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:
PaulDacreRimsGeese · 14/04/2018 14:25

CP comes with historical homophobic associations helpmum, which it would appear some people find acceptable in a way they don't with patriarchy.

Other than that, you can get a divorce because of adultery but you can't dissolve a CP on those grounds. I guess there are probably some opposite sex couples who want CP for that reason, but I suspect it's not the rationale for the majority who'd prefer it to marriage.

FusRoDah · 14/04/2018 14:25

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

I don't like the word 'wife' with all its connotations, and don't want it applied to me in law. I see my relationship as a partnership and so would happily be a civil partner if that option were open to us. I'm lucky though, I have a career and independent assets/finances so I can afford to hold this principle.

missedith01 · 14/04/2018 14:25

YABU. I do not wish to get married to my partner of 27 years and never will. If there was just marriage or nothing then that would be that ... I would feel it was not fair and a bit idiotic and I would take a financial hit but that's my choice. But there isn't only marriage. There's civil partnership as well, only that's not available to me because I'm not the same sex as my partner. That's blatantly discriminatory.

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 14:25

Wonko

You’d have a long lead in time with enough people putting pressure on the government and MPs to change the law. You’d need a consultation and lots of civil servants working out the policy and it’s legal implications. It might be something parliament would choose to put to a referendum (although that is fairly unlikely). Then you’d need it to be debated in parliament. Someone would need to introduce a bill which would go through several readings and probably be amended many times. Each time you’d have a team of government lawyers spending all their time working on the draft legislation. Then it would go up to the House of Lords. It might then go back down to the Commons. Eventually it would need the Queen to give royal assent. It would also need consequential amendments to be made to a whole raft of existing legislation. Then you’d need the actual mechanics of it to be put in place, which would mean every registry office in the country updating their processes.

So yes, the cost would be quite high.

And to be honest, for the next decade or so a significant chunk of parliamentary and civil service time is going to be devoted to Brexit. So I can’t see such a niche piece of legislation to change things very slightly for a very small special interest group who are not actually being discriminated against (in the sense that they can get married any time they choose) being a priority in the short or even medium term.

DioneTheDiabolist · 14/04/2018 14:26

YANBU OP. If I want to enter into a legally recognised arrangement with my DP I will make the choice to do so by getting married to him.

happytobemrsg · 14/04/2018 14:27

I completely agree OP. We wanted a baby but I felt strongly about being married first. This put our TTC timetable back 2.5 years (we also wanted to save for a house). If time didnt allow us to wait that long we would have had a cheaper wedding

BertrandRussell · 14/04/2018 14:28

“But it isn't and that's that. Want the protections and benefits? Sign the contract”

Why? What difference does it make to you whether I am married or not?

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 14/04/2018 14:29

Schnitzel makes an important point. People often frame automatically extending the provisions of marriage to cohabitants as giving them rights. Which sometimes it is, but it's also taking them away. It's basically saying any couples who want to live together but want to keep finances and assets as separate as possible in the event of divorce or death are shit out of luck. That's not a small thing.

And let's be under no illusions, it would have to be automatic if we wanted to help people like those mentioned in the OP.

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 14:29

Bertrand it makes no difference to any of us. It only makes a difference to you and your spouse in terms of the legal protection you have.

Original poster
Sofabitch · 14/04/2018 14:30

Maybe divorce needs to carry less stigma. So what if people decide they dont want to be together. As long as there are offical legal dates when the coupling was offical and the protections were therefore in place during that time. Then surely high divorce rates are better than complex systems of deciding when relationships started/ended.

OP posts:
SchnitzelVonKrumm · 14/04/2018 14:32

It makes no difference to me whether you are married or not, Bertrand. But since you are not it is reasonable to assume you do not want the rights and benefits associated with marriage.

DoctorWhatTheFuck · 14/04/2018 14:32

LunaDoot

Unmarried and ‘poor’ - then you could do with widows allowance, which you won’t get.

Xenia · 14/04/2018 14:34

I don't want us to change the law to give live in lovers marriage rights. I want my children to get 100% of what I have, not a penny to a boyfriend. In fact I'm not even sure I would ever move another man in now as I don't want any claims or risks on that score.

I would however support totally abolishing civil partnerships or else allowing for all couples.

amicissimma · 14/04/2018 14:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LipstickHandbagCoffee · 14/04/2018 14:35

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

We are social animals,and we have conscious and unconscious expectations regard marriage and that’s a social structure. One can individually enact own preferences but theres still other pressure/expectations from others, the social baggage

Because being married isn’t a solitary act,it impacts other people. Unless of course you genuinely told no one

LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 14:36

So don’t tell anyone. Smile

VladmirsPoutine · 14/04/2018 14:38

@LoveInTokyo Ever the voice of reason. One of my DM's friends had children with a very wealthy man. They had a spiritual ceremony... whatever that is. She gave up her career to look after the children; lived in the best houses, took the best holidays and when he eventually fucked off with one of his underlings she basically ended up with zilch.

The children were then either sitting A-levels or 1st/2nd year at Uni and she ended up at 50years old with a 20 year gap on her CV and nothing to call her own other than a few handbags and shoes.

Underling went on to have 2 more children with this bloke and essentially enjoy the high life.

DM's friend suffered a MH breakdown and has never been the same woman again.

wonderstuff · 14/04/2018 14:39

It surprises me how many people don't understand the legal implications of marriage, and also the number of people who don't understand what is involved in divorce.

Too many people are hung up on the dress and the romance. Financial understanding generally is very poor I think and economics and finances should be a compulsory subject on the national curriculum.

Mumoftwoyoungkids · 14/04/2018 14:41

Tom We live in a capitalist society. It would be very easy for you to find a couple of witnesses if you wanted to.

  1. Ask the registry office if they provide them. (And say you are happy to pay a fee.)
  2. Hire a couple of local solicitors for a couple of hours each. (Very expensive this one!)
  3. Go on a childcare website and offer to pay people babysitting rates to come and be your witnesses.
  4. Go to an employment agency and ask to hire two people for a morning.
  5. Go on mumsnet local and ask. (Although you may end up with a mob!)

The problem with saying that you want a civil partnership because marriage has such a bad history is that civil partnerships also have a bad history. They were part of gay people being treated as inferiors to heterosexuals and having to accept that as they had no other choice.

Pretty much everything has a bad history if you look into it.

I also think that as the vast majority of people who lose out from not being married in 2018 are women there is a depressing irony in that women are willing to accept being financially disadvantaged now because women hundreds of years ago were treated badly.

VladmirsPoutine · 14/04/2018 14:41

I'd even go so far as to encourage (young) women to always keep their foot in the door of their careers even if at times it means working for a net loss. The days of alimony are well and truly over and it seems spouses can have an almost overnight personality change.
Marriage or not, what I would encourage women to do is to always know and have the capacity to stand on their own two feet if it comes to it.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 14/04/2018 14:41

Its kinda of childish really. Its seems like some people are saying "you can have legal protection, but only if you define yourself by the same cultural structure that I do".

Why are married people so threatened by CP or a different way to protect couples right?

Original poster
Sofabitch · 14/04/2018 14:41

Thats actually a fair point...some people dont get married because they don't want the other person to have access to their finances.

Automatically overriding that could leave a lot of people fucked.

The terminology seems to upset a lot of people. But when you strip a marrige back to its essential it's just a financial convienice.

OP posts:
LoveInTokyo · 14/04/2018 14:41

Vladimir thank you Smile

wonderstuff

”Financial understanding generally is very poor I think and economics and finances should be a compulsory subject on the national curriculum.”

^^ THIS, with bells on. I would also add learning the basics about the legal and electoral system to that syllabus.

pigsDOfly · 14/04/2018 14:44

A couple I used to know lived together for 20 plus years in the flat that he owned - bought before they met - but never married. When he died the flat and almost everything in it went to his brother - there were no children.

Within a short space of time the brother told her he wanted to sell the flat and he wanted her out, which is what happened. They also didn't feel they needed that piece of paper. No will in her favour, so within a few months she'd lost both her DP and her home.

Don't think she had to stomach for a fight and doubt she had any rights anyway.

LipstickHandbagCoffee · 14/04/2018 14:47

Vladimirs are you really calling another woman underling?oh dear bit pejorative
Re the 20 year career gap your friend was v foolish to not work study and maintain a career . IMO woman should not give up work. And certainly not to faff about as the gf of a rich man

Swipe left for the next trending thread