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 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:
ExFury · 30/08/2018 12:28

They're going to stop calling it Widowed Parents' Allowance now because this case has turned it into something else. It seems completely illogical to me.

It’s not called that anymore anyway. They changed it last year when they slashed the amount (money and time) people get.

NailsNeedDoing · 30/08/2018 12:35

If the ex partner dies and can no longer pay maintenance, no one picks up that tab

Maybe the state should pick up that tab though, I certainly wouldn't disagree with it if it changed so that was the case.

But as it stands, maintenance payments aren't included as income when it comes to benefits, so we can assume that if a household needs benefits to survive, then it's it's getting what it needs regardless of whether on not it also got maintenance from a NRP. A household in that situation may already also have two adults supporting it, so there is not the same needs as there is in a situation where one of the adults dies.

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 30/08/2018 12:39

It's sad because his wife must have died young and then he did too. That's a lot of tragedy to hit the people who'd have known them both. But I do take the point that after four children and two decades of living with another partner, it becomes a bit I smoked but I didn't inhale.

Good points re children of earlier families the deceased had and children of a dead parent who paid maintenance missing out, I hadn't thought of either of those.

Hopefully you've got legals and financials sorted until then shoelaces? No guarantee the law will actually change either. Wouldn't want you to be unprotected.

blackbunny · 30/08/2018 12:44

Hypothetical scenarios...if the man was legally still married but separated, his wife could claim the widow's benefits if children involved.

If he lived with a partner, his partner could now claim them too...or could she? How would it be decided who is entitled, or would they both qualify? If he lived with a partner for 3 days then sadly died, would that count as a relationship?
This will open a can of I'm sorry for this lady and her children but I believe if you want the benefits of marriage you should commit to marry.

Original poster
serbska · 30/08/2018 12:50

Exactly blackbunny, married/not married = easy distinction. Now there will be a whole load of complicating issues to consider. Expect t will just be scrapped altogether, further harming children.

OP posts:
PaulDacreRimsGeese · 30/08/2018 12:52

I think we've kind of been moving that way anyway. Do remember though, this decision hasn't actually changed the law yet and might not.

shoelaces · 30/08/2018 12:59

I have life insurance for me, DH has death in service benefit at his work. Wills are in place. The only thing that is not taken care of is possible inheritance tax. Property owned by mine and his parents don't meet the threshold so don't think it would be an issue.

I always say DH, we had a humanist ceremony with friends and family, uniting in the way we felt right. I don't wear a ring, but describe myself as married to keep things simple.

I have picked and chosen the different elements of relationship status that feels right to me. I know full well what risks are involved. I'd really like the civil partnership route so I'm hoping and following the campaign.

bananafish81 · 30/08/2018 13:01

I'm waiting/hoping for civil partnership to be for straight couples. Marriage is a not my thing. But togetherness and commitment is what we both want.

The difference between a CP and a civil marriage is that the former doesn't require spoken vows, and that sexual infidelity isn't recognised as grounds for dissolution of the partnership.

That and whereas marriage may have once had historical patriarchal baggage, CP has much more recent homophobic baggage

Otherwise there's no meaningful difference.

CP were only ever a concession to the homophobic Tories who couldn't stomach marriage equality. Curious what the benefit is when they're otherwise identical?

PaulDacreRimsGeese · 30/08/2018 13:04

Good to know shoelaces!

suzy2b · 30/08/2018 13:27

It shouldn't make any difference weather married or not if you have children together some country's treat you the same

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 13:29

Agree with bananafish. I have never understood why someone would object to marriage because it used to be patriarchal, as if it never evolved with the times, but the cheap imitation born of far more recent homophobia is A-OK.

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 13:35

Oh dear, this about to turn into the marriage is a misogynistic product of patriarchy thread, isn't it?

0lapislazuli · 30/08/2018 13:35

If you can’t spell ‘marriage’ properly without having to give it some deep thought, it’s no wonder you can’t put together a coherent argument.

These people didn’t go to court stating ‘life is unfair’, but they claimed that the refusal of benefits was against human rights law.

Also, it’s ridiculous saying that people who are in a committed relationship, but who do not get married, make that choice because they want to be ‘free and easy’. In addition, that does not mean they should just get discriminated by the government and have their human rights violated.

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 13:39

Oh dear, this about to turn into the marriage is a misogynistic product of patriarchy thread, isn't it?

Of course, they always do. It doesn't matter how much you try to explain that it has evolved, that women do not actually have to change their names or take the Mrs title if they don't want to, that they are not legally their husbands' property, that universities, Parliament, the justice system and every other institution were all equally patriarchal once. It's just 'marriage is patriarchal' and that's it.

Which is fine, unless you should ever come to a point where you need the protection of marriage and don't have it.

But that, I think, is another story.

AsleepAllDay · 30/08/2018 13:42

@Littleloaf yes! Was that Peter Cook who played him?

allthgoodusernamesaretaken · 30/08/2018 13:54

I agree with OP. Marriage and cohabiting relationship can be equally committed, but I do think you need to pick one horse and run with it. You shouldn't be able to cherry pick the advantages of whichever system suits you best

Nat6999 · 30/08/2018 14:04

There are so many double standards, like benefits reducing if you are cohabiting, but you can't claim widow's pension, if you are a widow & live with someone, you lose your Widow's pension. It's the 21st century, it is time things were made simpler & more straightforward, there are probably more couples starting to live together than getting married & more unmarried couples having children together. It doesn't matter if you are married or not, if half of a couple dies then the surviving partner loses a big chunk of income & still has the same bills to pay as before & still has to feed & clothe the children.

Tessellated · 30/08/2018 14:07

Also, it’s ridiculous saying that people who are in a committed relationship, but who do not get married, make that choice because they want to be ‘free and easy’. In addition, that does not mean they should just get discriminated by the government and have their human rights violated.

The problem is then distinguishing between people who are not married but in committed relationships, and not married and not in a committed relationship!
Which is why we use the marker of marriage to determine whether a relationship is committed or not.
Personally I think that's totally reasonable.

Laws that discriminate between two groups are fine IMO if you can freely change which group you belong to. Its not a human rights violation because they made the choice not to get married. FFS.

Nat6999 · 30/08/2018 14:20

If you have an occupational pension, then they recognise unmarried partners for widow's benefits, including the Civil Service, this case is more about the fact that the Government don't mind cutting benefits if you live with a partner but don't recognise that if one member of a relationship dies, then the surviving member & children still need money to pay bills etc. As for being more committed by being married, a piece of paper doesn't make a committed relationship, as the rising divorce rates show.

PrimalLass · 30/08/2018 14:36

Exactly. It's either a family/household or it isn't.

HelenaDove · 30/08/2018 14:43

this is a right and fair outcome i agree.

Also Just seen this on Twitter.

Equality Act Review
‏ @EqualityActRev
3h3 hours ago

We welcome the @UKSupremeCourt judgement today. However this is the tip of the iceberg. We are dealing with a case where @DWP denied bereaved parents allowance based on her husband not making enough NI contributions despite having long term disabilities.

HelenaDove · 30/08/2018 14:45

"widows pension is for..well...widows"

including childfree by choice ones?

LeftRightCentre · 30/08/2018 15:22

So if a man has 4 kids by 4 different women then 4 lots of this allowance gets paid out?

BlueBug45 · 30/08/2018 15:35

@LeftRightCentre nope. Only the partner he cohabited with could argue to get it.

Also remember they changed the rules last April less children are entitled to a payout.

Basically the government got hit due to their inconsistency as you cannot claim people are a household for some benefits but not for others.

LeroyJenkins · 30/08/2018 15:35

It's because his first wife had died and she (the first wife) had asked him not to re-marry.

I think this is a terrible reason.

There was a good thread earlier about how we shouldn't have 'presumed ' marriage rights as some people don't actually want them

If you want the rights that marriage.give you, well bloody get married