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.

@speakout - you mustn't live in England and Wales then plus you also had a co-operative ex-spouse.

No Thats it really isn't that simple.

Re an extra box- put co- habiting relationship ( wouldn't be hard to come up with something more accurate and would still be blindingly obvious that it didn't have the same legal weight as marriage). The word single is inaccurate and leaves a false impression.

Re bereaved children. All bereaved children need support regardless of whether their parents are married or not.Other benefits aren't withdrawn from needy families because parents aren't married this should be no different particularly when you consider unmarried families have paid just as much into the potvthat funds it.

Re head in sand who is saying do that? It is perfectly possible in these discussions to point out all the savvy things unmarried mothers should do in order to protect themselves without the bullying,patronising get married or become homeless speel you continuously get by some. Society clearly prefers cohabiting,the group is ever growing so with that in mind inform and grow with the times.< the world won't end if a third box is put on forms>

KateMcD How are you being "punished," by a box on a form referring to you as not being married? You're not married. Why are you determined to be offended by that?

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.

You can't magically get yourself out of it. The trick is to not get in it, in the first place. I had to leave an abuser. I couldn't magically get out of it.

What you really should be thinking is why you want to be with someone who will not give you something that your really want. Something that will make you happy and make you more secure.

What function would a third box serve? Other than to appease those who are determined to be offended?

@GnomeDePlume - vunerable women, and even those we don't consider vunerable e.g. Jerry Hall, are confused because some religious leaders can act as a registrar and others can't even if they have an equivalent position. The government probably has to be taken to court to change this.

I find it massively odd in a so called committed unmarried relationship women are afraid to bring up a legal process which protects them and their children in the event of break up or even death? I’m not talking marriage/civil partnership, just legally securing their position.

Re the box on forms - I've filled in loads of forms with a box saying I'm cohabiting. I did one the other day but for the life of me I can't remember what it was for!

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

But how, practically, do you do that? If you are in a situation where you are in a relationship with one person but also in a houseshare with another how do you prove which one is the person you are in a relationship with? You all share the same letterbox and may well be named on bills etc but how do you claim a relationship exists if the chips are down?

Do you end up having to produce bed sheets and have intrusive questioning about your sex life to prove that you are the 'significant other' when trying to claim rights to death in service benefits from a pension?

@yetanotherspartacus because it would be authoritarian. As I said literally just bellow the bit you bolded. The law disobguishes between marriage and cohabitation because it give people the choice whether to legally and finacially commit to each other or to not commit finacially and just keep their relationship purely emotional. It is annimportant choice. I compromised my career to be with DH so I insisted on marriage because, in the event of anything going wrong, I would get reasonable compensation. On the other hand. If we both had good careers we may not have married because it wouldn't give us any particular protections where joint finances would be unnecessary and possibly undesirable. Marriage and cohabitation are two completely different kinds of relationships. If you want the kind of relationship that comes with marriage then get married. It's not difficult and there is absolutely no reason to change the law.

All bereaved children need support regardless of whether their parents are married or not.Other benefits aren't withdrawn from needy families because parents aren't married this should be no different particularly when you consider unmarried families have paid just as much into the potvthat funds it

And you know this when you decided to have kids and not be married .

Legally, single is correct. You can cohabit and still be single. Cohabit means just that, you cohabit. It doesn't mean you are not single.

Re an extra box- put co- habiting relationship ( wouldn't be hard to come up with something more accurate and would still be blindingly obvious that it didn't have the same legal weight as marriage).

I'm not against an extra box, but I suspect your optimism about it being blindingly obvious is misplaced. People already think cohabitation carries the same legal weight as marriage, frighteningly often. What should be blindingly obvious when it comes to marriage and cohabitation evidently isn't.

My sister's partner of 9 years died very suddenly last year. They weren't married and he hadn't signed his pension or anything over to her.
They both had kids from a previous relationship, my niece and nephew are in their twenties. His kids got everything and she almost lost her home as she doesn't earn very much and got nothing from his estate. She didn't qualify for any benefits or grants for funeral expenses etc.
I'm not saying she should have got everything and the kids nothing, obviously he would have wanted to leave his kids something. But the fact is that he didn't spell out what he wanted (most people don't) and so she got nothing. She struggled to pay for his funeral (had to sell his car to pay for it)
I think that marriage would protect you from lazy people who don't get their affairs in order. He didn't expect to drop down dead at 49.
She is just about managing at the moment but I can imagine it has made things worse that on top of her grief she has been worried about money.
If you aren't married, that is your choice and it doesn't mean your relationship is lesser than a marriage but it does have consequences if the worst should happen.
So either get married or make sure you are making provision in case something happens to either of you.

IAmAllAstonishment you do know you can buy a metal ring without needing to get married.

I have friends who wear a wedding ring who are single and who are not looking for anyone as it then gives them an excuse for turning men away.

I also know married woman who dont wear their wedding ring because they have gained or lost a lot of weight.

So by all accounts you wouldn’t let your children play with someone who has lost or gained a lot of weight but would let them play with someone who had bought a ring.

As for
you can easily divorce

Friend is in her 2nd year of her divorce. £22000 and still no nearer coming to an end.

He wants it all. She ran out of money about 6weeks after she started.
He is gambling every bit of cash away. Running up debts that she is half responsible for as they are married. At the end he will have an income. She will be left with very little and unable to work

You have boxes for religion. Why on earth not? There are plenty of things on forms that have little function. I think in some situations it is useful to know that you don't live alone and are in a relationship. I'm sure I've ticked a cohabiting box on some forms( census maybe) so it does happen. Wonder what other countries do.Single is inaccurate,it's not about being determined to be annoyed it is just annoying. Doesn't really affect you so not getting the anger. Everybody knows the legalities of marriage not least the body whose form it is. Putting in another box doesn't detract from anything.

Some People do Paul,not everybody.

Personally I don't like forms that don't have a box for "husband" or "wife" but only "partner".

I have a husband not a partner. That sound like you run a business together

I know the discussion has moved on but I totally agree the comments on that post were often very sneering. But to be honest I find lots of the comments on here very sneering and judging. I do wonder if it is certain boards though. I have seen some lovely support on the relationship board when people are experiencing difficult times. However I've also seen that people jump to sneering and judging really quickly.

It's quite sad really. I'm sure there's a whole research study could be done as to why people behave in this way online. Maybe it's how people actually think but are too worries about appearing rude to say this shit in real life.

Race change what law?

I'm a bit surprised that people are adamant there shouldn't be a box to say you are cohabiting. As @P3onyPenny says, in some situations it can be useful to know if you live with someone. If it's useful to know in the context of why you're completing the form it should be there and if not why ask about relationship status at all. And what skin is it off anyone else's nose if the box is there or not?

mybest so partners should cease to exist on forms because you don't like the term.

YANBU. What's worse than a smug married couple? Lots of smug married couples!

If cohabitation was automatically treated like marriage I’d be 4 times divorced.

Unfortunately it’s a tale repeated time after time. A good friend of mine is dealing with the repercussions of ‘never getting around’ to getting married and now the relationship has broken down 15 years later after giving up her career to have 2 children she find herself in a near impossible situation. He continues his life with multiple businesses numerous properties and a fleet of cars as she struggles in a tiny house and has little help from the law to do anything about it. The children are courted by dad and all the things he can lavish on them and she is left to fend for herself.

I wish someone had opened my eyes re how long and expensive divorce is before I got married.
Ex is a frivolous litigant, and just a mention of courts make me cold inside. Both residence and finance proceedings, just for the fun of it. I am the parent with 100% (de facto) custody, the marriage didn't even last two years and still I lost 25% of my pre-marital property to him.

You have boxes for religion.

And? Not every religion is listed. You don't have to fill it in. Your religion doesn't invite the law into your relationship with God.

The law isn't involved . It has no correlation.

Clearly this is a sore point for you.