Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Aibu to think if you want the legal protection of marriage then get married

947 replies

Sofabitch · 14/04/2018 12:19

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.

OP posts:
Firesuit · 14/04/2018 13:36

I heard this item. In a logical and consistent means-tested system, the benefits you are entitled to should be based on your current circumstances. Who you lived with in the past and whether or not you were married to them should be irrelevant. So the benefit in question should not only not be extended to unmarried people, it should be abolished for married ones.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:37

I want the legal protection of a contract, I do not want a 'marriage'. Its pretty simple its called a civil partnership and there is no reason why straight people shouldn't be allowed this.

I personally have no objection to it. You should be aware that the sexual nature of your relationship would not be recognised. This means you could not dissolve it on the grounds of adultery (it would not be legally possible to commit it) or on the grounds of undisclosed STIs, and that your partner would not be automatically assumed in law to be the father of your kids.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't have it, but it explains why gay rights activists pushed for marriage.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 13:39

Yea, Mightymucks what are these responsibilities civil partners dont want?

Coveredinbeeeeeeeeeeeees · 14/04/2018 13:40

I used to sit next to a woman at work who got narky with me when I said straight couples shouldn't be allowed civil partnerships, they should just get married, and she went on a long rant about her and her partner not wanting to get married and why can't they have a civil partnership if gay people can and I just wanted to say to her "just bloody get married then!" Are these people trying to be unique by deliberately not getting married? Is it because it's a popular thing to do? It doesn't have to be all fancy dress and £20k budget, just grab a couple of witnesses and go to the registry office. There's your piece of paper and your legal protection, and carry on being miss maiden-name, seriously no one cares and they wouldn't even have to tell anyone they did it.

KanielOutis · 14/04/2018 13:40

I thank my lucky stars that I was married when I divorced. Marriage saw that I was protected for the time taken out of work to raise children and had a fair share of property and assets. Had I not been married I would have been shafted.

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:41

what are these responsibilities civil partners dont want?

As I said before, the sexual element. Knowing it can be dissolved if you shag someone else.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to do it. It's just something people should be aware of when making their decision.

It's odd because civil partnerships were initially brought in as a kind of halfway house to give gay people some way of committing without upsetting homophobic right wingers. In other words, it was INTENDED to be a lesser institution than marriage.

DanceDisaster · 14/04/2018 13:41

I also don’t get why opposite sexy couples can’t have a civil partnership if that’s what they want.

DanceDisaster · 14/04/2018 13:41

Opposite sex*!

PoorYorick · 14/04/2018 13:42

Because civil partnerships were invented to try to keep gay couples in their place.

WalkingFred · 14/04/2018 13:42

Could someome please explain exactly what protection marriage gives you?
totally clueless
A friemd said to me that any protection could essentially be "willed away" upon death of 1 spouse.

Speedy85 · 14/04/2018 13:43

I want the legal protection of a contract, I do not want a 'marriage'. Its pretty simple its called a civil partnership and there is no reason why straight people shouldn't be allowed this.
What reason is there to deny people this protection?

To be fair to the Government, it's because they are thinking of scraping civil partnerships altogether now that gay people can get married. They are doing various consultations before making a decision.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 13:43

You should be aware that the sexual nature of your relationship would not be recognised That is one of the reasons why 'marriage' is not always wanted because it shouldn't be any business of the government what the nature of anyone's sexual relationships are.
'Divorce' shouldn't have anything to do with adultery, that's quite a medieval concept. As for who is the father of my children, well that should be decided on the facts of who is the father of my kids, not who I am married to.

Speedy85 · 14/04/2018 13:45

Could someome please explain exactly what protection marriage gives you?

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

expatinscotland · 14/04/2018 13:45

YANBU

TomRavenscroft · 14/04/2018 13:45

Are these people trying to be unique by deliberately not getting married?... just grab a couple of witnesses and go to the registry office

As one of 'these people' I can tell you that no, DP and I are not trying to be 'unique' Hmm.

'just grab a couple of witnesses' Well, it isn't that easy. We wouldn't want anyone to know, so we'd have to find two people happy to do it and willing to keep schtum about it. I don't think asking people never to let something like that slip is very fair.

TomRavenscroft · 14/04/2018 13:46

That is one of the reasons why 'marriage' is not always wanted because it shouldn't be any business of the government what the nature of anyone's sexual relationships are.

Totally agree.

starzig · 14/04/2018 13:47

Seems a bit cynical to me to be encouraging marriage because it is financially beneficial. Marriages of convenience all round in order methinks

Caribou58 · 14/04/2018 13:47

To those saying 'there should be civil partnerships for straight people' - there are, it's called a register office marriage.

Civil partnerships only exist because Toby Blair was too afraid of the church lobbyists to simply bring in equal marriage.

Those who don't want the 'expense' of a big wedding can just go down the register office with a couple of pals and get married - takes about 10 minutes.

MrsMaxwell · 14/04/2018 13:48

My husband is in the forces and you cannot get a married quarter unless you are married (applies to same sex couples).

There is a lot of whining about this but they have to draw the line somewhere otherwise everyone could get a married quarter with their latest fling.

Down side of that is people get married in haste and repent at leisure hence the high divorce rate.

Legally though I agree there has to be a line.

expatinscotland · 14/04/2018 13:48

'To be fair to the Government, it's because they are thinking of scraping civil partnerships altogether now that gay people can get married. They are doing various consultations before making a decision.'

About time!

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 13:50

Why cant you just go to a registry office and sign a contract between 2 people to give each other rights. No poster has yet explained why this has to be a 'marriage'.

NewYearNewMe18 · 14/04/2018 13:50

Could someome please explain exactly what protection marriage gives you?

google is your friend

[[https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/}}

BonnieF · 14/04/2018 13:51

coveredinbeees

The issue is discrimination, obviously. The law currently discriminates against mixed sex couples. This is what has to change.

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 13:52

Marriage is supposed to protect you if your spouse dies or divorces you.

If you die, presumably you would want your surviving partner to be financially protected. Even if you leave them everything in your will and nothing goes wrong, you’re still depriving them of any money that goes on inheritance tax as well as any widow’s pension or death in service benefit they might have been entitled to if you were married. They lose out, and you gain nothing (because you’re dead).

If the relationship ends, the situation is different. You don’t necessarily want your partner to be financially protected, because a court decides how your assets are split. If you are the higher earner or you have investments or the family home is in your name, you will lose out financially in the event of a divorce. But if you weren’t married, you’re pretty much free to walk away from a relationship with all your individual wealth intact and your ex partner will have to fend for themselves.

That’s why I take the view that if one person wants to get married and the other doesn’t, the one who doesn’t is shirking their responsibilities by prioritising their own freedom to walk away from the relationship over their partner’s financial stability.

Swipe left for the next trending thread