AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

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

It's as simple as you make it. You go belt and braces with contraception. You walk away from people who are not on the same page as you are with regards to life values as you are incompatible. If you do still get pregnant, you get a termination or if you choose to go on with it then you don't give the child his surname and accept that you will be co-parenting. If you chose to enable another a person, fall for their claptrap, sell out your values that is entirely your personal responsibility and your lookout. No one forces you to do that or hand over your power.

I agree that if you want the legal protection marriage offers you should get married. But like Missillusioned I believe everyone should try and strive to be financially independent alone and as such I do not wish to tie my assets to anyone. I don’t think a man having that view is a problem either - if you don’t agree, don’t get into a relationship with someone who thinks that way. I actually think the institution of marriage disincentivises women from being financially independent and facilitates abusive relationships that are hard to leave. But of course until we have things like universally free childcare, more workplace support for lone parents and a society that encourages more active parenting from men, marriage will still be the best option for a lot of people. I know exactly what it provides legally and my decision is not to partake in that contract

I completely agree datasgingercatspot. Personal responsibility is paramount. And I say that as someone who’s largely in favour of socialism, you still have to make sensible decisions for your own wellbeing and ESPECIALLY within a capitalist and largely patriarchal society

Personally I think that the system should be changed to follow the child(ren).

If a parent named on a child's birth / adoption (sorry don't know how that works) / parental responsibility certificate dies then the resident carer for the child should get the benefit on their behalf post death. If there multiple children with different resident carers then the benefit should be split (in the same way as CSA is split), yes each individual child gets less, but with multiple children each child gets less anyway.
This should be the case regardless of the legal relationship or lack of between the parents - never married, married, CP, separated, divorced.

Similarly I don't think that in the case of a married couple where there are children predating the marriage with a different parent the benefit should be payable on the death of the non-parent unless they have assumed parental responsibility for the child. I don't know if this is still the case under post 6-April-2017 benefits but it definately is for pre 5-April-2017 benefits.

This would of course be changing the system entirely, but would achieve the purpose of supporting the child without conferring the legalities of marriage / CP on the parents. It would presumably also cost more money.

If one wants married people's perks one should get married. Then you hear that they don't "believe in it", it is "only a piece of paper"...until this happens. Then everyone else is evil because they didn't bother to set up a legal foundation to protect themselves and their loved ones.

I have set up my legalities to protect myself and my loved ones, it just isn’t by choosing marriage. I believe in marriage (on account of it existing) and I also know it is just a piece of paper, but that pieces of paper can change lives for better or worse (wording intentional).

Plus, you know, we are talking about support for recently bereaved children here, not “married peoples perks”. Losing a parent as a minor. Not choosing whether or not to give up your financial independence as an adult.

I agree with data tbh.

Some women need to wise up & get proactive.

I don’t disagree with you @dodgeballchamp, but I think that a large number of women don’t have access to the information on which to base a decision like the one that you have freely and willingly made. They are bullshitted by a cock-lodging gobshite (or a wealthy gobshite) and then it’s too late.

I understand that there seem to be many men out there who think cohabitation and children are perfectly fine, but marriage is too much of a commitment. What I don’t understand is why any woman goes along with it. We no longer live in an age where women need a man taking care of them or risk starvation. Strong women before us fought for our rights and we now can take care of ourselves. If a man doesn’t view you as worthy of forming a legal and economic partnership, why on earth would you view him as a worthy father to your children.

So either insist on marriage or pay a solicitor a ridiculous amount of money to create legal protections and responsibilities that are easily accessible through the government, but don’t enter a “partnership” with someone who doesn’t believe you are worth protecting

Oh and the tldr version

Young women these days have no idea what the world was like just a few decades ago and are just throwing away everything their grandmothers/ my generation’s mothers fought for.

I think that if he had wanted her to benefit from such things, he would have married her. But he didn't.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

I think that if he had wanted her to benefit from such things, he would have married her. But he didn't.

Which is a reasonable point in some cohabitation related scenarios, but there seems no obvious reason why we should place any reliance on it when it comes to deciding whether to provide extra state support for his child now he's gone. It is admittedly connected to his NI contributions, but it's not his money and it wouldn't be going to someone else connected to him if it weren't given to his partner.

Clearly there's a substantial element of well well well, if it isn't the consequences of my own (in)actions here, especially as they can't have reasonably assumed the law would change to protect them for the first 8.5 years of their relationship. Equally though, we have an opportunity to reform and better the provision now. And it is very unsatisfactory that the Supreme Court have made rulings but nothing has been done. Confusion could legitimately arise there.

@Theyweretheworstoftimes very interesting link. Even if you have a will with your partner you are taxed on the inheritance, where if your married you don’t pay any tax.

So, having a rule like the De-facto rule would make more sense.

I agree - but as the law stands you can have it one way or the other - not pick and choose which bits if what toys want to apply to your own situation.

I've gone through two hideous and expensive divorces. I'm never getting married again.
I don't think marriage is that great.

Mind you I've always earned a lot more that either of my husbands and have my own home so I didn't benefit from marrying them AT ALL. It very much depends on your individual circumstances.

I agree with you OP.

I also agree that the legal importance/protection of marriage should be taught in school.

Until MN threads on the topic I had never given it any thought which is exactly what I’m sure many others do to.

If you want the same legal benefits of marriage- then you get married. Marriage is the process available to get you those benefits. You don’t need any other legal rulings to give you them as there is already a thing you can do to get them- get married.

Young women these days have no idea what the world was like just a few decades ago and are just throwing away everything their grandmothers/ my generation’s mothers fought for

Amen to that.

this is a very sad story BUT (sorry) having kids brings responsibilities. Having a mortgage means entering into a big contract.

no life insurance? no savings for a funeral? no apparent knowledge that co-habitation confers no rights at all? Not good.

and I'm afraid he was single, as he was not married nor in a civil partnership. Very very harsh lesson but none of this is secret information.

daft comment upthread (not related to this case) that women should not have sex without marriage. There is something called contraception.

@JuanSheetIsPlenty I agree fully.

SchadenfreudePersonified
No-one is "forcing" anyone - but there are financial and legal benefits to being married, just as there are to remaining single.

If you want the benefits, you get married. If you don't get married, you don't get the benefits.

The choice is yours.

30datasgingercatspot
What sort of man wants to leave his partner and children vulnerable without financial protection, why don’t these men step up.

Why would they when they have seemingly no shortage of women willing to enable them, provide them with children and childcare on tap, maid service, sex all whilst they carry on earning and living unabated? It takes two to tango. Women are just as responsible for the well-being of their children as men are. If you want marriage, then you don't procreate before this, use two forms of contraception each and every time; don't move in with your boyfriend and start playing the Wifey without marriage first, don't give away your power buying bollocks about his wanting to propose or being fobbed off with an engagement ring with no wedding date in sight, fall for bullshit about now being able to afford getting married. Walk away from men who are not on the same page, yes, because love is respect and if you don't love yourself and have respect for your values, then you can better believe no one else will, either.

Rashboy
But it’s not as simple as saying do not have children with someone who doesn’t want to commit to you. I doubt any woman who has been left high and dry deliberately chose to have children with someone who has told her he doesn’t want to commit. Most women in this predicament are there because their partner sold them a pack of lies about saving for a big wedding and has usually fobbed her off with an engagement ring. I don’t think a de facto arrangement is best either.

I think we need to separate the idea of a marriage from a wedding. It should be more commonplace that once you find out you are pregnant that you sign a legal contract and then down the line you have the wedding. A bit like buying a house and waiting a year to have the housewarming!

datasgingercatspot

It's as simple as you make it. You go belt and braces with contraception. Youwalkawayfrom people who are not on the same page as you are with regards to life values as you are incompatible. If you do still get pregnant, you get a termination or if you choose to go on with it then you don't give the child his surname and accept that you will be co-parenting. If you chose to enable another a person, fall for their claptrap, sell out your values that is entirely your personal responsibility and your lookout. No one forces you to do that or hand over your power.

These points above should be stickies.
I'm sorry for her loss but I do not agree with the petition.

I'm sure she had social media and uses the Internet. Yet a ten minute Google will have given her lots of info on her rights and how to best protect her children. She needed to make an adult choice and she did not.

If you choose to not get married then you choose not to get the benefits of marriage.

I doubt any woman who has been left high and dry deliberately chose to have children with someone who has told her he doesn’t want to commit
I think there are still women who know their partner are not ready to commit to marriage but believe they will once a child comes into the picture.

Some do, some don't.

For me I wouldn’t want to get married because as some one pointed out upthread that the marriage certificate is a legal contract and it might only cost £50 to sign up to. It takes many thousands to get out of if the couple actually are financially successful

Friend, married 20 years, will get less than if she had just lived with her husband.
If she had not married she would have got her 1/2 of everything she had her name on.

Instead because she married there had been solicitors and barristers and court fees which now stand at more than £50,000 because her abusive stbexh was allowed to lead a merry dance through the court system demanding that he should be entitled to everything.

Friend is not the only one who I have seen end up with less than if they were just living together.

The only thing I think needs sorting out is how we treat couples that live together

Atm if people live together when it suits the government they are treated as a married couple but then in different circumstances then they are treated as single people

First the law needs to make its mind up which is which

Good lord, some of the old fashioned views on here! "Women having children with a man they are not married to just gives me the rage", people assuming it's always the man who's reluctant to marry, etc, etc. Wow. Just wow.