Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU benefits of marriage without marriage

369 replies

serbska · 30/08/2018 09:41

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.

OP posts:
AynRandTheObjectivist · 31/08/2018 21:02

Forcing people into making promises they don't mean for the legal benefits, undermines it.

You are not being forced to get married. You are presented with a choice. I hope that choice is never taken from you.

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

In the eyes of the law, which is where it really matters, it's a legal arrangement. I won't deny that there's social pressure to do it, but ultimately, if you're widowed or divorced, that social pressure won't make any difference to your level of protection.

AynRandTheObjectivist · 31/08/2018 21:03

You don't have to make the traditional marriage vows. Do people still think you do?

Bluelady · 31/08/2018 21:16

They do seem to. You're asked to say two things in a civil ceremony - that's no legal reason why you can't be married and that you consent to be married. Nothing about together until death, fidelity or anything else.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 31/08/2018 21:20

The claim that marriage is primarily a social institution, more so a legal one is massively debatable. The reality is that the social stuff is all a matter of opinion and personal taste, but the legalities aren't and they're the one constant. Marriage doesn't necessarily change a person's social position, though I accept it will sometimes. It always changes their legal position.

Additionally, the idea that straight CP would be some kind of remedy to this is rather strange. You think marriage is a social institution but CP isn't?

kaytee87 · 31/08/2018 21:25

For info

n England and Wales the statutory declaration is:
“I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, _may not be joined in matrimony to .”

It is followed by these contracting words:
“I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, do take thee, , to be my lawful wedded husband/wife.”

There are also two legal alternative declarations:
“I know of no legal reason why I, , may not be joined in marriage to .”
Or by replying “I am” to the question: “Are you, free lawfully to marry?”

These are followed by the contract:
“I, , take you, to be my wedded wife/husband.”
Or
“I, take thee, to be my wedded wife/husband.”

In Scotland the couple say:
“I solemnly declare that I know of no legal impediment why I, , may not be joined in matrimony to. I accept.”

In Northern Ireland the statutory declaration is:
“I know of no lawful impediment why I, , may not be joined in matrimony to, , to be my lawful wedded husband/wife.”

kaytee87 · 31/08/2018 21:26

Forcing people into making promises they don't mean for the legal benefits, undermines it

What promises?

zsazsajuju · 31/08/2018 21:29

Its "widowed parents" allowance. Its supposed to be for the children and therefore it should not matter if the parents are married or not. It is absolutely unfair and completely disgraceful to discriminate against children on the basis of their parents being married or not. The supreme court was entirely right.

I cant believe anyone would really be so nasty as to quibble that a benefit should not be paid to bereaved children because their parents were not married. but apparently there are.

Winebottle · 31/08/2018 21:29

But to me marriage is the vows. It is a commitment to another person.

Of course marriage means different things to different people. For some it is more religious and to others it is just a legal contract but I don't think it is right to say it is a civil partnership by another name.

Marriage long predates any of the family law we have now. It predates the state altogether. It as been fundamental to how society has organised itself for millennia.

PrimalLass · 31/08/2018 21:34

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.

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing with you.

This is why laws need a lot of discussion. It gets complicated, you see.

Insightful.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 31/08/2018 21:40

Marriage predates any of the family law we have now. But there have been laws governing marriage for thousands of years. It's in the Hammurabi Code! Not, of course, that this would negate the point that the only thing marriage definitely does is change your legal position, and the rest is simply what some people think.

As for marriage being CP by another name, I wouldn't say that, because the two institutions differ legally. But the idea that one is primarily social but the other isn't, which is what seems to be implied here, won't really wash. As with marriage, the only aspect of CP which is definite and doesn't require the qualifiers 'to me' and 'I think' is the legal one.

zsazsajuju · 31/08/2018 21:46

We did used to have a horrible legal prejudice against children who were illegitimate. It predates our current improved level of tolerance and system of family law. Luckily this is pretty much gone and thanks to the supreme court has been further pulled down.

What a nasty op! noone chooses whether their parents are married or not. how horrible to be so mean to bereaved children.

Winebottle · 31/08/2018 21:47

kaytee87 "I take you to be husband" is a promise. Implicit in that is fidelity etc. That is commonly understood and has been since marriage was invented. Parliament didn't legislate marriage into existence.

Bluelady · 31/08/2018 21:50

There's nothing implicit in it at all. It is what it is. I imagine people in open marriages consider their union to be as valid as anyone else's. They're certainly entirely legal.

kaytee87 · 31/08/2018 21:51

@Winebottle but you are taking him to be your husband Confused it doesn't mean you can't dissolve the contract by divorce.

kaytee87 · 31/08/2018 21:53

Yep and no one is arrested for infidelity.

BlueBug45 · 31/08/2018 22:10

@Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar clearly you don't know and/or have talked people who have been through a divorce, particularly ones where the other partner doesn't consent so drags it out for 5 years then plays games with the divorce paperwork to drag it out for up to another couple of years.

@zsazsajuju loads of people are mean to bereaved children and young people. You only find that out when you are put in that situation.

Winebottle · 31/08/2018 22:12

If the Civil Partnerships Act was abolished, there wouldn't be CPs. If Parliament passed an act saying marriage does not exist, it would still exist socially and it would still exist religiously.

Some religious people believe that God's law is the only thing that doesn't require justification. Some Muslims don't get their marriage recognised under English law because they don't believe they need to. Every country has come up with their own idea of what they think marriage is but God decides it for them.

English law defines what marriage is but other laws, past and present define it too, as does religious teaching and customs. Yours is just one perspective.

postcardsfrom · 31/08/2018 22:16

Good for her and her three young kids who have to now navigate life without their father in their lives.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 31/08/2018 22:17

What you're basically saying is that if the legal aspect of marriage ceased to exist, only the others would be left. That's true, but has nothing to do with whether marriage is primarily legal or social now.

MissEliza · 31/08/2018 22:19

Fgs this ruling is to benefit the children, not the widow. They don't get a choice so why should they miss out?

AynRandTheObjectivist · 31/08/2018 22:24

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing with you.

Plenty of posters have been asking why they can't get their 'rights' without being married. There has also been plenty of conflation of this particular benefit with all the marriage protections. And a lot of talk about being 'forced' to get married. You're not forced to get married. That's the entire point. And of course batshit insanity about how I got married to spite a bunch of people I don't know and legalising my relationship is equivalent to throwing burning crosses into black people's gardens, but this is Mumsnet and the loony brigade is never far away.

It does, indeed, get complicated. The complexity is why the law needs clear boundaries where possible. In the case of whether or not two people wish to be legally committed to each other, it can actually be very simple. That's basically why the Marriages Act was enacted in the first place. With 'common law' spouses all over the place, it was becoming impossible to regulate.

Insightful.

No, just sarcastic.

MinecraftHolmes · 31/08/2018 22:25

the rights of married people are enshrined in laws. Whiiiiich they opt into. You can't force a contract on someone. I chose to marry my DH because we wanted our relationship to have legal recognition (I haven't a romantic bone in my body - it was a civil ceremony with no fuss and immediate family who we had to invite or else have them go in a huff). I chose not to marry my ex, who I lived with for a few years, because I didn't want to be tied to him in that way. If sharing a bed with someone becomes all it takes for the rights of marriage to be inferred to a couple (because why not make that the cut off, it's no different to saying "after 3 days/weeks/months/years") life would get very messy very quickly.

bananafish81 · 31/08/2018 22:58

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.

What within the CP provision makes it different to marriages?

What promised are made in civil marriage that aren't made in CP?

Both are mutually agreed legal partnerships entered into freely and willingly

Both are legal commitment to the other person

There's nothing about love in either a CP or civil marriage ceremony. Which is precisely the whole point - that marriage isn't a signifier of a couple's love or emotional bond. It's simply a change of recognition in the eyes of the law

A wedding is entirely different to a marriage.

The CP certificate includes the names of both parents (as the change to the law hasn't yet been passed in parliament to change the format for marriage certificates to do so)

STIs and adultery aren't grounds for dissolution of a CP because of homophobic baggage in the law

But materially, apart from the name, there is no meaningful difference between CP and civil marriage

What promises would straight CP enable you to avoid that you object to in civil marriage?

Or is this yet another sparkly unicorn union branding issue with the name 'marriage'?

Smellbellina · 31/08/2018 23:19

I feel I should clarify from my earlier post that I have already split from my DC's dad, CMS will still deal with CM if required (they weren't), we still share an asset legally (as that was how it was set up) we still have life insurance on each other (tied in with shared asset) and have nominated the people we wish to recieve death in service payments from our employers (I haven't nominated him but I could if I wished), I suppose it might have impacted on pensions if we were nearer that age.
What else is there? I'm genuinely interested as tbh I was just pleased we didn't have the added stress of a divorce to get through plus pounds wasted on wedding and said divorce.

manicmij · 01/09/2018 00:32

This particular "win could or could not change things. The case in the High Court has been found in her favour. However the Court has no authority over the Government to change the current system. Result will be considered by Parliament. If not accepted the case could then be taken to Brussels as a Human Rights issue. So watch this space kind of thing. My view of the case is if you want the same as married folk then get married. There are far to many exceptions being made to accommodate every fanciful idea. Some will spend as much time and money on a civil ceremony as they do on a marriage but are not prepared to accept the rules.