AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

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

I've met enough divorced women to not want marriage myself.

It has its downsides and sometimes when there are kids involved, it's best not to be married.

Not read the whole thread, but this is my experience and why I don't want to get married.

I've been with DP for over 6 years years. One child, we're talking about buying a house and we do have long term plans as a "family"

We both have life insurance of which the other is a beneficiary, and wills. All of which will be updated when we do buy a house.

I am financially independent and have 0 plans to ever be a SAHM (largely thanks to the horror stories on Mumsnet). In fact, I am a very independent person generally and struggle sometimes having to refer to someone else for big decisions. I grew up around a lot of single working mothers which I think has really impacted me.

To be honest, I love him but not sure if we will be together forever as we've had a lot of problems in the past, mostly down to his mental health. So I'd rather not be married cos it would be easier to "get away".

I wouldn't expect a bereavement package from the government though!

If kids are all taught this in school even more men will know it’s not in their interest to get married!

1 in 4 pregnancies are unplanned- so unless we say everyone should be a Virgin when they get married saying no babies before marriage is going to fail an awful lot of women and dcs.

The state is quick enough to class couples just the same as married when it comes to claiming benefits - it making joint claims rather than single even if the man doesn’t share his money or not all the dcs are his, so this policy is just another way of saving money/ punishing the poor.

A benefit that goes with / to the individual child is the perfect solution. Although probably not for the government. They already slashed bereavement benefits in 2016. So they wouldn't want to have to be in a position where they had to release the cash for every bereaved child.

The state is quick enough to class couples just the same as married when it comes to claiming benefits - it making joint claims rather than single even if the man doesn’t share his money or not all the dcs are his, so this policy is just another way of saving money/ punishing the poor

Yep. This.

Perhaps instead of vilifying people for not marrying like it’s the 1950s we should move with the times and accept long term partnerships are equal to marriage.

What happens if you are divorced from the father of your children? Do they get bereavement benefits?

The obvious solution there would be to get married before starting a family

So....a return to women not having sex before marriage? I don't think that's going to happen in a hurry.

@gin96 women are not “vulnerable” because they are not married. Nor is that link anything to do with women being “vulnerable”. Many women With children are better off not being married (I am one). Take your nasty misogyny back to the 1950s.

The link you posted is about a family who were unlawfully denied bereavement benefits in a situation which has already been ruled as discrimination by the highest court in the land. The benefits are for families with children- it should be irrelevant if the parents are married.

It’s utterly awful that you and so many others on this thread want to try to blame the bereaved family or gloat that you are married as if it’s a great achievement.

And for all the desperate smug marrieds the “government” doesn’t have to “make cohabitation equal to marriage”. They just need to treat married and unmarried families equally for bereavement benefits the way they do for many other benefits.

Don’t worry- your great achievement of getting married will not be taken away....

If the issue is bereavement benefits for the children, then why are people not clamouring for it to be paid to divorced or separated parents too?

I receive substantial child maintenance from my ex. When we were married he was heavily insured. He probably still is, but I am no longer the beneficiary. If he were to die my children and I would struggle just as much as if we had still been married.

So if we're going to disregard marriage for such things, why stop at cohabitation?

Marriage is not the only way to protect yourself and you can do much better than guaranteeing £10k max in benefits. They should have had life insurance that could have paid the mortgage. Pensions that pays in death ect...

Women fall pregnant in accident when the father might be happy to become a dad but that shouldn't mean wanting marriage and what comes with it.

I have to take serious issue with this quote: "But when they are struck by tragedy, they are treated like second-class citizens."

They are not treated like 'second class citizens', they're treated like an unmarried couple. Marriage matters and it's a choice you make to do it, or not.

government is more than happy to reclaim child benefit paid to me (zero income) from my unmarried partner (higher rate taxpayer). double standards, no?

@misillusioned - I agree it should go with the children. Theoretically it’s supposed to compensate for the maintenance they’re not getting so I think it should go with the children like child benefit. I don’t see any reason parents should not get it because they are separated or divorced (if indeed they don’t)

The DWP treats non married cohabitating partners as though they are married in life, so they should in death particularly when there are mutual children.

quite, benny.

Well currently parents don't get it if they're divorced.

I did look into insuring my ex myself, but you can't do that without the consent and cooperation of the ex. Medical forms need to be completed and signed off and as we don't speak to each other at all this isn't feasible.

So if he dies I lose a substantial income with no chance of any bereavement benefits. Not will I inherit off him and if he remarries, neither will my children. I don't see why a cohabitation makes a difference.

So if we're going to disregard marriage for such things, why stop at cohabitation?

Indeed. The benefit should go with the child.

If the issue is bereavement benefits for the children, then why are people not clamouring for it to be paid to divorced or separated parents too?

Maybe because the other parent in those scenarios is, well, alive? They can be taken to court and forced to pay maintenance, whereas a dead parent can't be...

Anyway the BSP lasts for just 18 months. That isn't a child's life time so the bereaved parent still has the rest of the childhood to deal with alone with no financial support. It is relentless. Just providing that 18 months worth of support would make a huge difference and as a pp has said, cohabiting couples are not treated any differently by the DWP when they are both alive.

The DWP treats non married cohabitating partners as though they are married in life, so they should in death particularly when there are mutual children.
But they don't. They treat them as cohabiting and contributing accordingly when assessing means. Which is correct.

Scottish law is different to the law in the rest of the UK on this. Personally, I'm in favour of keeping things as they are. If you want the protections and entitlements that go with being married, you get married or enter a civil partnership. If you have chosen not to do that I don't think the state should override your choice. So I agree with Lord Hodge who dissented from the Supreme Court judgement mentioned in the BBC article. As he and others have pointed out, the Supreme Court's judgement is contrary to previous rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. As ECHR rulings are supposed to take precedence over rulings by our own courts, I think the Supreme Court's position is untenable. However, it appears the government isn't appealing so the Supreme Court's judgement stands.

Having said that, there are far too many people who still believe that cohabitation makes you a common law spouse, giving you similar rights to being married. Indeed, there are far too many myths about marriage generally. I remember a while ago when people were campaigning for civil partnerships for heterosexual couples hearing a campaigner complaining that she didn't want to get married because she was an atheist and a wedding would be a religious ceremony with her getting married "in the sight of God" (her words). That, of course, is only true if you choose to be married in a church or other religious premises. A registry office wedding is entirely non-religious.

I get some people don't believe in marriage but there's now the option to "legalise" your relationship to protect each other and your child with civil partnerships.

Unfortunately though there are men out there who'll father children with a woman but make no further commitments.My friends partner talked about marriage only months into their relationship saying he wanted marriage and kids.There's now a child.The child is 3 and a half.Any sign of wedding though?,nope.

This is really difficult. I agree that unmarried/cohabiting mothers and their children need to be protected. But how far that is the state’s responsibility, I’m not sure. I don’t think that cohabiting should automatically be treated the same as marriage, I think marriage means something, and should be an active choice, not something you just slide into by default because of your living arrangements. It should also be possible and legitimate to actively choose not to be married and not to give your partner those protections.
I can think of scenarios where this would protect women: what about the woman whose cocklodger boyfriend hasn’t “moved in”, doesn’t contribute, but hasn’t left since he stayed over three months ago? If she turns up strangled from “sex gone wrong” one day, is the law to presume that he inherits her house? I fucking hope not, but that’s where this could lead.

I think viewing bereavement payments when there's a minor child through the lense of typical cohabitation reform arguments is misleading.

Normally I'm unsympathetic to people demanding that other people lose rights because they can't possibly be expected to do anything to secure their own. Which is what a lot of arguments about changing the position of cohabitants to that of married couples come down to. Marriage is outdated and doesn't protect anyone, except all the times when it does and it's outrageous that people who haven't entered into the contract are treated like they haven't, etc etc.

But the state (usually) pays an enhanced payment when one of a married couple with children dies, in recognition of the cost of raising that child and the loss of the parent's income. Hence the NI contributions part. It's the state's money, not actually innately related to the contractual relationship or lack of one between the couple. It's not making assumptions about what a dead person wanted, or ascribing motivations and wishes to people who never formalised them.

These did start out as benefits linked to the NI contributions record of the deceased, and so the rules made some sense in the context that they were introduced, but I think it's now time for a wholesale reform.