AIBU benefits of marriage without marriage

[serbska]

Yes another persona complaining LIFE ISN'T FAIR because they can't access a benefit for married people, because they weren't married.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45348176/bereavement-allowance-widowed-mum-on-why-her-kids-are-penalised

If you want to be free and easy, stay as DPs. If you want the legal protection and benefits of married, get married. It costs a few quid down the registry office.

I personally hate that one form of relationship is considered superior to another and 'rewarded' like this.

@DarlingNikita it's not that it's superior, it's that it's legally recognised.
Anyone could claim to be someone's partner.

PrimalLass, when this discussion comes up, what do you want people to say? Tell you that you have the exact same rights in law as a married woman when that is simply not true?

Income benefits have to be dependent on income, for reasons that are obvious. Marriage benefits are about shared assets and mutual agreement. That's why the law will take your cohabiting partner's salary into account when assessing your household income for benefits. And it will consider whether you both chose to legalise your relationship when it's assessing your share and protections of his assets should he die or should you split up (obviously, I hope neither of those things happen but sadly we can't guarantee anything, which is why protections exist).

If you want your relationship to be recognised in law, you know what to do.

My personal thought process on this was that I knew that if we had kids, I would be the one to take the financial hit, for various reasons. I figured that if he loved me in the way I wanted to be loved, he would marry me because he would not object to this commitment and protection; indeed, he would not want it any other way. If he had been happy for me to make myself vulnerable without protecting me, it would not have been the relationship I wanted.

it's that it's legally recognised.

Well, exactly. The rights of married people are enshrined in laws. Which are created by people, not just something that just came into existence ex nihilo. Why can't we legislate for couples who want something other than marriage but want protections too? Of course, we can, in the form of civil partnerships, but they're only for gay couples (so far anyway, although I wait in hope).

I personally hate that one form of relationship is considered superior to another and 'rewarded' like this.

For the last time...it's not a certification of twoo wuv or a guarantee that the relationship will never fail, it's simply a legal commitment. You can imagine that to be 'superior' if you like, but that's not the legal consideration behind it. It's simply a case of 'did you two agree to share assets and legally commit to each other in this way?'

If you don't want to make the commitment then you don't have to, but you can't complain because other people did.

you can't complain because other people did.

I'm not complaining that other people did

See my previous post for a reply to the rest.

If it is discriminatory against the children as not their fault parents didn't marry, then it's the parents who should be thinking of the children and remedying that by marrying.

I may be a little thick so please bear with me. Can someone please explain to me why a straight couple oils be opposed to marriage but want a civil partnership? Wouldn’t a registry office marriage suffice? What’s the difference that people would be opposed to marriage? Thank you for those who can explain it to me.

@AdoreTheBeach they just want to be difficult.

We possibly will legislate for couples wanting marriage by another name. But meanwhile the larger group will remain people who want/believe they have those protections yet don't engage in either marriage/CP/sparkly unicorn. That's the bigger problem really. That wanting/assuming rights and doing nothing to investigate or obtain them aren't mutually exclusive.

Why can't we legislate for couples who want something other than marriage but want protections too?

If you want the protections of marriage, why do you not get married?

This is the logic loop of this debate that I can honestly never get my head around. How can you want to be married without being married?

Why can't we legislate for couples who want something other than marriage but want protections too? Of course, we can, in the form of civil partnerships, but they're only for gay couples (so far anyway, although I wait in hope).

What do you consider to be the benefit of a CP over civil marriage?

Adultery can't be used as grounds for dissolution of the partnership, but that's because CP were born of a homophobic attitude to refusing to grant gay couples full marriage equality - and because British law only recognises sex with someone of the opposite sex (and not someone of the same sex) to be classed as infidelity (in both marriage and CP)

What's the material difference that CP offers?

Marriage had historical patriarchal baggage - but is now available to same sex couples

CP has very recent homophobic baggage

We come back again to the 'branding' issue. Is it simply the word 'marriage' that's the issue? Because I'm missing what the substantive benefit of a CP contract vs a civil marriage contract is, other than the name

We come back again to the 'branding' issue. Is it simply the word 'marriage' that's the issue?

Could be. There is an otherwise intelligent poster on here somewhere who refuses to marry despite her vulnerability because she doesn't like the word 'wife'.

Re: the branding issue, refer back to an earlier question I posed:

"If marriage was renamed would that solve the problem? Same thing, just change the name to 'legal togetherness' or 'sparkly unicorn union' or whatever. Would that do the trick?"

The response from walking was that

With a few other tweaks yes, we just dont want to be part of what is called 'marriage'. Partnerships, sparkly unicorns, legal togetherness etc are all fine

So when we go round the logic loop about wanting marriage benefits without having to be married, is it literally just the naming of the contract being called a marriage contract? So sparkly unicorn union = OK, but marriage = not.

I can't really think of any good reason for completely replicating an existing law, but 'I don't like the name' must be up there with the most ridiculous.

Fuck, it's not as if it's called 'Women Are Stupid and Ugly and Your Father Smelled Of Elderberries'.

@AynRandTheObjectivist 😂 I know, it's so ridiculous. In peoples bid to be unconventional they are just coming across as ridiculous and childish.

Thanks @bananafish81. That’s a great summary. Also confirms what @kaytee87 means.

PrimalLass, when this discussion comes up, what do you want people to say? Tell you that you have the exact same rights in law as a married woman when that is simply not true?

Nope. I'm not looking for the same rights. I'm just not stupid so would rather not be called that, or an idiot. But, as I've said over and over, it sticks in my craw that we are now penalised one way by being a household and penalised another for not being a good enough household. I am perfectly entitled to be annoyed by that, y'know.

I've had too much gin now to read any more essays on why I am unreasonable for not being more sensible 15 years ago.

But, as I've said over and over, it sticks in my craw that we are now penalised one way by being a household and penalised another for not being a good enough household. I am perfectly entitled to be annoyed by that, y'know.

Of course you're entitled to be annoyed by anything. But it's like I said...income benefits are about your overall household income, so yes, it's relevant if your partner lives with you, because if he's bringing in money then you don't need as much from the public purse. Marriage is a private legal contract between two people about asset sharing so yes, it's going to be treated differently.

Ah well if we're going to mention the public purse unmarried couples will have contributed just as much,maybe more in some circumstances so have just as much right to access a benefit.

And getting back to the op I think there are very few reasonable people who would agree with it. Spells it out here.

www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/30/denying-unmarried-mother-widows-allowance-ruled-illegal

In terms of income support benefits, it's not about how much you have contributed, nor about whether you are married or unmarried. It's about your household income. It's a 'how many adults are in your house bringing in a salary, and what's the combined total?' thing.

So. Clearly you care about the public purse.This benefit is about providing support for children by parents who have paid the same NI regardless of whether they were married or not. As such their children should have the benefit regardless of whether they are married or not. Cohabiting couples are the biggest growing group,collectively they may well end up eventually contributing more NI.

And as I have said three times in this discussion already, I think this case shows that there is a case for reviewing the child-related benefits. PaulDacreRimsGeese made a brilliant point about it that really got me thinking.

I don't, however, think that this should extend to making it impossible for people to cohabit for as long as they like without marrying, or introducing legal contracts by stealth.

I care aout protections, freedoms and rights. The problem is that they all overlap with each other. Your 'right' to get marriage benefits without being married contradicts PPs' rights to cohabit without marrying, as several of them wish to do with good reason.

This is why laws need a lot of discussion. It gets complicated, you see. So when it comes to the question of 'did both people consent to commit to each other legally?', it is far better, in my opinion, simply to look at whether or not they did.

If you want the protections of marriage, why do you not get married?

Because marriage is more than a legal arrangement, it is primarily a social institution.

It would have convenient for me to get married a few years back for visa reasons but I didn't do it because I wasn't ready to solemnly make the vows which I take seriously.

Similarly, "sign here so that I can get half of the assets if we split up" is different to "till death us do part".

That is why we need civil partnerships. I think the Government's position that same sex civil partnerships would undermine marriage is wrong. Forcing people into making promises they don't mean for the legal benefits, undermines it.

There is this new fangled (not) thing called divorce, so the till death do us part thing is no longer binding.