To think that some married women on here think they are better than unmarried women?

[malificent7]

After reading the thread about legal rights, marriage and birth certificates I was struck by the patronising way in which some married women spoke to those who are cohabiting or not married.
True married women have better rights but it was the way in which the relationships of unmarried women were dismissed as lesser and these women were being sneered at.

Someone told a woman who had been cohabiting that her relationship meant nothing and that if you are not married you are single.
REALLY? I am not married but I am not single. I don't even live with the guy but why is my relationship seen as less valid? Some married people hate each other and don't have the guts to leave. Some of the best love affairs involve people who live miles apart.
I don't like the fact that I have to put single on a form . Why can I not be in a relationship?

Ok, If you are married you have some legal rights and security that the unmarried have but shouldn't we question this? Why should we make vows especially if you don't believe in the laws of marriage? Also, it was originally a religious ceremony..I don't believe in God and I am not a commodity to be given away by my dad to another male.

Does it lead to stability? My dp is divorced. The marriage vows didn't stop things from falling apart.

Marriage can be a great thing but the tone in the last thread was old fashioned and practically berated women for not managing to get a man to marry them. Surely there has to be other options if you don't believe in marriage ? It is a patriarchal tradition after all to do with male prperty rights. Also, many men want pre nuptuals as they are now wise to gold digging wives.

I think you can have some marriages which have less love than some cohabiting relationships. Why is one type of relationship more valid? I find it all very old fashioned.

Judging by the number of men who don't leave their wives a dime on divorce, I am not convinced by the stability argument.

Legally we have everything sorted so we are equal in the eyes of the law.

Well except for the fact that if your DP changed his will or pension or life insurance policies behind your back before he died, you don't have the same rights under the law as if you'd been married

Same for IHT - may not be relevant for your circumstances, but the fact remains that you can't replicate the legal right afforded to married couples

I assume you have a legal cohabitation agreement in place as well?

Yes the thing with legally separately replicating a marriage status in each asset is that if he was having an affair or something he could behind your back revoke all of these arrangements almost unilaterally and without your knowledge (some harder than others! A house and mortgage for example would need your consent but a death in benefits etc wouldn’t). A court then couldn’t rule you still had a right to these assets unlike in a marriage where it can do so even if they are all in a sole name.
Personally as well I’m lazy and it seems an awful lot easier just to go do a quick half hour ceremony than sort all these legal things out in detail!

This is a genuine question.

You are living together and decide marriage isn't for you. Great. You legally protect yourself in every area. Which isn't easy or cheap.

Why not just make it easier and have a quick wedding ceremony? Why go the more expensive and longer route?

In both situations you need to keep your eyes open because neither marriage or sorting the legal out protect you completely.

I am not saying anyone should get married, maybe I am too cheap and lazy. Like pp it's just seems raised to get married.

Eaisee not raised

Wow..I certainly sparked off a debate! Thanks for all the thoughtful and interesting replies.
I do agree that legally it is sensible to be married but I guess my real point is that why should it be better if you own a house together?
I don't think any less of married women unless they sneer at me for not being married. In fact dp and i are talking about getting married. We have no kids together but 1 dd from a seperate relationship. Trouble is , I start university this September as I am retraining and if we moved in together I would loose all of my financial assistance he would end up supporting my course financially and effectively paying for me to do university and I refuse to let him do that. So for now it makes sense for us to live apart.
I do love him very much but I also want a decent career when I leave university and in the long run I know that having a good career of my own is key to my stability and happiness and will make my relationship stronger.
Everyone is different. I was just getting a bit fed up of people in loving, long term relationships that their relationships don't count.
If we do marry (or we may opt for a hand fasting as we are more in tune with pagan beliefs) it will be for love not for having kids as I am no way having more dc.

And I'm hoping that if we do split (god forbid) I will continue to work and earn my own keep.

Sorry.. I meant people in loving, long term relationships being told that their relationships don't count.

I have never seen anyone say they don't count.

I have seen people say they have no legal status. Which is correct. That doesn't mean that they mean nothing

OP I see this on here all the time and in real life. Women in particular in my RL have made snide comments that my DP must be holding out for his real love if he hasn't proposed, or that I'm a fool for not getting married for legal reasons.

What seems to bypass all of these people is my DP is divorced (therefore I don't think there's any security in it and he would like to get married), I'm not religious, but crucially I earn more, have more assets than him and will inherit substantially more than he will.
I am protecting myself by not getting married and ensuring my daughter (from a previous relationship) inherits everything from me. Me and DP both have life insurance that pays out to each other.
Not all of us see the significance of a ring/paper and not all of us are vulnerable women that need protecting.

It is easy and it is cheap to tie things up legally where you can.

When you buy a house you buy it together and put both names on the line when in the solicitors you'd be in anyway.No extra cost.

When taking out insurance policies you name your partner as beneficiary. No extra cost.

When sorting out your pensions you name your partner as beneficiary.No extra cost.

When opening bank accounts you do it in joint names. No extra cost.

And if You want to be really thorough you can look out for will deals and get a will on top.

No need for any vows or ceremonies you don't believe in or feel comfortable with.

I meant people in loving, long term relationships being told that their relationships don't count.

The thing is, OP, legally they don't. Emotionally, of course they do. Legally, no. And there are too many women getting fucked over because they didn't realise that. You can replicate some of the protections of marriage by other avenues but not all of them. And if you try to explain the legal difference that marriage makes, you can be sure of being accused of being smug, superior, stupid, defined by your marriage, a gold digger and all other sorts of utter shite.

I can see why a comment like "if you want the protections of marriage, get married" might seem cursory but it's completely factually accurate and there's nothing smug about it. And if, like me, you don't want a system whereby marriage can be imposed upon you by stealth, that's how it's got to be. The only way the law can know for sure that two people consented to this commitment is if they signed the agreement. Marriage is not a certification of twoo wuv. It never has been. Until the law decides to dictate people's emotions, it never will be.

Plenty of posters have explained their excellent reasons for not wanting to marry. I've never seen anyone claim that it's always best for everyone.

When you buy a house you buy it together and put both names on the line when in the solicitors you'd be in anyway.No extra cost.

What if you aren't buying a house together? But moving into one person's house? But starting to pay the mortgage jointly. Or one person puts more in?

It all sounds straight forward. But it's not always that simple.

Doing a handfasting ceremony that has meaning for you shouldn't stop you going to a registry office and get the legal side sorted.

Best of luck whatever you choose to do!

It is easy and it is cheap to tie things up legally where you can.

A legal cohabitation agreement isn't exactly inexpensive, surely? They're usually several hundred £ minimum - unless you've got one much more cheaply?

Drawing up the terms of a bespoke agreement with a a solicitor isn't particularly easy either, I'd have thought?

Definitely worth doing to 'tie things up legally where you can', if you don't wish legally formalised your relationship - but I wouldn't really describe a cohabitation agreement as either easy or cheap compared to a civil marriage ceremony

I'll ask again - does anyone on the thread have a cohabitation agreement?

If not, why not?

Because we don't need a cohabitation agreement.

No way would I ever pay somebody else's mortgage.

I'll ask again - does anyone on the thread have a cohabitation agreement? If not, why not?

You do know that people don't have to answer - right?

No and because I can't see why I would need one.

It doesn't matter if one is paying more if the house is owned jointly. I've probably paid zilch into our mortgage in recent years. Still my house.

If the law did change to confer marital status on people who had cohabited for, say five years, it would still need to have to define a point where cohabitation had officially started. Let's say that point is when you register to vote at your new address. (For the interests of simplicity, let's ignore house shares, lodgers and all manner of other things that would complicate this.)

How long will it be before people who want that protection but for whatever fatuous reason never did the one simple thing that would have established it, start complaining that they're excluded?

(Five years.)

Of course no one has to answer. I was simply curious why amongst the many posts discussing how the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage can be replicated without marriage, this central vehicle for doing so hadn't been mentioned at any point

And indeed where those posters who stated that they resented being denied certain rights that they'd otherwise be afforded if they were married, had the option of a vehicle to access some of this protection, but no one had mentioned doing so

I am simply trying to understand why.

People are entitled to have whatever documentation they feel best suits them. I'm just interested to understand more in the spirit of this discussion - given references to other means of tying things up legally.

Oh, that or anyone who had cohabited for under five years, especially a day or two under the cut off, would be complaining that THEY didn't meet the criteria either.

Of course nobody has to answer whether they have a cohabitation agreement in place. But given how many unmarried cohabiters have claimed that they are perfectly protected without marriage, I must say I was expecting a few more responses...and for more people to volunteer that information.

I agree that when someone said the unmarried relationship 'doesn't count' - they mean legally. The person reading it has taken offence because they took it to be a moral judgement.

As a separate issue, I think that marriage is becoming more of a class thing. Increasingly it is the middle classes who marry (obv this is a generalisation but broadly true) and often the less affluent who don't marry. So you will find some social groups where most above a certain age are married, and other groups of a similar age,mbut different affluence, where no-one or hardly anyone is married. So in some groups it is entirely the norm and in others entirely not the norm. So then, is there some kind of snobbery going on perhaps, in the same way people often struggle to udbertsand the choices of others, particularly others with different life experiences to themselves? And then is there possibly some sense of less affluent unmarried people feeling judged by the more affluent marrieds? I don't know....just wondered if there is some element of this.

What is interesting is the fact that marriage is increasingly evident amongst the affluent and increasingly less evident amongst the less affluent. Again, of course there are lots of people who don't fit these mounds, particularly in older generations, but amongst perhaps those under 40ish it is definite trend.

Interesting theory. In Ireland I think the smart people and the travellers get married b4 kids. Always.
It is all a bit more who knows with the people in between

Total generalisation don't leap on me but Chocolate maybe because middle class women are clearer as to how the system works. None of my friends or family would drift into having kids a mans children and compromising their earning capacity as a result without being married. None.

Of course no one has to answer.

Well you were being quite insistent.

So I looked it up. Still don't think there seems to be much point to it.

The only time I've complained is because of that benefits thread the other day, and I explained why then.