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.

My husband and I got married in a registry office well over 35 years ago. It took about ten minutes. As it happens, we had a reception afterwards, but we could perfectly easily not have done. Box ticked, move on.

As for whoever said their friend said marriage doesn't guarantee that you inherit from your spouse, it's not as simple as that. In Scotland you can't disinherit your spouse or children (I think - I'm not a lawyer) and in England there is some sort of legal protection at the discretion of a court. If you weren't married it's far easier to be disinherited.

So lets change the name and language in the contract from 'marriage' to a partnership, and job done. Everyone happy.

For the people opposed to marriage on principle, can I ask why?

I know that there is a lot of sexist baggage associated with marriage which is hard to get rid of. I don’t really want my father to walk me down the aisle but I will probably let him do it to avoid hurting his feelings, and I am struggling with the issue of whether to change my name or not.

But if you grab two witnesses off the street, go to the registry office in your jeans, get married without the white dress and the veil and the being “given away” nonsense, and you don’t change your name, what’s the problem with it?

Genuinely interested.

The actual solution is to separate the contract from the marriage. Everyone then signs a partnership contract and the 'marriage' becomes an optional ceremony people decide about for themselves. What do you think people who aren't happy with "just" a registry office ceremony and don't want to get married in church do?

When I met my now DH I had a house in my name. He then bought a house solely in his name which we moved into and rented our old house out. When we sold our old house and my parents' house, I suddenly had a lot of money and wanted legal protection so we got married after 14 years together (just us and 2 witnesses - we took our own but it is possible to grab strangers off the street or council staff who work near the registry office if you want to keep it secret). 'My' money went into premium bonds in both our names and into DH's bank account which offsets the mortgage (in his name) but I know I'm protected through marriage and will also be entitled to his pension if anything happens to him.

We'd never wanted a wedding and still had a nice celebratory day with our 2 witnesses, but to be honest we'd have been happy just filling in forms with no kind of ceremony.

I know a couple who went to the registry office in jeans in their lunch break, went for a drink with their witnesses, then back to work - it doesn't need to be a 'wedding'. But my friend and her child are just as legally protected as those who had an expensive white wedding.

In Scotland you can't disinherit your spouse or children

It’s called Legal Rights iirc. There are ways of getting round it, if you really want to, but it is, as you say, to prevent children / spouses being disinherited I think.

Yanbu. As a pp said I think people forget that marriage is a legal partnership not an excuse for a big day out. I am in Ireland and a single woman is recognised as the legal guardian of her children. I am sick of seeing people moaning on Irish sites about how the laws here are so backwards when it comes to co habitation and about father's rights when a couple aren't married. If the father wants rights he can apply to the courts or he can go with the mother and get a guardianship order (I think it's called). Every year coming into the summer someone will be bleating about issues with passports etc because they aren't married to the child's dad but they assume the father has equal parental rights. How is a court supposed to legally recognize the father of a child unless they are applied to I don't know, it doesn't make sense. Either get married or read up on legalities when you have children. It is staggering too how many people bandy about the term common law wife too, it's nonsense.

@lunadute.
But its not just inheritance tax, its widows allowance andacvess to pensions and child support

Though there's a discussion to be had about whether CP should be introduced for straight couples, it's actually not a factor of particular importance in the context of situations like those described in the OP.

The bigger problem is people being placed in vulnerable positions because they don't know. Someone who thinks they're a common law spouse or that marriage is just a piece of paper is by definition ignorant of the law. This means they're less likely to have put in place any provisions to protect themselves. Why would they, when they're common law and have rights because of that? If you don't need the state to recognise your love, you're not going to be interested in a CP from the same state that would be recognising your marriage. If you never got round to paying someone to write you a will because you knew your unmarried partner would get everything anyway, availability of CP won't change that. It won't make people less ignorant.

Whereas people who object to marriage on principle and would prefer a CP are, in my experience anyway, more likely to have some idea what it means legally. They're more likely to have put in place some provisions to protect themselves and/or to make decisions based on the legal and financial realities of the situation. So they are not the ones who primarily suffer because of being in relationships without being married.

Good point Paul.

Why should I get married if I don’t want to?

There are people who would like legal protections but dont want a marriage. A lot of posters just keep repeating, go get married. But you are missing the point that marriage is so toxic unwanted that many people would rather risk having no legal protections than get married.

So the solution is either (as many people seem to prefer), tough get married or get nothing. Or if you actually want to protect these couples give them the ability to have a legally protected partnership.

For the people opposed to marriage on principle, can I ask why?

Happy to oblige🙂
I never wanted to be married,never wistfully imagined dress,groom etc
It’s patriarchal
I don’t like the social expectations and roles bound up in marriage eg good wife, family monies etc
Wouldn’t want to be a wife or change surname (i know it’s not mandatory)
I grew up in a faith were it was v much expected to get married and marriage was the manifestation of serious relationship. And I’m afraid I never really bought in to it

Yes and no. You can put in place arrangements to protect your unmarried partner if you die, but you can just as easily change those arrangements if you decide you want out of the relationship. Wills can be revoked. Joint tenancies can be severed.

And some things you will just never get - like a widow’s pension. (Most employers will allow you to nominate an unmarried partner for the death in service benefit these days, but that will be up to your employer too I think.)

People that want civil partnerships for heterosexual couples. What public services do you think should be cut to pay for something that already exists to be replicated with a different name for some special snowflakes?

Thanks for the answer, Lipstick.

But why shouldn’t your marriage be what you make it?

The things you describe are social trappings and traditions, but they are optional. You can reject all that shit without rejecting the legal protection.

@BertrandRussell why should the law assume I am married unless I've shown I want to be?

Do you object to the fact that a person making a will has to have their signature witnessed by two non-beneficiaries?
No, because making a will doesn't carry the same cultural baggage as getting married. If one of my will witnesses let slip to someone else what I'd done, they wouldn't ask me 'Why didn't you invite me?'/'Why didn't you do it properly?' etc etc. That's the kind of scenario DP and I don't want to get into re marriage.

Why should I get married if I don’t want to?
This is basically what it comes down to.

I agreen heterosexual couples should be able to get a civil partnership but why would that be any different to getting married?

Clearly there are historic patriarchal associationd but they don't have to come with a marriage.

If people cohabiting were to get the same rights as married couple when does this apply?!

You could meet someone and 3 months later decide that they were "The One" and then:
A) marry them and then you would instantly have all all the legal protection
B) not marry them and have to live with the consequences of not having the legal protection

If the dreamland some people want to live in how long would you have to be together to get legal protection? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 30years? What if something happened just short of the deadline?

It would also be unfair on people to just lump them with the extra responsibilities without them choosing to do so. "Dear Bob, you've been with Jane for 5 years now so all your assets are jointly owned. Good luck." what if Bob and Jane weren't sure they wanted that commitment, what if they were in a rocky patch and were about to break up?

Oh and when the hell do you count from?? With marriages there is a very clear date, when you are dating its usually more of a gradual thing.

Do you actually have to be living together? What about people who can't do that for a very valid reason? What about long term relationships?

The only way you should get the legal protections and responsibilities is but consenting to it and signing the damn piece of paper.

And I say all of this as someone who is currently 8w+5d pregnant by her boyfriend of 3months! (Yes I know it's ridiculous, no I don't plan to stop working and will be saving like mad and making a will because I am in a more precarious position than I'd like.)

I always thought that if the surviving partner could still pay the mortgage, they would still be able to remain in their home - would this not apply if not married?

That would depend on the terms of the mortgage - and the land registry deeds. But the property does not by default become the other mortgagees property. There are strict laws of inheritance and the deceased's 50% would go (in order ) to spouse, children, parents, siblings, grand parents, aunts/uncles, nephews/nieces, cousins. Live-in partners do not count I'm afraid. Not unless there is a will.