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.

Oliversmumsarmy the poster lives in some backwater where same sex couples with children don't exist

I was commenting that the poster would not let her children be friends with children who had unmarried parents and I was commenting on the fact that unless they lived in a tiny village that no one ever moved to how would she know.

And given her narrow brief that she would only let her children play with children of married people I was asking if that would include same sex marriages.

It’s a contract either sign it or don’t. It’s not about whose relationship means more or status or anything else. The law recognises marriage as a legally binding contract not a remantic fairy tale where two people love each other more than 2 unmarried people or vice versa. It is a very simple sign it or don’t. If you want say in your estate after death you make a will, if you want to move into a property you sign a contract. If you want the law to step in when a relationship breaks down get a contract

My partner and I have lived together for 3.5 years. He moved in with me while i was still renting and going through divorce. I then bought the house we are living in now 2 years ago and just recently he has paid almost half of the value of the house and we are mortgage free and both saving to buy another property together. We both have children and from a legal point of view this gets a bit complicated as we are not married. I have seen a solicitor and we need to draw up a Cohabitation Agreement which basically says what we will both agree to contribute to the household. We also obviously need to make Wills and ensure he is on The Deeds or whatever you do to change ownership status (can’t remember exactly everything my solicitor said now, all in the letter!)and our main concern is ensuring that at least one of our 5 children don’t force either of us out of the house when one of us dies. Not saying they will but you just never know. I may be wrong, but I believe most legalities can be covered without the need for marriage.
Having been divorced and been in a loveless marriage, I can honestly say if we get married it will be because we personally feel it’s a declaration of love and commitment to the outside world rather than from a legal point of view. It’s a really personal, subjective thing and I don’t think a loving relationship requires the validation of marriage either legally or emotionally, but I do believe in still, weirdly?! The sneerers can carry on reading The Daily Mail safe in the knowledge their view is informed, balanced and morally superior.

Alma - again what nonsense. The starting point is half.

@Bumpitybumper agree with the higher earner bit. When the woman is the high earner they don't tend to expect the spouse to do everything else but it seems on MN when it's the otherway round they do.

Anyway the issue is more complex than getting married and is about relationships in general. Unfortunately how do you teach children what to look for in a relationship as to many you would be indicating their parents relationship set up is shit.

@P3onyPenny you are absolutely right.

No sneering? I've just read that someone won't let their children stay in a house with unmarried parents because they don't know how long the father has been around for? And that's not sneering? Fucking hell.

There is a post at the moment from a woman who is divorcing and she can't buy a flat for her and her child because she is such a low earner compared to her husband. Yes if you're a sahm for god's sake get married. But don't become a sahm thinking you'll be fine if you're married. Make a way to support yourself and your children should the relationship break down, married or not. That's the real way to protect yourself.

FWIW me and my partner do exactly the same job and share ownership of the house. We have a daughter and one on the way and we're splitting the mat/pat leave. I can't really see the benefit of getting married but I know I could support myself if we split. So I can rest easy. I certainly wouldn't be resting easy if I had no means to do this, being married wouldn't make me feel any better about that.

OH and I are about to get married.
Been together 22 years.

I have been married before, I really don't like the whole idea, but although our finances/property/wills etc are watertight a few things still irk.
I had a recent health scare, OH has Bupa membership but that extends to spouses not partners. Also we both have pension funds and if one of us dies there is no automatic access to funds.

We will nip to the registrars office, hopefully they will provide witnesses, no celebration, no outfits, done simply for legal purposes. straight back to work the same afternoon.
The actual ceremony is meaningless to me.

This isn’t true, there are loads of circumstances where it has legal status. Most obviously in benefits calculations.

Nope, if I lived with my best friend we could claim as a couple. We wouldn't be in a relationship. She wouldn't be entitled to anythingif she moved out of my house.

Me and exh claimed as a couple while we lived together but were not in a relationship any longer.

@Oliversmumsarmy I think you misunderstood me - I agree with your critism.

Anyway the poster has answered using child protection as an excuse as married parents never abuse their children.

But don't become a sahm thinking you'll be fine if you're married. Make a way to support yourself and your children should the relationship break down, married or not. That's the real way to protect yourself.

This is spot on. If you arent married, you aren't protected. But if you are married it doesn't mean you are completely protected. You need to be have your eyes open, either way, and know the risks to the decisions you make. You just have more protection when married, not complete protection.

As I said I object to being called "love" or ordered to get married by anyone

No one is ordering you to get married - unless I missed that? Got a quote? You are getting arsy about the stark fact of that other thread which both you and OP have conveniently twisted, thatposters on that thread stated the fact over and over that, like it or not, a cohabiting relationship means fuck all in the eyes of the law. NO ONE poopooed the VALUE of your relationship to you - you are just so incensed that you are twisting what you read. What they stated was the truth in the eyes of the law.

As you said in that other thread, you have done everything you can in your power to mimic marriage. You have tried to put in place for yourself wills etc. That's fine - your choice.
But you are not married, and life happens and things can change, and getting upset because people are pointing out what the LAW says (as that othr thread was about ticking boxes on maternity notes and how there's no "boyfriend box" as it were), that a cohabiting relationship really means fuck all to the LAW, not to other people (fgs), is just irrational. No one said you or your boyfriend meant nothing to each other. No one said your 30 year relationship meant nothing in it's own value. THEY SAID IN THE EYES OF THE LAW IT MEANS FUCK ALL.

Red your ex wouldn't keep the house if your name was on the mortgage and deeds.

What the bloody hell are you on about @IAmAllAstonishment? Are you actually serious? You do realise that married men can be abusers too?

I wouldn’t sneer at anyone, but I personally wouldn’t be with a man who didn’t want to marry me. A marriage is a sign of commitment.

P3onyPenny you made a choice to not involve the law in your relationship. Entirely your choice. Well yours and your partners.

So why does it bother you, so much, that the law doesn't recognise it, when it was your choice?

There are ways of posting and discussing issues.

Calling somebody "love" and dismissing a relationship in such a nasty patronising way whatever the context, telling somebody else to get over themselves was wholly uncalled for.

@speakout he can do an expression of wish on his pension fund that would leave it to you. And pension providers do look at whether there's a cohabiting dependent partner if there isn't an expression of wish.

As I read this thread there is a pop up at the bottom for London’s best divorce lawyer!

Surely benefits after a split in marriage only happen if one party has “assets” and in this day and age that is mostly not always the case.

I've read this sneering attitude as well but I gnore it. I've been with my DP since I was 18 and we are in our 30s now so that's a lot longer than some marriages. We are engaged but wanted to finish our studies and get s house first but it doesn't stop some people turning their nose up.

IAmAllAstonishment

So being married means you can’t be a paedophile?

Ds’s primary had the something similar happen.

HT knew. But had not warned anyone. He tried to cover it up until it was in the newspapers.

Children had continued going round to the house when the married father was the sole parent there.

I would say if you are relying on some but if paper as a safeguarding tool then it is you who needs to look at your own safeguarding issues

I object to being called single. I haven't been single for 30 years.There should be a box for cohabiting.

I object to bereaved children being excluded from support from a pot their parents have paid into.

Pretty sure that has been covered by myself and many others so really not seeing the need for your question on this thread which is about the unpleasant attitudes to unmarried mothers on MN.

I work with intelligent, professional women who believe in common law marriage. It astounds me how they are clued up in so many aspects of life, and they are well regarded, middle class women, but don't understand the basics of marital / relationship law.

A marriage is a sign of commitment. How is it more of a commitment than a long term relationship, you can easily divorce, . I think staying with someone despite the fact the law isn't involved is a bigger commitmrnt imo. Also having children is a commitment. Signing a bit of paper that you can undo by signing another bit of paper is hardly a ground breaking commitment.

brokenharbour

I am not financially dependant on my partner though.

I object to being called single. I haven't been single for 30 years.There should be a box for cohabiting.

Totally agree, where I work I am down in the personnel files as single but I have been with DP a lot longer than a lot of marriages. Why should we be punished because we were continuing studies and then saving money to get on the housing ladder?