AIBU to think why not just get married?

ducksanddrake · 2018-08-30T16:28:35+00:00

Just heard the ruling on this: BBC News - Unmarried mother Siobhan McLaughlin wins Supreme Court benefit case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45355028 Yes I agree that the children should benefit as they had been together for 23 years and had 4 children etc etc, but why didn't they just get married so they could benefit anyway?? Surely it would have saved all this hassle!? The dad was clearly an older dad, so would you just not get married to secure your children's future?

divadee · 30/08/2018 17:56

I kind of agree. But ...... the government can't have it all ways. As soon as a partner moves in with you, they take their earnings into account for any benefits or tax credits even if not married so shy should this be any different.

And also we are talking such a small (relatively) sum of money to a woman who has just lost her partner that we should have some compassion.

Smoothyloopy · 30/08/2018 18:19

My 25 year relationship with my DP is no less valid because we don't have a marriage certificate. Our children are no less valid because we are not married.

KERALA1 · 30/08/2018 18:24

Marriage is a legal contract that gives you certain rights and tax benefits. If you opt not to enter into it you don't secure those rights.

macondo · 30/08/2018 19:03

KERALA1 I agree with you. I feel awful for this woman but what’s the point in marriage and the rights it secures if you’re given the same benefits without it? Just remove marriage as a prerequisite.

BlueBug45 · 30/08/2018 19:08

@macondo the problem is the inconsistent way the government applies benefit rules. You are either a household when a partner moves in for all benefits or you are not. The government needs to make that decision.

In regards to other things like inheritance law that is a completely different matter as it doesn't involve NI contributions.

AnoukSpirit · 30/08/2018 19:13

Ok. So what if somebody dies without warning? Caught up in a car accident or has a heart attack at the supermarket?

It's not a payment for bereaved partners, it's a payment for bereaved parents for the benefit of the children.

Ergo, refusing to pay it because the parent hadn't entered into a legal contract prior to the death is a human rights violation.

Did you even read the judgment?

Your argument is basically that if you have children outside of marriage then those children deserve to be disadvantaged if you die - because most people don't get advance warning on the time of their death. And that's fucked up and selfish and violates people's rights. Which is why the Supreme Court made a different judgment.

WorldCupnovice · 30/08/2018 19:15

I prepare to be flamed, but....basically they want the benefits of marriage without the marriage.

AnoukSpirit · 30/08/2018 19:16

Oh, and as for "hassle", you do understand that a Supreme Court judgment sets a legally binding precedent on all lower courts, which is why they fought it all the way to the top?

It wasn't just about this one family.

cheesemongery · 30/08/2018 19:16

Your argument is basically that if you have children outside of marriage then those children deserve to be disadvantaged if you die - because most people don't get advance warning on the time of their death. And that's fucked up and selfish and violates people's rights. Which is why the Supreme Court made a different judgment

This.

FocusOnMePlease · 30/08/2018 19:18

My 25 year relationship with my DP is no less valid because we don't have a marriage certificate. Our children are no less valid because we are not married.

Sorry but by law it is exactly this..

FlyingCat · 30/08/2018 19:20

He had promised his first wife on her deathbed that he wouldn’t re-marry. He wanted to keep his promise.

0range99 · 30/08/2018 19:22

FlyingCat - it is a noble sentiment to make to his wife, but bloody selfish towards his children.

user1457017537 · 30/08/2018 19:23

I heard that it is because married couples are penalised financially which is why couples are not marrying.

YeTalkShiteHen · 30/08/2018 19:25

Your argument is basically that if you have children outside of marriage then those children deserve to be disadvantaged if you die - because most people don't get advance warning on the time of their death. And that's fucked up and selfish and violates people's rights. Which is why the Supreme Court made a different judgment

Absolutely.

That children are still devalued by the system because they’re born outside wedlock in 2018 is frankly batshit.

soapboxqueen · 30/08/2018 19:29

I think in the instance of death benefits being married or not shouldn't be an issue. The government has no problem understanding cohabiting couples exist when it comes to benefits etc

However, I do not believe cohabiting couples should have the benefits of marriage when it comes to their partners assets. Nobody should have any claim to another person's property or money unless done so explicitly or by a dependent child.

Graphista · 30/08/2018 19:30

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.

" the problem is the inconsistent way the government applies benefit rules. You are either a household when a partner moves in for all benefits or you are not. The government needs to make that decision." Exactly! Unfair to have it one rule before death and different rule after - pick one rule and apply it to all, but personally I think if not married it should all be kept separate.

YeTalkShiteHen · 30/08/2018 19:34

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.

Absolutely agree with this. One or the other, but not penalising unmarried couples from all angles!