If I was the dictator of UK ...

[ScreamingLadySutch]

So many hard and painful threads recently, of mums who want to be married but their 'partners' couldn't be bothered.

If I was the dictator of UK, I would BRING BACK a seriously generous tax allowance for marriage. To be lost on divorce, and not applied to any subsequent marriages

Enough that these idle 'sort of committed' emotionally vacant fuckers would feel pain missing out on

Punish Mums and kids for escaping abusive marriages? 🥜

Madness

Personal responsibility out of the window

Women can choose if they do or don’t want marriage with a baby

Seen many a higher earner woman get screwed out of money in divorce and left with most of the childcare.

Thankfully you’re not the dictator then

But then you'd have people financially reliant upon abusive relationships because they can't afford to go it alone without the allowance. Or people who are deeply unhappy in their marriage and deserve a chance a happiness elsewhere but can't afford to. Or people who are tied to a partner who cheats. Or one who is emotionally distant. Or entirely wrong for them. Basically you make divorce even more difficult which is a situation that will disproportionately affect women who already often come out the losers in the divorce stakes.

A far better option would be to give more recognition to so-called common-law marriages, take strict enforcement action against NRPs who do not provide adequate financial support to their children, and simplfy the divorce process so that it is free and assets are divided fairly without all of the current wrangling.

I would make common law spouse are real thing. So there would be a rebuttable presumption that if a couple lived together, had children together etc. then they intended their relationship to be formal partnership rather than FWB or flatmates.

Ridiculously stupid what on earth would make you think that would be a good idea.

Splended, let’s make escaping an abusive marriage even more financially punitive.

Chaz “ I would make common law spouse are real thing”

So couples who didn’t want marriage no longer have the option of living together?

Please leave the current lack of common law alone!!!

If you want protection, get married / partnership. Plenty of people, me included, don't want all the financial crap erc that goes with marriage but would be happy living with someone.

Agree though that the OP's idea would lead to people being stuck in abusive marriages.

I said it would be rebuttable presumption.

i.e. you would have to show you didn’t want to be treated as a partnership.

Chaz - why do it that way round? If people want marriage or civil p, they can do that.

Terrible idea.
Sometimes divorce is the best thing that can happen to a family.
Would widows/widowers lose the allowance?
What if your spouse is in prison? Develops an addiction?
Why should single people be punished?

OP, have you reconsidered at all?

If you were the sort of person who'd have a child with 8 different partners, what stops you opting out 8 times?
What if you end up with a dick who says let's opt out until we've been together say 3 years then unilaterally goes back on that promise?
Would you have to decide if you were in or out at the point of moving in? Conceiving a child? Engagement? How would you stop people dating indefinitely rather than having to decide whether to make their partner official or not? Why not have a civil partnership or get married?

"I would make common law spouse a real thing”

Dreadful idea

The law should not be changed for the small stubborn minority who insist that common law "marriage" gives them the same rights as a real marriage,
OR for those who choose to stay with a partner who refuses legal commitment

Adults should be allowed to choose to live together without any financial commitment

Of course, child maintenance should be paid whatever the type of relationship - and if I were dictator, that is something I would enforce with effective and very harsh penalties

It's constantly said on here that if a man doesn't want to have a baby, he shouldn't have sex, so if women to have a baby out of wedlock the same applies surely? All these poor mothers who just want to be married could have put off children until they were married

BigChoc. Sleeping agree.

Sorry, that was meant to put you both in bold to say I agree with both your posts.

Why in God’s name would anyone ever want to marry a person who openly admits they don’t want them?

Sounds like a recipe for misery to me. For adults and children.

The issue is that nearly half of all children are born outside of a marriage/civil partnership
www.closer.ac.uk/data/percentage-live-births-marriage/

It’s not about a stubborn minority

The issue is that nearly half of all children are born outside of a marriage/civil partnership well if you consider it an issue, responsibly lies just as much with the women

I haven’t apportioned responsibility between the sexes.

In fairness to Parliament there is a lot of work going on on this topic
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03372/SN03372.pdf

Scotland, Australia and Canada see to have found a solution.

seem

Chaz - why does it matter?

It matters if people are having unplanned, unwanted children that they can't look after but that isn't something that's solved by encouraging people to do more red tape.

I’m a single mum, ds was born “out of wedlock” and he sees his dad for nine hours a week.

He’s an exuberant happy 11yo, doing really well at school, fit, healthy, absorbed in his life.

Whether his parents are married or not makes bugger all difference. What matters is that his mum is financially stable, relatively happy, supports his education and can provide a secure home, food, clothes etc,

Also that we live in a society where no-one tries to attach shame to being unmarried or not living in a nuclear family.