying to beat you.

Hence, marriage. You don't need it to prove your love: that's the shake of hands. You don't need it when you argue about who's doing the washing up tonight: your love will see you through. You need it when things have gone horribly wrong and there is no way for the couple to communicate, either through ill-will, dishonesty or (indeed) death. Then the "piece of paper" matters very much.

I agree, Cuboid (and writing as someone who writes contracts which 90% of the time are never looked at again as nothing goes wrong but you never know when you will be in that 10% of whatever it is where it does).

However it depends on your situation. Plenty of women lose huge amounts to men on divorce (I did) because they eg owned a property before they married and the man didn't have a penny or the woman earns more etc and for them they are much better off unmarried. I will not marry again (having had to pay one big divorce settlement to a man already and wanting my children to have what is left, not a new husband). Marriage protects lower earners and that is not always women.

Whilst there’s some good debate on here about marriage in general, the OP is about widows benefits. Thinking solely about this the question should be, is marriage a reasonable measure by which to determine eligibility? Is it the only measure? The Supreme Court will decide. I clearly think not. My opinion is coloured by my view on marriage but also by a number of facts including that a key beneficiary of the benefit are children, benefits should reflect need and this benefit is contribution based. The debate regarding this benefit has echoes of the current Windrush situation. Dogmatic adherence to an official line of you (your parents) didn’t do x, y, z in the face of a plethora of other convincing evidence.

However it depends on your situation. Plenty of women lose huge amounts to men on divorce

Absolutely. And of course, those that want cohabiting relationships to be upgraded to marital responsibilities on the say-so of one party and the facts of the matter would make this worse, not better.

In the world some of the PPs are proposing, a woman with property moves her boyfriend in, perhaps they have children, they separate and the boyfriend now has a claim on the house as though they were married. As contracts only matter in adversity (see our agreement above), for such a policy to be meaningful it would have to be invokable by one party on the basis of the facts, and not require both parties' agreement; obviously, in the aftermath of a relationship failing the party with the property will not be looking to make the relationship legal.

So although such a policy might possibly make a few not-common-law widows better off on the death of their much-loved partners, it would disadvantage people up who are cohabiting deliberately because it doesn't make a marriage.

At risk of soundly like some crazy Randite Libertarian (nothing could be further from the truth, and I sit in seminars in which Randite ideas come up opening calling the callow young men spouting them sociopaths) I'm a fan on contracts freely entered into, and I would yet further increase the validity of pre-nups subject to clear boundaries on advice and fairness. But I think that's where the courts are going now (see the link I posted some pages ago) and pre-nups which are done property to protect prior property are now respected. So perhaps today your divorce would go better for you; I don't know the details, obviously.

Many of these same posters are espousing the benefits of civil partnership over civil marriage, and how they should be extended to opposite sex couples - despite the fact that CPs come with a huge amount of baggage, being created purely as a 'not marriage' to appease the homophobes. Women haven't been chattel for a long time. Civil partnerships have been othering and reflecting homophobic societal attitudes far more recently. Trying to understand the logic!

I agree with you. I was just trying to think of the other side of the argument.

Changing the subject, Xenia's back!!

And of course, those that want cohabiting relationships to be upgraded to marital responsibilities on the say-so of one party and the facts of the matter would make this worse, not better.

Yes, because forced marriage (even if it arrives on the back of voluntary cohabitation) is just plain wrong.

People should continue to be free to decide for themselves how they arrange their lives, and only enter into a legal relationship with a partner if and when they choose to.

I agree there needs to be better information about the legals status of different choices - it is all out there, but so many people still seem to sleepwalk into quite vulnerable circumstances without realising it. That is a shame.

Xenia, you're alive!

If you want the legal status of marriage because you've cohabited for two, five or ten years, I don't see why you wouldn't just get married after two, five or ten years.

Exactly, pooryorrick. For everyone roughly my age I know (born late fifties, early sixties) we lived together through our twenties and early thirties, then married before having children, often while pregnant. No churches, no big parties (in fact, I don’t recall going to any of the weddings) but a simple legal contract to deal with death, separation, etc.

There is s heartbreaking (if true, which it might not be) thing on Reddit about a man whose partner died in childbirth who has not yet seen the child and is not able to attend the funeral. Her parents always hated him, and his partner was frightened of their reaction to a marriage. Parents trump partners on death.

Just a minor point about something that’s been mentioned a few times - your husband/wife/civil partner etc does not decide when to turn off or keep on your life support machine, nor does your brother, sister or mum or dad.

If a patient lacks capacity to make decisions about their care, generally medical teams make these decisions although you can nominate anyone (husband, wife, boyfriend, binman) to be a lasting power of attorney to make specific decisions about your health, but this does not give them complete autonomy over all aspects of your care.

Decisions are made according to the best interests of the patient in accordance with their wishes, which in the absence of an advanced directive are informed by those who know the patient best. Usually this is indeed the family and typically the spouse but not necessarily so. Without a LPA a husband or wife or civil partner has no more legal sway then anyone else.

And yeah, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to mention the 'rape in marriage not a crime until 1991' thing. It is absolutely shameful how long it took to sort that out. But it's been sorted for 17 years now, so to deny yourself the protections of marriage, if you want them, on those grounds is daft.

Nobody on this thread has denied that marriage has patriarchal and sexist roots. We're denying that it still exists in that form today. Because it doesn't. It's evolved, like everything else.

Indeed Yorick. It's always bemusing to see people argue against marriage because of the (undoubted) historical patriarchal associations whilst merrily engaging in a setup that serves the patriarchy so beautifully in 2018. Because that is what cohabitation without marriage does, for women as a class: as a cohort we still do the same things whether married or not, and there's no evidence that unmarried women lose less income when they have kids. They just have less protection while they do it. I mean, do what suits you best, and for many women that certainly won't be marriage. No argument there. But let's not delude ourselves. It's no more comprehensible than people who are against misogyny but apparently sufficiently tolerant of homophobia to want a CP.

Also, if I may depress everyone for a moment, let's be honest we live in a country where rapists have near enough impunity anyway. If your partner wants to rape you, he very probably can without criminal consequence unless maybe he's stupid enough to beat the shit out you while he does it. There have certainly been convictions using the rape within marriage laws but we had before 1991 and still continue to have an appalling situation wrt intimate partner violence.

But if one is the higher earner (or sole earner) and IHT is not relevant then not being married is an advantage? Isn't that why most of the men in cohabiting couples seem disinclined to marry?

Can be. Depends on priorities. The man may want to be married so PR is automatic, for example. But yes, of course there are situations where individual women are better off not married. Just as even in the most patriarchal days, there were women who improved their situation through marriage. What's good or bad for us as a group doesn't necessarily hold true for each person. Women are a diverse group.