To hate it when people say 'if you're not married you're legally single'

[DrunkOnCalpol]

Because it's not true, there is no law defining the marital status of unmarried people. If you're not married, legally you're just not married, but that description doesn't enable people to put unmarried couples down so effectively.
Some laws treat co habiting couples the same as married, some don't. Yes people should be informed of the legal differences, but there's no need for some people to essentially say serious unmarried relationships don't exist.

Despite being able to get married in more places/ buildings historically less people are getting married. 1862 50 in 1000 women got married in UK, in 2009 it had dropped to 19. I assume some of this is due to more women having more opportunities to be independent and
being in paid employment. The social norms have relaxed over time too. However, this is certainly not the case in other countries in the world.

I'm divorced and it really pissed me off the last car insurance I did that I had to put that option , can I just put single this year round? Or does it actually matter if it was to go to a claim or something?

@Pinkhorses

The British system makes perfect sense, because the state doesn’t have the right to enter you into that contract with another person - only you, as an individual, have that power.

Winters after being divorced 7 years I now put single

OP. If you do actually hate it, then get married or enter into in a civil partnership.

Are you choosing not to do so? If so, then you'll just have to suck it up. You can't expect the world to fall into step with you when you are the one out of step.

Alternatively, do you want to get married or enter into a civil partnership and your OH doesn't?

Why would he, knowing that you feel so strongly-hate calling yourself single-ignore your wishes? Is he still married to someone else or does he not see you as someone to whom he wants to hitch his star ? Whatever old fanny he may be telling you, the real cause will be one of these reasons that I have kindly outlined for you.

However, if you're both happy with being legally single then why gripe about it? It's a perfectly valid choice.

One could only have sympathy with you, if the route to rectify that status was closed to you and I think that would only be the case if one of you was already married to someone else.

You may not be emotionally single but you are legally single. If it's a big deal to you, then rectify it-it's really easy to do-otherwise stop being so foolish.

having done a marriage ceremony is not seen as proof of an established relationship

It’s a pretty darn good one. That’s why we’ve been doing it for thousands of years - making vows and entering into a legal contract, with witnesses to attest that it took place

If you're claiming state benefits, you're regarded as married.

If you're claiming his earnings as your income, you're as good as stuffed if you're not married.

I’m not married. I am legally single.
I don’t think being married is a superior status, so why would calling me single be “putting me down”? It’s just saying what I am.

*If you're claiming state benefits, you're regarded as married.

If you're claiming his earnings as your income, you're as good as stuffed if you're not married*

PickAChew has it

It's ok to live with someone and perhaps have children when everything is going ok. However, if the worst is to suddenly happen , if you are married you have more protection via rights to inheritance, pensions, other benefits etc. I know people who have experienced both sides, being married and single. This is one of the reasons why marriage has been around for a long time

Me and my boyfriend have been living together for over 20 years and I have no problem saying single (especially if the barman's cute)

It depends on the context and where you live. The biggest inconsistency in the UK is in relation to benefits when cohabitation is recognised. This has legal standing.

Contextually if I am asked by somebody whether I am single, I will say no if I think they want to ask me out, I will say yes on my tax return and no if applying for housing benefits.

It doesn’t matter if you understand the difference and we all should. I am ok with the definitions as they don’t define me.

The law can’t decide what relationship is valid by some arbitrary measures of whether or not you live together / share bank accounts / have children. Otherwise lots of people would find themselves tied into a situation they don’t want!

It can and it does and indeed lots of people are disadvantaged by this. I actually would support the law being consistent on this. The inconsistency overwhelmingly (of course!) disadvantages women.

There is not just one law, there are lots of them. So it’s overly simplistic to say that you are married or single in the eyes of the law. It has already been pointed out that many laws do recognize cohabitation. Some don’t.

In the UK (many jurisdictions offer a way of formalizing this), cohabitation is not a legal contract between two people in the way that marriage is. Virtually everyone is aware of myth of the common law partner.

I get what posters are getting at when they tell people they are legally married or single and the point is generally a good one. But there are complex laws that do indeed recognize cohabitation so as a matter of accuracy, this cannot be said to be true in every factual and legal context.

The thing about having a formal marriage ceremony is that it's evidence of a commitment. Back in the day, even being engaged was considered as good as a marriage. This is part of the reason that the state began requiring formal licenses and ceremonies for marriage, in addition to religious ceremonies. From what I understand, if a person didn't care for an arranged marriage, prior to the wedding they might claim to already be engaged to another person. If no one had witnessed the supposed engagement or "betrothal", as it was more commonly known, there was no way to know if it was valid or not. Marriage creates a legally binding contract that confers legal rights on the parties involved.

I watch a fair amount of Judge Judy. She always says, "Courts don't get involved in the business of almost-marrieds." She explains that sometimes people decide to live together without benefit of marriage, and then things don't work out, and then they ask the courts to figure out who owes for what, for bills, rent, food, etc. Courts don't do that, at least in the U.S. If you're married there's a process for dividing assets. If you're not married you're often up the creek.

Do you understand what marital status means?

It means if you are MARRIED or not. Single in this use means UNMARRIED. It's got nothing to do with relationship. In this terminology, you could even be married, but not even in a relationship. But because the divorce hasn't happened yet you are still married and therefore not single.

So sorry sweetheart but you are single in the laws eyes. Hate it all you want but it's unlikely to change and frankly right now, we have bigger issues with the UK than settling your hurt feelings on terminology.

Yes , it does seem contradictory . Eg I have a relative who calls her self single as she lives alone and has a child. She is ‘ legally married ‘ but the ex moved out over 10 years ago. They have no plans to divorce . The government allow her to have top up benefits as if she is a single parent ( child is from a later relationship )
Cohabiting couples seem to be treated as if they share their incomes by the law even if they don’t.

@MrsAriadneOliver

I think it’s easier for the NZ Immigration to see proof that a relationship is genuine if it’s longer in length rather than they have a marriage certificate. There are people who will come and do a quick ceremony thinking they’ll get a visa , they might not even be in a relationship .

OP just think of it being a word with two meanings, like many other words in the English language.

Single can mean not in a romantic relationship, or on a form it can mean unmarried.

To derail, I was pissed off to see, in a survey I was completing that divorced/separated and widowed were all the same.

I am widowed, and right now prefer that distinction.

Do you feel like there's something negative about the term single? Like there's a failure to achieve something?

I’m concerned klobulchar a page ago has been fed a line by her DM’s long term partner (or indeed by her DM if she’s agreed to Will 50% of the house to her partner). He and his children may expect half the house if he dies first, but if they are in England and are not married, unless he’s on the deeds or he has otherwise contributed to the mortgage over the 20 years his family won’t be entitled to any of it!

And if he dies first, the house still belongs to your mother anyway, so if the kids went after it they’d have zero case. It’s like if he’d been living with a friend for 20 years rent free, then he died, there’s no entitlement for his family to claim a house that is wholly owned by someone else.

She could choose to Will some of it to his kids after SHE dies, but that would be up to her.

Your mum needs proper legal advice. I’m quite worried for her that so many people are groundlessly after her assets...

As am I hula. The great benefit, for many people, of not being married is that it gives more testamentary freedom.

OP I still think you're being a bit unreasonable because you have blurred issues somewhat and that doesn't help you at all. I think there's a quasi- reasonable point in there, in that in many cases the issue is simply whether a couple have a marriage contract. I suppose unmarried is less open to confusion than single, and as this is an area of law where people's ability to misunderstand seems boundless, that's important. It would be better all round if we started talking about these things in terms of do you have a marriage contract or not.

Howeber the bit where you're annoyed about people saying serious unmarried relationships don't exist is still cohabitant butthurt, because the fact is that in some areas of law they just don't. There isn't any mechanism whereby they're recognised.

I get more annoyed at the assumption that a couple must be married.

Which is reasonable enough because a very significant minority of couples aren't these days.