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 completely agree, but I don't think this particular benefit falls into that category. One can't reasonably assume someone who had a partner and didn't marry them wasn't making an active choice. A person could have all kinds of sensible and well thought out reasons not to marry, even setting aside the I don't like the name I can't be expected to go to a registry office and find two witnesses brigade. But there seems no rationale at all to assume a dead person chose not to marry their partner in order for them not to get bereavement benefits.”

The only thing we know for certain is that this man chose not to marry this woman in his lifetime. This could have been for a myriad of reasons - the woman has proffered the supposed reason of him refusing marriage out of respect for his ex-wife, and this may or may not have been the case. We don’t know because he is not here to speak for himself. There is no reason to assume he was not intelligent and thoughtful enough to weigh up all the pros and cons of marriage, the legalities of such a contract and the financial implications of it both in his lifetime and upon his death. On balance, he decided not to enter into a marriage contract with the woman, for whatever reason that may have been. I feel it is very wrong to presume he would’ve wanted something different and to cherry pick aspects of the law to that effect.

This is such a ridiculous argument, the idea you can only be a family if you a marriage certificate is out dated, the court has agreed that stipulating marriage as a prerequisite for this benefit in this day and age.
Marriage is unnecessary in this day and age.

“Necessary” isn’t the sole reasoning behind marriage. Or lots of things, really.

Very spartan outlook, to only do what’s deemed necessary.

@mydogisthebest

*No children should not have to suffer but if that suffering is due to the fact that their parents couldn't be bothered to get married then any suffering could have been avoided.

If the numbers are true I don't personally think 47% of children born to unmarried couples is anything for a country to be proud of.*

It can also be avoided by people recognising that marriage is not the only way to determine if people are committed to one another.

Marriage is unnecessary in this day and age.

no - its still valid to link people legally, so people dont drift in to legal agreements without knowing or intent

FWIW, I don’t think for a second that you can’t be a family without marriage?! Absolutely it is true that families come in all shapes and sizes. Marrige is a legal contract with certain financial implications that some people would like and others would not like. I also think we should accept people’s chosen legal status upon death, whatever that may be, that is all.

Well the court have decided that a legal contract of marriage isn't necessary to ha e access to this benefit so...
And valid isn't the same as necessary.

so you're basing that Marriage isnt necessary based on one outcome of one court case on one benefit?

Yay - go you

There's a range of issues / questions being conflated into one discussion

1. This particular bereavement benefit, which is for the benefit of the children of the deceased, and making this conditional upon the marital status of their parents. The decision to marry or not is between the two parents, and any ramifications of their decision should impact directly on them, not their children, IMO

Then we come to the other rights and responsibilities of marriage - which may or may not be perceived as benefits to an individual, depending on their own situation

There seem to be two issues being conflated

1. The branding issue

Those who wish to formalise their relationship in the eyes of the law, and sign a legal contract that would afford the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage, but which is called something different - so not-marriage marriage. Whether this be civil partnership, legal togetherness or sparkly unicorn union, it's the desire for the ability to make a legal declaration of legal union between a couple, that isn't through the mechanism of what is termed 'marriage'.

1. The opt-out not opt-in issue

Those who believe that couples should be afforded common law marriage rights by virtue of long term cohabitation and the raising of children together, without having to legally opt into a formal legal contractual arrangement. This case is generally made in order to offer the rights and responsibilities of marriage to couples who either weren't aware that their decision not to opt-in to a legal contract left them without the rights and responsibilities afforded to those who did choose to opt in. Or those (usually women) who would like to opt into a legal arrangement, in order to access these rights and responsibilities that would offer them legal and financial protection, but whose partners refuse to do so, leaving them exposed. This then brings into play all the associated issues of taking away couple's rights to cohabit freely without opting into said contract, and having a contractual arrangement imposed on them by default.

The first directly affects the child, not the parent

The second set directly affects the couple (irrespective of whether they have children). Any children born of the relationship may be indirectly affected by the decisions made by their parents, but the legal and financial impact of this contractual arrangement is on their parents.

Caveat

I am not a lawyer, so happy to be corrected by anyone with greater legal knowledge!

All of the above is purely about legal and financial contractual rights and responsibilities. It has absolutely no bearing on a couple's romantic commitment or what constitutes a family.

Whether marriage is a necessity or not depends totally on what you want. It would be foolish in the extreme for anyone to allow this one legal decision to impact their views at this stage though, given that the law has not changed.

And the thing with that argument sailing is that its only valid when it's something the deceased could reasonably expect to be in his gift or not. Ie his estate, pension etc. This benefit has zero impact on his estate, his finances or anyone else he might have wanted to provide for. It's not like it would go to older children or his brother if not to Siobhan. Put bluntly, it shouldn't actually be his decision what the state does with the states money once he's dead. It's not like the state stepping in and presuming to distribute his assets.

That’s a really interesting point @PaulDacreRimsGreece and that’s probably why the judge came to this decision in this case. I’m not disagreeing with you or this outcome of this particular case, but I’m concerned about people claiming all the rights of marriage should be applied to cohabiting couples etc

I’m concerned about people claiming all the rights of marriage should be applied to cohabiting couples etc

Very few people actually say that though.

@LeroyJenkins

so you're basing that Marriage isnt necessary based on one outcome of one court case on one benefit?

Yes that's exactly what I said

Thanks sailinghappy. That concerns me too, I think it's a nuclear option that should only be considered if all else fails. Would want to see huge efforts at education before that's even raised. And actually loads of people say it primallass, just not on this particular thread.

I'd be interested smellbelina to hear your views on why marriage is unnecessary in this day and age. I find it entirely necessary to get a lot of the things I want.

@Smellbellina could you explain more about this?

"Marriage is unnecessary in this day and age."

That the concept of a legally binding document formalising your relationship in the eyes of the law for legal and financial rights and responsibilities is unnecessary?

Or that marriage is unnecessary in this day and age full stop, because you can access all the rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples without getting legally married? If so, how?

Well when my mum was born out of wedlock it was a big deal, her mums husband is on her birth certificate not her dad's. All my DC was born out of wedlock, I didn't have to marry their Dad, I have my own career, salary, pension. I jointly own the home we bought together, we have wills in place etc. So in that way it's no longer necessary to marry.
The only real incentive I can see is for inheritance tax purposes.

I do not think you should penalise children because their parents decided not to get married.

However, the two adults should not expect the benefits of marriage without marriage in my view. Even more so now that same sex marriage is available.

But what are these benefits? The odd tax break that could be beneficial to some but by no means all couples, and not having to pay inheritance tax when one of you pegs it. But other than that I honestly can't see what other benefits there are that people are so keen to ring fence as the privilege of married couples only (other than a healthy does of smugness, which you are welcome to)
I may of course be totally wrong, it's not something I know masses about but there really doesn't seem to be much of a financial incentive to marry.
The whole concept actually seems even more distasteful now than it did before I read this thread actually.

@Smellbellina

There may not have been any financial incentive for YOU to marry, but there certainly is for many other people

Spousal maintenance, for example. May not be applicable to you, but certainly beneficial to others

Wills can be changed behind the other partner's back. It's significantly harder to disinherit a spouse then a cohabiting partner

IHT obviously

There are other considerations, like automatic PR. If something happens to you in labour, the baby's father has automatic rights and responsibilities if you're married then if you're not.

@Smellbellina some of these will apply to others, even if they don't apply to you

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

Some of these can be mitigated by a legal cohabitation agreement, but others legally cannot

A cohabitation agreement is significantly more expensive to obtain than a civil marriage certificate!

No inheritance tax I’d imagine us quite a big incentive. There was a case where two Heterosexual men got married for this reason alone. The financial incentive is obviously more appealing to those not independently wealthy.

I was just reading the other thread about PR at birth if something had gone wrong and thought 'eek'. Thankfully nothing went wrong, I wonder what would happen in those circs.

Yes I can see in some circumstances spousal maintenence would be a consideration.

I'm sure for lots of people being married makes financial sense but I also think there is a lot of people like me where it doesn't seem necessary.

The only thing that stopped me in my tracks was the PR issue for new born if Mum was unable to make decisions, if I'd of thought about that at the time I would have looked into it. Funny it wasn't raised during any of my pregnancies/deliveries. I wonder if it would have gone to my designated NOK, who incidentally wasn't DP! Anyone would think I didn't trust him

Thanks for the link @bananafish81

Smell, there’s no reason to think the hospital wouldn’t have discussed any medical issues with a unmarried partner. There is no such thing as a “designated” next of kin. Marriage doesn’t give you any rights to make medical decisions for others. As for the presumption that the person who is married to the mother gets parental rights, again, this does not of itself allow anyone to make medical decisions which medical staff would consider not to be in the best interests of the child. It’s really a red herring.

Marriage has advantages but of course has disadvantages too. It is wholly unfair to penalize children for something which was not their decision. This benefits should be paid to bereaved children regardless of the marital status of their parents.

What he dog lady says isn’t even worth responding to. How sad - I always thought dog people were good people but there you are.