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:
Bluelady · 30/08/2018 18:34

Fidelity doesn't form part of a civil marriage ceremony. The basic vows require you to say you don't know of any legal reason why you can't be married and that you agree to be married. That's it. Anything else is optional.

Charley50 · 30/08/2018 18:35

@mydogisthebest "They lived together for over 20 years, had 4 children and yet couldn't be bothered to get married."

That is why she should receive the benefit.. because they lived together for 20 years and had 4 children together! Their lives were entwined, just like a married couples are.

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 18:37

But they didn't make the legal commitment the law requires to access that benefit.

adaline · 30/08/2018 18:43

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

Go to a registry office with two strangers and sign a contract. That's marriage, a legal contract. The wedding is the ceremony and is completely optional.

I'm getting married in two and a half weeks. Just us and both sets of parents at the local registry office, then out for afternoon tea. No need to spend thousands of pounds if you don't want to. The whole thing is coming in at less than £400 for us, including the afternoon tea!

Charley50 · 30/08/2018 18:43

Well she won her case and rightly so, in my opinion.

adaline · 30/08/2018 18:45

That is why she should receive the benefit.. because they lived together for 20 years and had 4 children together!

But she didn't choose to get married. If you want the benefits of getting married, which include protection in the event of your spouse dying, then get married. It really isn't that complicated.

People should be allowed to be in a relationship without being forced into a legal contract (which is what marriage is). People should be able to live with their partners, have children etc. without the legal commitment if that's what they choose. If they want the added protections marriage brings, they can get married like everyone else does.

adaline · 30/08/2018 18:47

in my opinion

Which is fine, but as you can see, plenty of people disagree with you. And her winning her case doesn't guarantee a change in the law for everyone else.

How are you planning on differentiating between committed non-married couples, and non-committed, non-married couples, anyway? By having children? Shared bills? A mortgage?

bananafish81 · 30/08/2018 18:55

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?

If marriage was renamed would that solve the problem? Same thing, just change the name to 'legal togetherness' or 'sparkly unicorn union' or whatever. Would that do the trick?

What would a not-marriage contract have that would make it less objectionable than a marriage contract?

mydogisthebest · 30/08/2018 19:13

Charley50, I don't care if they were together for 50 years and had 10 children they were NOT married and therefore should not be getting any of the benefits that come with marriage.

Personally I think a woman that has children without getting married is pretty silly but that's their decision. If they want the protection and benefits that a married woman would get then the answer is simple - get married.

People spout off about how they don't want to be dictated by society, how marriage is so outdate and just a piece of paper etc but then still want to be treated as if they were married,

PrimalLass · 30/08/2018 19:25

People spout off about how they don't want to be dictated by society, how marriage is so outdate and just a piece of paper etc but then still want to be treated as if they were married

I don't don't want double standards. My household is treated as one family for some things and not others. It's to hard to understand that.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 30/08/2018 19:26

Would supporters of compulsory marriage for benefits be happy to join the Ku Klux Klan? What if getting benefits were dependant on being members of the KKK? What if we created had a new (non-offensive) 'civil' KKK to join if you wanted benefits? Would you be happy making your human rights conditional on this?

No? Then why do you insist benefits are only for people in this offensive special club called marriage? There is no reason in the 21st century why a simple contract has to have any connection with marriage, or the Ku Klux Klan.

percypig · 30/08/2018 19:35

A lot of people are focusing on the woman’s rights through marriage or lack of a marriage, however I believe the focus of the case was on payments which would effectively be for the children.

As far as I know all 4 children were still at school at the time of their father’s death, and his long illness and death would have had a major impact on their lives and education. For the family to then be struggling financially afterwards, and have the further upheaval of their mother having to work 2 jobs, all because their parents weren’t married seems cruel and unfair.

I do think marriage or civil partnership are the wisest choices for all women to protect their rights, but to me this case is actually about the rights of the children, who didn’t have any choice.

easternedge · 30/08/2018 20:00

The attitudes of some people on here are appalling.

It's really very simple. The system would be quick to recognise them as a 'married' couple should they try to claim any benefits. To not recognise them as such under these circumstances would be hypocrisy.

Well done this woman.

mostdays · 30/08/2018 20:06

they were NOT married and therefore should not be getting any of the benefits that come with marriage

What about their children? Should children who have no say whatsoever in their parent's marital status suffer as a consequence?

butterfly990 · 30/08/2018 20:17

Does this ruling also include the bereavement payment of £2000 that was payable before April 2017?

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 20:20

It's up to parents to protect their children's interests. In this case the parents failed to do it.

adaline · 30/08/2018 20:22

Should children who have no say whatsoever in their parent's marital status suffer as a consequence?

If their parents wanted them to be protected, they should have gotten married. You shouldn't expect the government to step in and give you rights you should have given yourself years ago!

ChanklyBore · 30/08/2018 20:35

Yes, it is my children’s inheritance I mean, not my partner’s. Inheritance tax, spouses pensions, death in service benefits and life insurances being some of the reasons.

ChanklyBore · 30/08/2018 20:37

Tell me why I’m silly @mydogisthebest

“Personally I think a woman that has children without getting married is pretty silly”

Charley50 · 30/08/2018 20:39

I'm actually pretty shocked at some of the responses on here. This is bereaved partners and children we are talking about; so fucking what if they weren't married!!? It's easy enough to prove that you have had children together and live at the same address.. what is the problem?

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 20:44

Would supporters of compulsory marriage for benefits be happy to join the Ku Klux Klan?

Oh for fuck's sake. You're not even trying.

On the off chance that you really do think this is a fair point, it's because legally committing to a partner is not comparable to terrorising black people by planting burning crosses in their gardens.

For fuck's sake!

NailsNeedDoing · 30/08/2018 20:47

I'd agree that simply living together and having children together shouldn't bring the benefits of marriage. As a widow, my best way of protecting what I'd like to pass on to my children is by never getting married again. Having already lost my husband, it would be pretty shit if the law told me I couldn't never share a home with a partner agin should I choose to without giving my husbands legacy to another man instead of his children.

This is about giving people who genuinely need it some financial support at an awful time in their lives. It's not about unmarried people trying to get one up on the system just to score political points, it's about bereaved parents and grieving children not having to be thrown into financial difficulties or even poverty when they are already suffering.

Campaign for 'common law' partnership rights if you want, I'll disagree with you, but don't piggy back it on to something that isn't about that.

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 20:51

Don't rant at us, Charley, we didn't make the rules. This benefit is legally accessed only by people with a legal contract, they hadn't got one.

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 20:56

I agree that in this case, they certainly seemed like a committed couple so I don't understand why they were so averse to making it legal.

AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 21:02

As a widow, my best way of protecting what I'd like to pass on to my children is by never getting married again. Having already lost my husband, it would be pretty shit if the law told me I couldn't never share a home with a partner agin should I choose to without giving my husbands legacy to another man instead of his children.

As with another PP...this is the classic case when it is better not to be married, and is why you must have that choice retained for as long as you want it, forever if necessary.

Legal contracts should not be opt-out. They should be opt-in. We could get ourselves into a hideous legal mess if we don't have a clear cut point at which two people have agreed that they want their relationship to be recognised in law. And that point is, well, when they make that contract. Otherwise it's a contract by stealth and removes people's rights to cohabit without marrying. And given how patriarchal and offensive and misogynistic so many people believe marriage to be, I can't see why they'd want to have that right removed.