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.

Thanks for the clarification nearlyadad this speaks to my point way up thread that there is ignorance about the legal implications of marriage in exactly the same way there is ignorance around the legal position of cohabitees.

Likewise there seems to be a view that marriage is an alternative to making a will. It
Certainly changes the legal position but the situation is more complicated then that. Depending on circumstances the whole estate does not automatically pass to a spouse.

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

How are either of those things related? Or any of your business?

Indeed not. The intestacy provisions do a decent enough job for probably most married intestate people, but there are frequent exceptions.

The intestacy provisions do a decent enough job for probably most married intestate people, but there are frequent exceptions.

And the most obvious situation - where one spouse has substantial assets in their sole name, so that they do not pass outside the estate and exceed the limits on intestacy - is the one most likely to harm a woman.

Yy slieve, that does rather beg the question of why the religious and legal affairs of gay people would be understandable to some random heterosexual who decides to take an interest.

Actually, I can see the case cited in the OP was 2016 and the lady concerned won . I can’t see if the judgement was/is being appealed. None the less, the judge presents the rationale rather more eloquently then I have in previous posts:

*Mr Justice Treacy ruled that denial of widowed parents’ allowance to McLaughlin was not justified because parents were under an obligation to maintain their children regardless of whether they were married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting.
The complete exclusion of the applicant on the grounds of her marital status from a benefit whose purpose is to alleviate the financial burden on a family resulting from the death of a parent cannot be justified,” he said.

The judge added that it was strange for the authorities to argue that the restriction promoted marriage and civil partnership “when parents, whatever the status of the relationship, owe the same financial or legal duties towards their children. The restriction appears to be inimical to the interests of children.”

He added that the restriction violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers the right to respect for private and family life, in so far as it “unjustifiably discriminates against the applicant on the grounds of her marital status”. *

She did but iirc it was being appealed further. I thought it went to SC? I may be thinking of something else though as I can't find anything to confirm that.

There is, though, I would say, something of a trend towards widening eligibility for death payments to unmarried partners. There was a case, also from NI interestingly, where a couple had cohabited with no children for years, but he'd never nominated her (or anyone else) as a beneficiary in his work death in service scheme. They got engaged at Christmas 2009 and then he died a few days later. Very sad. Had they been married she'd have benefitted automatically even without being named, but they weren't so she didn't. She eventually got the payment after lengthy proceedings, in 2015 I think it was.

So I wouldn't rule out entirely a cohabitant being able to access any particular benefit if they're willing to litigate and wait, especially not when there's no other partner and/or previous spouse on the scene as there weren't in either of these cases. But until and unless this is formalised in law, it would be monumental stupidity to knowingly rely on it, if access to the benefit in the event of death were going to be important to you.

I was right, the case is going to the Supreme Court on 30th April. Will be an interesting one.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0035.html

Thanks for the link. Will be interesting to see if the decision is upheld. Personally I agree 100% with the judge and his summing up.

I'm guessing you mean the judge from the High Court not the Court of Appeal! It will be a really interesting case though, definitely one to keep an eye on for anyone who's interested in the topic. I expect we will have a thread about it on here when the judgement comes, but that could be ages away yet.

Found the other case I mentioned too, Denise Brewster.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0180-judgment.pdf

I was wrong with the date though, the judgement was in 2017. Paragraph 64 is a really interesting one:

Where a conscious, deliberate decision by a government department is taken on the distribution of finite resources, the need for restraint on the part of a reviewing court is both obvious and principled. Decisions on social and economic policy are par excellence the stuff of government. But where the question of the impact of a particular measure on social and economic matters has not been addressed by the government department responsible for a particular policy choice, the imperative for reticence on the part of a court tasked with the duty of reviewing the decision is diminished.

I'm not sure whether the DWP have addressed that fully or not wrt bereavement benefits. It really will be interesting to watch, I have no idea how it will go.

I think we might see bereavement benefits changing (if they are not scrapped) to a system where the money is effectively for the child/ren rather than the widow or widower.

Changing the length of time a widow/er with children gets the payments so drastically, even with the higher lump sum, makes a massive difference to the costing. My SIL has been receiving widowed parents allowance for 14 years, that won't happen anymore no matter the financial circumstances of the person left behind.

I think it may switch to £350, or similar, a month for 18 months to be paid to the adult with the care of the children. This means not being married wouldn't matter. It may also address the complaints about the fact that people who suddenly lose child maintenance have no assistance at a time where their child has also lost a parent.

It would also address the cases where a child is orphaned and the person who steps up to care for them can't access these benefits.

I think it's also a cut that could get through without too much fuss because "it's for the children" in the same way making the lump sum higher kinda calmed some objections to the previous changes.

Exactly, that would be an equitable solution in tune with the need of the child and the contributory nature of the benefit exfury

I don't think that's why it would be done, I just think it'll head that way and the lump sum could be gotten rid of and therefore it would save money.

Just as an aside to the discussion of CP vs marriage and whether infidelity is a ground for divorce:

Homosexual relations do not count as adultery even in marriage. For instance if your husband leaves you for another man you cannot file for divorce on the grounds of adultery. And you can’t get divorced within a year of marriage except for on the grounds of adultery I think.

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.

So what if they are 'upset', how long is that going to last for? Are you really more bothered than friends and families being slightly miffed than the importance of sorting out the legal framework? If that is true then you have odd priorities (just read the comments on this thread when unmarried women have found out too late that their assumed 'legal rights' are not protected.)

Why be so concerned about what other people think?

You don't need to tell anyone you are married, or if it comes up in conversation just say 'yes, we had a very quiet wedding'.

My DH & I married very quietly 30 years ago - his mother joined us but no other family - no one cared or was fussed about it (including my parents). I have a son and wouldn't mind in the slightest if I wasn't invited to his wedding; I would just respect whatever he wanted to do.

This obsession with 'not wanting to upset other people' sounds like a pretty poor excuse for avoiding a legal commitment.

This obsession with 'not wanting to upset other people' sounds like a pretty poor excuse for avoiding a legal commitment.

Quite. "I'm an adult who's worried that Auntie Bessie will get upset" is not a good basis for primary legislation, and an even worse basis for the disestablishment of the Church of England.

Totally agree.
Someone I know has been with her partner for 16 years, has begged him to get married yet he refuses. I have no sympathy for her as she went on to have children with him, he still won’t marry her. Why do that to yourself?

Bugger the Church of England.

It’s a poor excuse for leaving yourself legally and financially vulnerable though.

@psicat why can you not just get married in secret and not tell anyone?

It’s a poor excuse for leaving yourself legally and financially vulnerable though.

Indeed. I thought we'd all pretty much established that as common ground :-)

Heh. I’m sensing that the phrase “we’ve all established” is a favourite of yours.

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.

Marriage is a legal arrangement.

You're conflating a marriage with a wedding

Going down to the registry office to sign a marriage contract in the presence of 2 witnesses isn't really any different to going down to a solicitor's office to sign a will. Would friends and family be upset they weren't invited to witness you signing your will / mortgage agreement / any other legal contract?

Avoiding a Legal commitment? We have completely tied our lives together in multiple ways - legally, financially, emotionally. I don't exactly see that I've been avoiding a legal commitment.
What I am saying is that I am very surprised by this whole thing - over the years we've had met with professionals regarding wills, life insurance policies, financial advice etc etc. It has never once been raised so it is quite a shock.
And for people saying just marry in secret, why are you worried about upsetting people - well it would be upsetting for some of my family and friends - esp my OH as he's an only child. We have thought and talked about getting married but there's always been something else that needed the money or time etc first (and I have no plans to spend a lot of money but even cheap cheap it will still be money to spend on something else). I shall clearly just have to send a message round with link to benefits page and say soz it's a financial benefit, don't take it personally.

Look the point I'm trying to make is that I'm frustrated that we can clearly show our long term commitment together but it's worth less than a couple who got married after, what? A couple of weeks together?
Marriage means a lot of things to a lot of people, the "traditional" idea of a wedding isn't something I'm bothered about but my OH would like one and I know our families would love it so we'd planned to do so someday, once we'd done other things first.

Saying to everyone oh we're signing this contract cos one of us might die tomorrow so we won't invite you - but we'll renew vows or something in the future and you can all come to that sounds just rather mercenary, hardly romantic (and I'm not a romantic person!) and not exactly what we thought of. We can't afford a get together right now like we would have liked but clearly we're going to have to look at this and go bloody get married asap. We have a child, we have to ensure we have the best possible set up for them and for the remaining person.
Honest question for those who have been rather dismissive - can you understand why I'm annoyed? I can choose not to be married but if one of us dies clearly this will have a negative impact on what happens next. Or yes we can get married but it's just not going to be in a way or time of our choosing because it's a necessity not a luxury.

I'm also annoyed as said above that I/we have had paid for various financial advice over the years and this has never come up. We are the named beneficiaries for work placed payouts, have life insurance, wills etc etc.
And again, I appreciate this is a contract like anything else - in a lot of things you can have a gentleman's agreement but if you don't have something signed then good luck when crunch time comes. But - we have signed a lot of things together, a shit ton of things and it's annoying /disappointing to hear that doesn't matter.

Excuse me, I have to go look up cheap bloody weddings now.

I don't exactly see that I've been avoiding a legal commitment.

You haven't married. That's not a judgement, it's just a fact. You have the option to make the legal commitment of marriage, you choose not to. The law will not bind you to a contract you did not enter.

Look the point I'm trying to make is that I'm frustrated that we can clearly show our long term commitment together but it's worth less than a couple who got married after, what? A couple of weeks together?

Yes. They chose to legalise their relationship. You haven't. You don't enter contracts by stealth. You enter them when you choose to enter them. And the law will not bind you to them until you choose to enter them.

Saying to everyone oh we're signing this contract cos one of us might die tomorrow so we won't invite you - but we'll renew vows or something in the future and you can all come to that sounds just rather mercenary, hardly romantic (and I'm not a romantic person!) and not exactly what we thought of.

Marriage is not romantic. It is not, nor has ever been, a contract of love. The idea that it is is an extremely recent concept. And wrong.

You can reject marriage if you think it 'sounds mercenary', but don't expect the law to change on that basis.

I'm also annoyed as said above that I/we have had paid for various financial advice over the years and this has never come up.

I'm surprised. Or did you make it clear from the start that you weren't interested so they didn't want to make it sound as though they were pressuring you? On this thread, as with every thread on this topic, there are posters who, when they hear the facts about marriage, accuse people of being 'smug' or 'trying to force people to marry' and all sorts of other assorted bollocks.

Excuse me, I have to go look up cheap bloody weddings now.

I think one poster did it for under £200. It's not expensive. Congratulations! Make the day whatever you want. Wear jeans. Go for Chinese afterwards.