As I said on another thread on this story
It's an unfair contradiction in current uk law. That wrt state benefits people are treated 'as if they are married' when it is in the govts favour to do so, and not when it's in the recipients favour.
I'm all for 'if you want the rights of marriage get married' but with state benefits the govt acts unfairly.
This has become particularly true with UC, where if you live with someone it's a joint claim, perfect for financially and otherwise abusive partners to enable that abuse AND trap the abused partner. And that's before you even get into the despicable 'rape clause'.
So for that reason I think it's fair that if the govt treated them as if they were married while he was alive, that they have to do so after his death too
If the govt wants to not pay benefits in these circumstances based on the lack of marriage, then those living together and claiming benefits should not have to have their partners income and/or savings/assets inc in their claim nor be required to make a joint claim of not married in the case of UC.
Unfair for govt to try and have it all ways.
RuggerHug this case was not about widows pensions, but frankly even if it was, what I said above ALSO applies to that.
Also appalled that the allowance has now been scrapped. Heartless decision that will save very little money.
Op that you think that bereaved children should lose out because their parents chose not to marry (a decision they have no influence on) is also heartless.
Shoelaces & aaaahfuck - a couple recently won a court case regarding straight couples having cp's BUT as I and others have said on other threads re marriage - it's ridiculously unnecessary. Cp's only came into being as a way to placate homosexual couples who wanted to be able to marry. When asked those posters who objected to marriage but wanted cp's were unable to give reasons for this that weren't based on misconceptions about marriage. Why don't you want to marry?
"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" such ignorance! There's absolutely NOTHING legally attached to marriage that says you have to do ANY of the 'patriarchal practices' all that's legally required is the notification to the community (so if someone knows eg you're still married to someone else, or that you're trying to marry your brother, they can report it), the parts of the vows that make the contract legal ( that you know of no legal reason why you can't marry, that you give your free consent to marry X person), the signing of the register (which forms a record of the legal contract). Being 'given away', exchanging rings, additional vows, changing name, changing title, speeches at the reception... - all optional.
"You shouldn't be able to cherry pick the advantages of whichever system suits you best" surely that sense of fairness should ALSO apply to the govt though?
"If it is so patriarchal, why do so many men refuse to do it?" Excellent point! Also agree that rather than patriarchal it actually gives women and children protections, not only in case of separation but also (as evident by this thread) in cases of critical illness and death.
Inequality in a het relationship will exist whether or not the couple are married - because that is caused by the people in the relationship NOT the legal status of the relationship. Even a cursory look at the relationship board will show you that!