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.

A marriage is a sign of commitment.

Shite.

I am far more committed to my long term partner than I was to my husband.

P3onyPenny co having could mean anything, house share, best friends living together. It simply means sharing a house.

I cohabit with my kids during my divorce I changed with my best friend, her husband and their 2 kids. We weren't a threesome, weren't in a romantic relationship. They are 2 of the most significant adult relationships i have. But its not recgnised by law. When i lived there, we pooled money. Did shopping together, paid bills togetger, sorted childcare for all the kids together. Cohabiting indicates nothing.

If you want your children to have the benefits in the event of losing a parent, get married. It's really that simple.

If you choose not to involve the law, don't expect the law to be involved.

@speakout ah sorry, I misread. I think you'd still get his pension unless there was somebody else either a financial claim on it.

Kate - acdivorce is not that easy. And if you divorce you don’t just walk away with what you’ve come with - you get assets divided fairly.

On that point it does make me laugh married couples having their own finances and bank accounts- the assets are joint whether they are in your bank ac or his

Assuming he hadn't made an expression of wish to pass it somebody else.

Op, perhaps you are right but I don’t think it’s worth bothering about.
I am proud of my ds, I am proud that I have raised him by myself for 7 years in my own home, he is a happy confident child.
I didn’t choose this option but I’m making it work really well. And without the support of the “public purse”.

If someone has a problem with that, it is most definitely their problem. Why should their opinion matter.

you can easily divorce,

This isn't true. Divorce is not easy or simple. You can do it. But it's not easy.

I think it's more irritation at women who want roghts/recognition for their marriage etc the same as marriage but then refuse to get married. Marriage is an important legal institution. It is a contract that denotes greater commitment than mere cohabitation and provides protections for spouses when children arrive. If you want that just get married. That is exactly what marriage is for.

As for extending the same right to non married couples, I would argue that it is authoritarian. The law distinguishes between married and cohabitating couples because it allows people the freedom to commit as much or as little to their partner as they want. Ebtending the rights of marriage to cohabitators would remove this choice and effectively dictate on what terms people may live together.

As for stability, the statistics suggest that marriage leads to more stable relationships but I think this is a false result skewed by the length of time it takes to get a divorce and couples who marry being more committed to each other in the first place.

Clearly marriage is different to cohabitation. Obviously cohabitating isn't the same as being single either but legally there is no difference, whether you are completely alone or living together, unless you are married, you don't owe anything to one another.

If you are happy accepting these differences then I suppose you wouldn't be so insecure about it. If you aren't happy with it and you want the legal protections or the kudos of marriage then just get married and stop whining.

A man who won’t marry you is not totally committed to you, I’m sorry but that’s just how I see it. If the woman doesn’t want to get married then fine, that’s your choice.
It’s a lot easier for you both to leave.
And if marriage is ‘just a piece of paper’ - why not get married?

There are a few that do OP, some of whom I suspect aren't actually trolling. Someone on a thread yesterday said something about how a 47% out of marriage birthrate says bad things about us as a society or something. The only thing that says is that she needs to remove her head from her colon.

However the bigger problem is the water muddying, bullshitting and denial from people who aren't married and don't like other people setting out the actual legal position. In the example you give, the relationship of the poster concerned actually will mean fuck all in certain contexts. She just didn't like that. But this matters, because the ignorance is so great. This includes some people who take a blanket attitude that marriage will protect them, or women generally. That's not good either, because while marriage is better for women as a class, that's not true of everyone and again proper decisions can't be made without accurate information. Which gets harder to disseminate when the threads are full of the usual suspects going on about smug marrieds when someone dares to point out to them something they don't want to hear about inheritance tax.

Now none of this means that people don't have the right to disagree with what the law is. Indeed, I've much more respect for posters who do that, rather than simply putting their fingers in their ears and going la la la we're committed and then overstating the divorce rates. But it's not actually about commitment, it's about legalities, and you don't really help this OP by framing the issue the way you do.

& divorce is not easy!

@KateMcD451 why do you equate being classed as being single at work with being punished? I don't really understand this.

@BlueBug45 I would prefer to see the religious and civil parts of a wedding totally separated.

However, I would also like to see it shouted from the rooftops in as many languages as possible that if you have not performed the civil part of the ceremony then you are not married. Women who are kept isolated are kept vulnerable.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10074614/Almost-no-couples-with-children-who-stay-unmarried-stay-together-study-claims.html

This particular piece of research might well have bias but there are many produced which all same the same thing.

This isn't true. Divorce is not easy or simple. You can do it. But it's not easy

Easy for me. Cost £85, postal application, no lawyers, took 8 weeks.

Easy peasy.

@katemcd how is not having your relationship noted on your file a form of punishment?

I'm similar to @bluesky45. DP out easily earns me, but I come from a lot more family money than he does and I have savings, assets and inheritance which he currently can't touch. I would love to marry him- but I also feel it's a financial risk because whilst he would bring more money in and would happily be a main earner if we had DC, I feel that I win and loose in either situation. Emotionally, marriage would be better for me and offer security- but at what cost?

Huskylover1
Well put.

Nobody is saying marriages will last forever. But they are a commitment.

There's the commitment that in the event of a split there's protection for various parties.

I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my financial independence to prop up a man's career without marriage on the grounds 'yeah but you can be more commuted to a partner than a husband. It's a meaningless bit of paper these days with people getting divorced'.
In the event of a split/ divorce that little bit of paper gives me the option of starting to rebuild on a slightly more equitable platform. Without it I'm screwed over and my contribution to propping up a man's career isn't recognised.

If people don't wish to marry that is their choice.
But there's a reason many people want it (and if I'm cynical there's a reason some men don't want it but are quite happy to have someone playing wifey at home whilst having zero claim on their assets).

@P3onyPenny you can’t have cohabiting on a form because it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in a relationship. I cohabit with 2 men and 1 woman as I houseshare. I’ve lived with some of them for nearly 2 years. Which is longer than a lot of relationships!

It would be ridiculous (and dangerous!) to say “if you cohabit with someone for x time then you are in a legal relationship”. I lived with my (very gay) best friend for several (6+) years, just the two of us - imagine if we’d been deemed to be a legal couple?

This is why cohabiting has no status. It can mean anything and so is not recognised as a legal relationship status in law. Sharing a house with someone is not a declaration of a wish to enshrine your relationship in law.

It would be a huge legal mess if you were to deem people to be in a relationship because they’ve been dating for x, living together for x, have children etc etc.

If you want your relationship recognised in law, you have to go to an appointed place and declare it in front of witnesses. It cannot happen passively and by default - both parties must consent to having their relationship legalised and sign the contract. There is no obligation to do that of course, but if you don’t want your marriage recognised in law then as far as the law is concerned, you’re single. You might not be single to everyone else (I wouldn’t call you single) but you are for legal (and tax) purposes.

I think it's more irritation at women who want roghts/recognition for their marriage etc the same as marriage but then refuse to get married. Marriage is an important legal institution. It is a contract that denotes greater commitment than mere cohabitation and provides protections for spouses when children arrive. If you want that just get married. That is exactly what marriage is for

Or why not just change the law so that marriage is not necessary?

I have to say that I always have a bit of an eye roll at women on here who think that marriage guarantees them security in the event of divorce ... and then look surprised when the DCs are older and he wanders off with the OW and they find that they are unable to keep up the mortgage, buy him out etc. and can't find work because their skills are all outdated because they have been SAHWs and put 'HisCareer' first. Another way of saying that I think too many invest too much in marriage...

I haven’t seen the other thread but I think anyone who doesn’t tie things up legally when the new enter a relationship is crazy.

And yes it is ignorance. Ignorance of the mythical ‘common law marriage. Ignorance of the protection marriage or a civil partnership gives you. Ignorance of doing nothing to protect yourself and you’re children. If you are not stupid then get something sorted out legally to protect yourself.

Easy for me. Cost £85, postal application, no lawyers, took 8 weeks.

Great for you. That's not the case for most divorces. Me and ex had kids and asserts to split. He didn't want the divorce because he liked controlling me. Dps ex wife threatened to make him wait for the 5 year clause and said she would deny they had been separated for so long. Until he pointed out she started claiming benefits as single person the day after he moved out. Look at the divorce section on this website. Or the relationships section. Or speak to lots of people who have been divorced.

Often one party is left heartbroken, I in a poor financial position.

Most divorces are not easy or simple. Your sample of one, is not enough to say that divorce is easy.

I’m not going to leave my dp because he won’t marry me, I can’t force him to marry me, nor can I force him to write a will/ legal document to protect me. I’ve asked him to do this regularly for seven fucking years. We have a child together (unplanned, but very much loved and wanted) . He holds all the fucking cards, he owns the house etc. So I guess what I’m saying is rather than telling unmarried women how stupid we are for getting ourselves into this situation, how about telling us how we magically get ourselves out of it? You can’t make someone marry you.

DP was in the same situation as you, and his partner was an abusive alcoholic. After being together for nearly 20 years, having a child and building a lucrative business together, he walked away with next to nothing and she's a millionaire. All he got was £40k that he inherited while they were together and put into a property abroad.

He's still paying the premiums on the life insurance policy that was taken out when they had their son, and the only way he'll ever see a penny from her is if she pre-deceases him.

Or why not just change the law so that marriage is not necessary?

Because people should have the choice on wether they want their relationship to involve the law.

It won't fix the issue anyway. Some people simply won't move in with their partner. There will still be women who have babies because he promised he move In when she had the baby, get married etc.

The key is to know your rights and don't settle.

I agree that most divorces aren't easy.
Much easier to split if you're not married in the first place.