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.

It's not only terrible but it also means that even if they'd had the option of a CP they were unlikely to have taken it. Marriage in all but name isn't it.

They got rid of widowed parents' allowance a year ago. My dh died too late for us to get it.

Same here. Missed out by 7 months

including childfree by choice ones?*

Eh? What difference does that make?

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.

@Tessellated There are many ways. For instance, evidence to show that a couple have been cohabiting, such as mortgage documents, utility bills, bank accounts etc. But that’s for the government to figure out. It’s easy and it’s already used in other assessments, e.g. pension beneficiaries.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3221960-Aibu-to-think-if-you-want-the-legal-protection-of-marriage-then-get-married

and this one

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3098128-AIBU-to-think-if-you-want-marital-rights-then-you-should-get-married

I've been with my partner for 14 years we own a home together. We're not married because I'm uncomfortable with the patriarchal tradition of marriage. We would like to have a civil partnership to have legal protection. I feel in this day and age it should be on offer to couples.

As pps have mentioned the benefits system treats couples as financially joined once living together so there is a bit of disparity between that and legal marriage implications.

I think really we need to look at the legal status of cohabitation as like it or not this is the way people are choosing to live. I think it's up to the law to reflect society not enforce social behaviours on people.

God there's some really sanctimonious opinions on this thread.

We're not married because I'm uncomfortable with the patriarchal tradition of marriage. We would like to have a civil partnership to have legal protection.

FFS 'patriarchal tradition of marriage' marriage is what you make it, you have the option to get married, no one is stopping you, also no one is making you do it, but if you want the protection that marriage offers, you have to get married

i personally would remove CP and just allow marriage for all

For me having been to lots of weddings in the last 10 years there's no used to be about the patriarchal nature of marriage.

Seeing many of the practices which still occur in modern weddings I'm genuinely not sure the resulting marriage can be an equal relationship. I mean not giving a speech as a woman but letting your husband and your dad speak

@LeroyJenkins

I'm aware no one is making me get married which is 2hy I'm not. However what I am doing is giving my point of view on a forum. Which is what this is for.

Having said that you seem oddly invested in other people being married.

@Aaaahfuck

no - what i am 'oddly invested in' is not making people who have no plans to get married or desire to be linked to each other by marriage end up with marriage be default, i'm also 'oddly invested in' people whinging about not having the rights that come with marriage, when there is no reason they cannot get married if thats what they want

this:

Bluelady Thu 30-Aug-18 09:59:19
It's got bugger all to do with civil partnerships and everything to do with demanding all the benefits of an institution without committing to it. It's like asking an insurance company for compensation when your house burns down when you didn't bother to take out a policy

I mean not giving a speech as a woman but letting your husband and your dad speak

That's their choice. Marriage gives legal protection that benefits most women with children. To deny that to yourself because some women don't like public speaking on the wedding day is daft.

And you don't need to wear a white dress or change your name or do anything else like that either.

See I am very much against people gaining married rights without marriage for the simple reason that this in effect marrying people off who have not given their consent.

I am divorced with children from my marriage. If I were to cohabit with a man I do not want him to gain any rights over my home, either on splitting or if I die. That home is for my children. I would purposely not marry to prevent him getting rights

I do not want a de facto marriage without my consent. And putting in an option out clause is not suitable protection. I should not have to opt out of giving people rights to my assets.

If I were to cohabit with a man I do not want him to gain any rights over my home, either on splitting or if I die. That home is for my children. I would purposely not marry to prevent him getting rights

This is the absolute classic case of when marrying is not a good idea - when one or both people already have children, won't be having any together and want to make sure everything they have passes straight to their kids.

And as you say, it's also why marriage does need to stay as an opt in. It's a legal contract, you can't force that on someone or introduce it by stealth. You want people to be able to cohabit without marrying if that's what they want.

Want a legal commitment, with the accompanying protections? Choose it, opt in. Don't want it? Fine, just stay as you are.

It drives me crazy when people insist that they should be married without being married.

It really is ridiculous that in the 21st century you are refused what should be your human rights just because you won't get married.

A simple contract witnessed by a lawyer should be enough. Possibly even just living together for a certain length of time.

Human rights?

Possibly even just living together for a certain length of time. so what if you dont actually want to be married?

A registry office marriage IS signing a simple contract.

Shit! I swore I'd never get drawn into this discussion again!

It's got bugger all to do with civil partnerships and everything to do with demanding all the benefits of an institution without committing to it.

No. It's asking the government to not treat us like a household for one set of benefits (or so they can take it away) but not for another.

you are refused what should be your human rights just because you won't get married.

Your human rights are not to be embroiled in a legal contract with another person unless you choose to be.

A simple contract witnessed by a lawyer should be enough.

What do you think marriage is?

It's asking the government to not treat us like a household for one set of benefits (or so they can take it away) but not for another.

One set of benefits is dependent on household income, as it should be. The other is dependent on protecting a person who becomes financially vulnerable as a result of a shared family unit, and legalising their relationship. That is why they are treated differently.

Shit! I swore I'd never get drawn into this discussion again!

I know, I know. It's just so infuriating when someone insists that they should be married without getting married. Or complains that they should get the equivalent with a legal contract with a lawyer, because a legal contract with a registrar and two witnesses is so much more offensive.

One set of benefits is dependent on household income, as it should be. The other is dependent on protecting a person who becomes financially vulnerable as a result of a shared family unit, and legalising their relationship. That is why they are treated differently.

If it's a shared family unit in one circumstance then it should be in the other.