AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51676780

Because people are idiots and don't realise that marriage is important legally. They bang on about not wanting to get married due to the patriarchy or because it's expensive but won't just do a basic registry office job. If you have kids you should be married (or have a civil partnership), or accept that you miss out on the benefits that marriage/civil partnership brings. This should be taught in PSCHE at school.

Yanbu.
Where do you draw the line otherwise. Dating for a year? Living together? Have a child? Who would decide which relationships are sufficiently committed to qualify.

Clicky link

This should be taught in PSCHE at school

I agree.

Oyster The benefit is only for parents, so having a child together seems the obvious bar.

It's easy to blame the bereaved person, but the recent court ruling put the onus on the country to change so unmarried parents are entitled also.

I was just reading this and I'm a bit torn.

Regarding the funds - It seems to me an important thing here is that the couple had children together - although I can see that the same would apply to parents who were no longer together, but even then the death of one parent would affect the other in terms of maintenance or suddenly having to provide a full-time home for the children which might affect work.

I wonder if a system could be brought in where funds were paid per child in this scenario, to the parent of the child (whether the partner of the deceased or not). I suggest this as someone who is childfree but married, so I hope my perspective is impartial.

Regarding having a say in the funeral and so forth - I agree, if you want to be certain you will be considered as the deciding voice, you should get married. If you don't attach importance to civil/religious ceremonies such as marriage, why would you think funerals were any different?

It's a tragic story, but I would agree. They should have got married to protect each other and their child. You can get married very cheaply - can you even civil partner now if the register office signing feels too heavy? Seems bizarre to me that you would commit to a child and a mortgage but shy away from legal recognition of your long-term relationship status.

Marriage/civil partnership - that’s a legal contract where you are conferred rights and responsibilities relating to each other and the partnership, and the state. You don’t have those rights and responsibilities without the legal agreement. Strip away all the white dresses and fancy cakes - marriage is a contract.

Cost us about £50 (registry office) it's a bit like organ donation, don't think if opting in, until something happens...you would think with DC would be something top of list especially when they are not that young

Also same could be said in terms of life insurance though as well / mortgage cover

This is another reason marriage is important, yet so many people say "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we're committed to each other"

Unfortunately, you do. It's a legality. You can't expect to have it all.

Some men won't marry their partners. By the time the woman has had children with him and realised he won't change his mind, it's too late.

That's why marriage is an outdated concept. It doesn't work. Because too much power rests in the hands of one half of a partnership.

Whoever stays at home with the kids is immediately at a disadvantage.

I think any couple who have children and live together, should receive the same rights as married couples do currently.

I do feel very sorry for her but they weren’t young parents and she surely must have known this stuff.

People don't think, and when they do this topic seems to have an immense capacity to mislead and confuse people.

The law on this particular point is changing, or it's supposed to be anyway, but with Brexit and now the coronavirus it isn't exactly going to be top of the priority list and it'd be daft to rely on it. None of us know when we're going, after all.

I think they are potentially quite helpfully paving a way forward for parents to be protected without having to marry. That would be a fabulous thing.

She didn't though Lynn - and I must admit I only knew about the issue because of Mumsnet. I can't help but think if they won't change it they definitely need to put it in all the pre natal information you get given.

I obv know nothing about this sad case, but in general couples are unmarried because they think it’s the right-on thing to do, because the chap “doesn’t believe in it” or “wants to propose properly in his own time” (ie is keeping his options open), because they simply haven’t got round to it despite being keen, or in rare cases because they have genuine misgivings about the concept.

I agree that people often don’t fully understand the ramifications. Many unmarried women give birth and give up earning power, pension etc without any legal basis, and it’s crazy.

If you want the accoutrements of marriage, you need to be married.

Who's 'they' dudsville? This is the second ruling by the courts on the matter but the government dont seem to have accorded it much priority, as the first SC ruling in the McLaughlin case was August 2018.

I do actually favour a change in the law for bereavement benefits so they go with the child, iyswim, but it's pretty clear that it isn't exactly the priority right now. Much as I dislike both the governments we've had since then, of course they've had bigger fish to fry.

I think that the ramifications need to be more widely known, so that people can make informed decisions. I knew about this, but I am shocked by how many people don’t! I guess talking more about this ‘awkward’ subject would help.

DH wanted to have a child before we were married- I said no, absolutely not. For many reasons.

I have to say though, I was in the ‘why the heck wouldn’t you?!’ camp until very recently, when I started working with one half of a couple who have been together for 20+ years. They don’t want to marry due to very messy parental divorces on both sides, which has affected how they feel about marriage- I’m not saying that they’re doing the right thing, but I do understand now.

I also wonder if the pressure to have a ‘big’ wedding causes an issue for some? Fall pregnant unexpectedly, wedding/ proposal put on hold, then something awful happens...

Some men won't marry their partners. By the time the woman has had children with him and realised he won't change his mind, it's too late.

The obvious solution there would be to get married before starting a family - although I realise that accidental pregnancies happen.

If you want marriage (or civil partnership)and your partner doesn't (or is dragging their heels) I think it's a bad idea to stay with them in the hope they'll change their mind.

The most compelling argument I’ve seen for ‘if you want those rights get married’ is that often people don’t get married specifically because they DON’T want to create a legal link between them, and the government making that assumption removes their freedom and ability to be in a loving relationship and still retain choices.

I agree, you want to be legally bound and legally protected? Get married, or have a civil partnership.

Don’t have babies with a man until you’re married unless you are the main earner and he will be the sahp. Women have children with men that haven’t divorced there first wife, they will end up with nothing as everything legally goes to the married partner.

I’ve never understood the “it’s only a piece of paper” argument against marriage. If it’s only a piece of paper, then why not just go to the registry office and hand over your money and get one. A passport and a driving licence are only pieces of paper but if you need one, you hand over the cash.

If “marriage” isn’t important to you, then treat it for what it is; a legal transaction that gives you and your children financial protection.

This is why women shouldn't have children with men they aren't married to. It's almost like having a child is a lesser commitment than marriage...

Don't move in, buy a house, have babies , all before you are married. You will have no genuine security.
We need to be teaching our kids this ; if you love someone enough to have a baby with them and live with them, then you love them enough to marry them and give them a solid foundation on which to build a life with you.

I can see why some people think the state will treat them as a married couple when they need support. The state currently can and does treat cohabiting couples as if they were married or civil partners. But it only does so when it is to the state’s advantage.

Government departments and the Tax Office have guidance which defines when couples are deemed to be living together «as a married couple or civil partners» and those couples lose welfare or tax benefits as a result. It’s a win win situation for the state, and lose lose for those couples.

The insistence on talking about marriage as all about love when same sex marriage was debated and agreed meant we missed the ideal opportunity to have an in-depth and far reaching discussion about the institution of marriage and its purpose. The star is not interested in love at all. The state is interested in money. That interest extends to immigration law, tax and benefits.