AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

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

If the government start giving legal rights to unmarried couples on the basis that they have had a child, I would imagine all those reluctant-to-get-married-keeping-their-options-open-men will just leave their partners instead, or insist on living separately. So their children will still not have legal protection and the mother will be left, as usual, doing all the hard work.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that its discrimination for the government not to pay family bereavement benefits to parents who are not married.

Bereavement benefits for children should not depend on the marital status of their parents. Op I assume you are trying to criticize the bereaved family for not being married because the government unlawfully discriminated against them? What an absolutely awful thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It’s 2020. Marriage doesn’t suit everyone nor does it necessarily “protect” anyone. Benefits and taxes should not be dependent on marital status. In particular it’s utterly vile to treat children differently because their parents aren’t married.

Sorry, when I say 'giving legal rights' I probably mean 'forcing legal responsibilities on'

With regard to not having children unless you are married - I think timing comes into that.

I’m 39. If I want a child, I need to move fast.

I was thinking ‘did he not have life insurance’?

When I first got a mortgage, it was mandatory to have it in place for the full value of the mortgage, but I believe it’s now just recommended.

For this article I don’t understand the relevance of the bereaved partner left paying the mortgage alone. Why on earth was there no life insurance, marriage is irrelevant on that point alone.

I don't think it's fair to blame the government for the fact that children of unmarried parents miss out on some legal protections. Or that unmarried couples aren't classed as next of kin or whatever.
The decision not to marry wasn't taken by the government, it was taken by the couple.

This should be taught in PSCHE at school

Is everything a school's responsibility?

I’m 39. If I want a child, I need to move fast.

From deciding to get married to getting married took us around 5 weeks. Still makes sense to get married and have the protection.

Not everyone can get life insurance chewbacca

@zsazsajuju this isn’t about me, this is about letting women know how vulnerable women are with children who aren’t married. Go and get married and protect yourself if you are in a similar situation. The law isn’t going to change anytime soon so don’t take the risk.

People are idiots! Do not have a child if you’re not married. You can’t expect the same rights as married people if you’re not married.

I see this a lot on way - widowed and young

My husband died - I got a £2k bereavement fund but I didn’t get pension /extra as dh was 37 and think at the time extra payout was 41/45. Silly as dh bad paid ni since 17/18

Yes it tough and horrible if not married and lose money esp if have children

But that’s also what life insurance is for

And I’ve read and seen so many people not have life insurance and struggle to pay mortgage / have to sell /lose home

Getting married isnt costly - it’s the Wedding that costs - feeding people at reception that costs

I do feel for unmarried couples but they have a choice to get married unless with someone who doesn’t want to marry them and if so , why still with them

I know someone who actually wants to get married but her partner doesnt-its screaming red flag but she doesnt see it-theyve been together about ten years

if he leaves her shes got nothing

I didn't know about this benefit until my husband died. I think if someone has children then they should be entitled to it anyway. The parents have paid into the system the same as married parents have. This is a very outdated concept and the bereaved children of unmarried parents are not second class citizens and do not deserve to lose out.

If you have children, and a mortgage, you should be also be capable of basic adulting such as taking out life insurance to cover your mortgage and loss of income and making a will.

If you are not married to your cohabitee or co-parent, you should find out what your position would be if the relationship ends, either by death or separation, and take steps to protect yourself and your interests. Marriage or civil partnership is probably the easiest way to do that.

If the government start giving legal rights to unmarried couples on the basis that they have had a child

This is more about children's rights than parents rights. Does the child deserve to lose out and live in absolute poverty because of what their parents did or didn't do?

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.

Absolutely! Or just have a civil partnership - you don't even have to exchange vows.

I'm married, with kids, if my husband died the government gives me 10 grand?

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.
This. If you dont want to be legally tied to another person (relationship but existing children you want assets to go to for example) then making it a default would take that right away. It was up to them to protect themselves, not the government taking rights away from others.

I cannot open the BBC link, so dont know what its about, I thought it was perhaps about hetro couples now demanding "Civil Partnerships", but if you dont want a religeous ceremony, you can opt for a "Register Office" Not sure why so many people think you can get married in a Registry Office, that is for registering land, and propertyrights and ownership.

Op I assume you are trying to criticize the bereaved family for not being married because the government unlawfully discriminated against them?

TBF the Supreme Court ruling in August 2018 and the government agreeing to accept it is when the law became settled on the matter, the lower courts having taken different views at different levels. He died six months later, after a nine year relationship. It's reasonable to suggest it would've been responsible to have taken some action at some point in the first eight and a half years, when they had a mortgage and a child and for some of that time the highest legal authority available on the matter stated the law was non-discriminatory. We can be in favour of the SC ruling and of a law change so the benefit goes to the carer of the child, and I am, whilst also making this point.

The local paper reported that there was a life insurance policy in place

The couple had a life insurance policy but Laura has been unable to access any other financial support.

www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/tragedy-teacher-finds-ambulance-treating-3854556

Noodlenosefraggle
I agree. I also agree the rights you have or don't have should be taught in school we need to get rid of the common law wife myth.

I'’m 39. If I want a child, I need to move fast.
A pregnancy is 9 months. Popping g into a register office takes a few weeks. You can have a heterosexual civil partnership now anyway. I knew that wouldn't stop all the 'he doesnt believe in marriage' business because many people who dont believe in marriage when their partner desperately want a commitment dont believe in being tied financially to another person they just dont want to say it.