To think that it's shameful that England (I think Scotland does) won't recognise common law marriage?

[Rainbowhairdontcare]

I've never understood why that's the case. Some States in the US do, the same as Canada and even some Latin American countries. Given the statistics of cohabitation it would only make sense?

All of the posters saying ''just have a registry office wedding'' are missing the point.

9 times out of ten when you see these threads on mumsnet the problem is that the woman is already vulnerable and so wants to get married to be less vulnerable. The man/father sees no reason to handover rights when he's not obliged to.

So the obvious solution isn't ''just have a version of a wedding''. The problem is that mothers who already find themselves vulnerable can't make their partner equal the sacrifices of parenthood.

The closest thing to a ''solution'' that I can see is free childcare for all. That way vulnerable women (unmarried women with low earning potential) can't continue to earn, contribute to their pension and will not be wholly dependent on the man/father who decided not to commit to them, not to risk their assets but rather, to just let somebody else bear all of the sacrifices and risks!

In time, employers would have no logical reason to discriminate agains female employees and hopefully eventually the gender gap would narrow despite the current motherhood penalty

Ohf, civil partnerships confer the same rights as marriage so if a partner won't marry you he or she is proabbly just as likely not to want a civil partnership.

"In February 2018, the United Kingdom and Scottish governments began reviewing civil partnerships.[3] In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that allowing only same-sex couples to enter a civil partnership is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.[4] The UK Government later pledged to allow opposite-sex couples in England and Wales to enter into civil partnerships,[5] and legislation enabling this passed the Parliament in March 2019 and went into effect on 26 May 2019.[6] The Secretary of State is required to issue regulations allowing opposite-sex civil partnerships by 31 December 2019.[7] The same reforms will soon be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland too.[8][9]"

Universal CP hasn't yet been introduced. There's a consultation apparently.

They are the solution for some people who don't want to get married, but they come with essentially the same provisions about assets on dissolution so wouldn't assist OP. They're really more for people who would get married but prefer the history, connotations and form of a CP for whatever reason.

Doesn't really impact those who aren't married because they feel they don't want state involvement or validation, or a public declaration, or the potential claim on assets, or who can't or don't get their shit together. Or those who have a problem with the history of both marriage and CP.

Ah!

Well nobody is going to force you to get married. It is different for men as they aren't as damaged by parenthood. I wouldn't want to use anybody though. (if I were the greater earner) wouldn't be comfortable watching somebody else destroy their earning potential for my material interests.

You can't force people to be decent human beings. People are going to have children though, so society needs to take responsibility to protect a mother through pregnancy and early childcare years.

Thank you, Xenia and Well. I suppose my thinking is that, if you love each other, commit one way or the other.
I realise how simplistic that is. Luckily, my husband is equally simple in that regard. 😁

@Nat6999 the issue with benefits is separate as a married couple can be treated as individuals for benefit purposes if they live apart or separate.
The government does struggle to find ways to "prove" that people who live together "pool" resources or not - and it has tightened such rules to prevent "rich" people getting the benefit of benefits even in a roundabout way.

Women are up against it. They have a narrower timeframe in which to have children. They face tough decisions. If everything doesn't fall in toloveplace within a team, economic unit/family, then they're left bearing the huge sacrifice for parenthood alone.

Or not have kids. Having kids is a choice and a want. Not a right.

That's no reason to our yourselfbin a vulnerable situation, then moan you dont get protected, because you chose to be in a relationship that doesnt include contract.

9 times out of ten when you see these threads on mumsnet the problem is that the woman is already vulnerable and so wants to get married to be less vulnerable. The man/father sees no reason to handover rights when he's not obliged to.*

This man wouldnt sign a simple contract at a solicitors or even move in with the women.

Again, the woman has chosen to put herself in the vulnerable position of having no financial independence and no access to any assets.

She didnt have to move in with him in the first place. Even in the event, of accidental pregnancy. But let's be fair, most of these women choose to get pregnant. Assuming everything will be fine.

Everyone should have the choice to involve the law in their relationship. Or not to. Dont choose one (and accepting it and carrying on anyway, is choosing) and then moan about the pitfalls.

Dont make yourself vulnerable, financially in the first place.

What needs to change is that people need to learn to be 100% responsible for themselves and not tether their financial security to someone they're not married to.

There's never going to be 100% free childcare, no one wants to pay for that.

There isn't a common law relationship law in Britain, but if you are living together you are treated for benefits purpose the same as a married couple.

But isn't this because those are two completely separate things? Marriage is a contract between two people; benefits are support from the government.

The Government need to sort their ideas out, if a couple are living together they should either have all the rights of a married couple or should be treated as single people for everything.

But this would mean either:

1. allowing people to claim benefits even if they live with an affluent partner (so, for example, a SAHM could claim universal credit even if her husband is a millionaire)

or 2) forcing cohabiting couples into a marriage contract even if they've chosen to stay unmarried! Why should the government be allowed to do that? It's disingenuous to talk about rights - marriage also brings responsibilities. Many people choose not to get married because they don't want those responsibilities.

@HennyPennyHorror:

I think there should be a simple legal form to sign in a solicitor's office without the traditional element being part of it all. Just a form.

You've just described marriage. Everything else is completely optional. You need to say a couple of short, non-emotive words out loud to prove that you understand what you are committing and to are not being coerced (much like you need to take an oath when you join the armed forces, or take power of attorney) but that's it.

That would stop people saying "Oh he won't marry yet...he wants a big wedding and we can't afford it"

People who use the excuse of wanting a big wedding will just come up another one. They won't throw up their hands up and think, "Oh well, I have no choice now, I'll have to give in and marry my partner even though I don't want to."

Or whatever. But people who want a big ceremony can have it.

Have you honestly never heard of anyone getting married in a register office with two witnesses? (I know that sounds sarcastic, but I don't mean it that way!)

Why does marriage have to be done in the ceremonial fashion?

It doesn't!

The benefits system doesnt treat 2 people living together as a married couple. They treat them as 2 adults living in the same household, in a relationship.

It don't think the law is unreasonable... If you want to be recognised as married, get married. Quick trip down the registry office.

It would be interesting to know HennyPenny if you were advocating for people to be able to get married as they do now but with more solicitors offices as licenced venues for it, or if you want it to be more like making a will.

Butter I think it should still be a serious undertaking but that couples should be able to visit a solicitor's office where perhaps two solicitors witness the signing of papers to legally join the couple in the same way that married couples are.

People shouldn't have to have witnesses and to undertake a ceremony.

You really need to read the reasons why legal marriages are encouraged on the divorce threads.

People shouldn't have to have witnesses and to undertake a ceremony.

Lots of legal contracts need witnesses. Why should this one not?

Have you been to a registry office wedding? It can be as unceremony like as you wish. You promise the detail of the legal contract then sign it.

People shouldn't have to have witnesses and to undertake a ceremony.

It's a legal contract hence the need for witnesses. Just like you need witnesses for your will, and other legal contracts. You could pay for two solicitors to come and be your witnesses if you choose to. You don't need to know your witnesses, or even have met them beforehand.

You don't have to have a special ceremony as such. You can just go to the register office, stand at the front and repeat the legally needed words. You'd still have to pay for the registrar, the room, the time used, etc. But you don't need to wear anything in particular, you don't need guests, and you don't need anything Bar the legal words.

Thanks henny.

It sounds like you accept the need for witnesses but think couples shouldn't have to bring their own. A lot of registry offices will provide them anyway, and if not then it's unlikely to be very difficult to get people off the streets for 10 minutes. So I can't see how that's a particularly important issue myself. The number of people dissuaded from marriage/CP because of having to get witnesses cannot be very high.

More importantly I think, how would you envisage the pre marriage checks that happen now be done? I explained upthread that solicitors don't have access to the information resources of the state. It's not like getting a will because you can go and make a new one every week if you want and it just supercedes the old one, no notifying anyone necessary. Your solicitor doesn't have to do anything other than get proof of your ID and your instructions and satisfy themselves that you have capacity, then they can draft away.

If you think the pre-wedding part would be as it is now and you basically just think more solicitors offices should be registered as venues where marriages can take place, I guess that's ok, but why is a solicitors firm more acceptable than a registry office? It'd have to be open to the public either way.

If you want the rights and protection of marriage then get married.