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.

Possibly even just living together for a certain length of time.

If you don't want to get married, why would you want to fuck over your option to cohabit without marrying?

@LeroyJenkins due to the number of same sex couples who are still having civil partnerships it will be unlikely that they will be abolished, and the government will have to extend them to all.

In this case as it wouldn't have been a marriage than I suspect he would have done it. I actually think it is selfish to make your partner promise not to marry anyone if you are dying. I would do the opposite and some people have.

Anyway the main issue is the government needs to be consistent when providing benefits. They can't decide that you are a household for some benefits and not others.

@AynRandTheObjective - they aren't though if you look at what is payable. The issue is the government needs to be consistent on what they consider a household and they haven't been.

marriage is the vows and signing. Speeches, ghastly dresses, dead flowers, name changing, huge fussy table decorations etc etc are the WEDDING and are all totally optional. Happily because no way would I have had any of that.

recognising that for some marriage may have disadvantages. Fine - but don't blub because the life lesson is that you can't have it all ways.

Free and easy. What tosh. Plenty of couples aren’t married, are committed and aren’t free and easy. As tax players, committed couples who don’t want a bloody stupid ceremony shouldn’t be excluded from a benefit. So glad fairness is starting to prevail.

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.

^This this this!!!

We're not married because I'm uncomfortable with the patriarchal tradition of marriage.

And how does that patriarchal tradition manifest when both parties in the marriage happen to be women, please?

Plenty of couples aren’t married, are committed

If they're not married, then they are not legally committed. If you have chosen not to legalise your relationship, you cannot expect the legal protections.

Marriage is not a certificate that proves that Fred and Freda love each other. It's a contract that proves that Fred and Freda have legally committed to each other. Without that, we must assume that Fred and Freda have chosen not to legally commit to each other, and respect that.

@P3onyPenny what do you think free and easy is meant here?

You seem to be implying that it is sexually 'easy' ??? I actually meant it as free and easy as in not wanting to be part of a legal contract.

We're not married because I'm uncomfortable with the patriarchal tradition of marriage.

Then you are a fool. You only need to look at how many unmarried women are fucked over because they weren't married to see that in this day and age, it is anything but patriarchal. It protects women.

If it is so patriarchal, why do so many men refuse to do it?

I assume you also reject universities, Parliament and the legal system in general, since they weren't always open to women's requirements either?

Well clearly they can. Thankfully a minority who enjoy benefits they want others to miss out on out of spite are being over ruled. About time.

Owning a house together and parenting children together, growing old together. Is not free and easy.

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

That's a wedding, not a marriage

And a set of decisions made by couples at their own wedding parties. Has nothing to do with signing a legal marriage contract

If these couples' wedding decisions are unequal, that says more about their own relationships to start with - and the equality in their partnership with or without marriage

Is marriage patriarchal when it's a man marrying a man? Or a woman marrying a woman?

If it is so patriarchal, why do so many men refuse to do it?

Exactly.

You don't have to be 'given away'. You don't have to have your dad make a speech. You can make a speach if you want. You don't have to wear white or change our name. None of these are mandatory.

All you have to do is say a few simple words and sign a bit of paper, in front of a registrar and two witnesses.

Well clearly they can. Thankfully a minority who enjoy benefits they want others to miss out on out of spite are being over ruled. About time.

Out of spite? Are you fucking FOR REAL?

I'm not married... but I don't want to be fucking married by proxy due to cohabitation just because some of the population are too stupid to realise that without getting actually married, they aren't actually married.

This is my take on current laws surrounding marriage and inheritance.

I can ONLY protect my children financially if I promise the government I will only have sex with one person for the rest of my life.

If I have sex with anyone else (or in many cases stop having sex with the person I am married to) my contract can be declared void, my rights downgraded and my children’s inheritance can be slashed.

I’m still astonished people stand up for this “institution”.

Owning a house together and parenting children together, growing old together. Is not free and easy

@P3onyPenny then why is it so difficult to arrange 2 witnesses, a date at he registry office and go sign one more bit of paper???

@ChanklyBore only if your husband (or wife) is not happy with you having sex with another person, or not having sex at all.

If you are both happy with the situation, no one will forcibly dissolve your union if you both want to stay married.

Or are you suggesting that divorce shouldn't be allowed? That you stay married to one person only for the rest of your life? Because that is kinda even more crazy.

As tax players, committed couples who don’t want a bloody stupid ceremony shouldn’t be excluded from a benefit.

Which bit of a civil marriage ceremony is bloody stupid?

Is it simply having a couple of sentences to say aloud in addition to signing a contract that makes it stupid? Or is a CP ceremony also bloody stupid as well?

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 speakhmm

loads of women give speeches, theres no law against it - and you dont have to be given away, modern weddings you can do as much or as little as you want to - dont want a fuss, then pop down to the registry office in your lunch break

whats not equal in actual marriage now though?

www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/

Civil Partnerships vs. Marriage

Civil partnerships were introduced in the UK for same-sex couples to legally unite in something like a marriage, but without some of the same legal rights. They were essentially introduced as an interim measure before equal marriage was approved.

Fundamentally there are no major differences between civil partnerships and marriage but there are some differences including:

Civil partners cannot call themselves “married” for legal purposes.
dont call yourself married then
Civil partnership certificates include the names of both parents of the parties. Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties. ok, this is annoying
Adultery cannot be used as a reason to dissolve the Civil Partnership. In a marriage, if one party is unfaithful this is grounds for divorce. This isn’t the case in civil partnership dissolution. Adultery isn’t recognised in same-sex partners. this is weird

Civil partnerships are currently only available for same-sex couples and are different to civil marriages.

Civil Marriage
A civil marriage means you end up with the same rights as a religious marriage in the eyes of the law, but the ceremony is different.
The marriage ceremony is conducted by a local council official known as a registrar, rather than a vicar or priest in a church. The ceremony cannot have any religious content, including any songs or readings.

so whats wrong with having a civil marriage?

It's just so infuriating when someone insists that they should be married without getting married You gotta escape your tunnel vision. No one wants to be married without being married, they want rights that they should be entitled to without being forced to get married.

A registry office marriage IS signing a simple contract
More tunnel vision. Yes but it is a simple MARRIAGE contract. Why does signing a simple contract have to have any connection with marriage. People have objections to marriage, do you not get that?

I’m suggesting that my rights to protect my children’s inheritance should not require me to make promises on how I will use my genitals.

It’s not really relevant to the topic at hand. I should be able to protect my children without promising sex.

I feel sorry for the woman but do not agree with the ruling at all. If people want the benefits of marriage then bloody well get married. It's not difficult or time consuming or expensive (unless you want it to be).

They lived together for over 20 years, had 4 children and yet couldn't be bothered to get married. I don't believe for one second that rubbish about his first wife not wanting him to remarry. So he thinks she would have been ok with him having 4 children without getting married would she?

Well clearly they can. Thankfully a minority who enjoy benefits they want others to miss out on out of spite are being over ruled.

It's clear from this idiotic statement that you understand neither the ruling, nor marriage, nor married people, nor indeed very much at all. That being said, perhaps you should refrain from this discussion until you do.

I'm trying to be polite.

No one wants to be married without being married, they want rights that they should be entitled to without being forced to get married.

They're not forced to get married. That's the entire point. You cannot be forced into it and that's as it should be.

This is my take on current laws surrounding marriage and inheritance.

I can ONLY protect my children financially if I promise the government I will only have sex with one person for the rest of my life.

If I have sex with anyone else (or in many cases stop having sex with the person I am married to) my contract can be declared void, my rights downgraded and my children’s inheritance can be slashed.

I’m still astonished people stand up for this “institution”.

erm, i dont think your childrens inheritance is protected by your marriage, your partner can leave everything directly to them, its just if you want it left to you first you get some protection to then pass on after your death