AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

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

@AndNoneForGretchenWieners being divorced doesn't mean youre immortal!

I meant divorced parents where one subsequently dies. At present they are not covered under the current system either

I think those who see marriage as misogynistic/patriarchal are missing the point that the marriage contract was originally designed to protect women against the risk of being left destitute because she got pregnant by a man who didn't stick around. You can argue we don't need that protection any more (and I'd disagree with you) but it's hardly misogynistic.

To change the law would be a huge minefield if legitimising (legally) unmarried couples. How long is a relationship? 6weeks/6 months/6 years? What about couples who don't actually live together but have been 'together' several years? People in an open relationship and have several partners? A man with children to several partners, do all the women get financial support? And on and on.

So the onus must be on a couple to make financial arrangements/marriage/civil partnerships etc.

I think a parent registering the birth of a child should be given one to one advice, or a clear leaflet on the pitfalls of not legitimising the partnership. Followed up after 1 year by the same information.

Making the legal protections / obligations of marriage / civil partnership opt-out, rather than opt-in, is an absolutely terrible idea.

The legal obligations to ones spouse are significant and not to be taken on lightly. They should not be applied unless there is an affirmative step by both parties to take them on.

Anything else is totally illiberal. And yes that means some people will lose out through ignorance - better that than the alternative.

It is going to be a minefield as and when the law changes, that's true. For all the talk of removing barriers for poorer couples, they're the ones less likely to have a paper trail proving cohabitation. Naice MN type unmarried couples, who know the law and have jointly owned property or at least tenancy agreements and bills, will be the ones best placed to prove their status. There will likely still be people who could really benefit falling through the gaps, which is another reason I think wholesale reform would be preferable to merely implementing the McLaughlin decision.

*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*

The registry office only requires three weeks notice.

she said. "I even had to register Nigel as 'single'.
"It was a spit in the face for nearly a decade spent together.

But he was single. And it's not a spit in the face. It was their decision to make. No-one was out to get them for it.

I read this tragic story ,and feel for the lady involved .However Marriage was originally for the protection of women and children ,and long ago (thankfully) to escape the dreaded slur of being born outside wedlock or "living over the brush" The law takes time to catch up and there was a previous case like this a while ago .TBH I struggle to see why in a committed relationship you wouldnt marry someone? Obviously not in case they died (heaven forbid) but day to day ,all having the same name feeling you belong together ,as a family .The point is Marriage is a contract and a legal document .There is also a Civil partnership for those not wanting to marry . In a tragic outcome like this it gives protection for the remaining person .Point is if you are not married ,then you are a single person in the eyes of the law ,it really is that simple Im afraid!

@zsazsajuju good for you, you are financially independent, not everyone situation is the same. Well until the law changes and I agree it would be a logistical nightmare to implement, you have pros and cons to being married, every woman should know what they are and then make the decision. I am only putting the information out there.

But they don't. They treat them as cohabiting and contributing accordingly when assessing means. Which is correct

So Yh, the same as they treat married couples. As I said.

Not helpful to conflate marriage and having the same name: its just a fact that you can have the same name without being married if you want and being married doesn't innately involve a shared name either. And the other stuff about being a real family etc is only an opinion.

What we should be focusing on are the facts, the nature of the legal contract of marriage and now also civil partnership.

I don’t understand why it’s ok to consider cohabitees income for student loans or any income related benefits applications but not for bereavement support.

The thing that I think a lot of people don’t really understand is that the benefits of being married (apart from the married persons tax allowance, if you qualify) don’t really kick in until one of you dies or you divorce.

We really need some sort of public information campaign to get the message through that a marriage contract is different and separate to a wedding.

Well, as a single mother, I guess I'm pretty fucked, then?! But, then I don't expect the state to provide financial support for my children in case of my bereavement and have made more than adequate provision for them in the event of my death.

I think the point here is how the law currently stands - those that are not married miss out of a whole host of legal protections. Therefore, if you choose not marry, you need to accept you are - will be missing out under the current system.

There’s no point in burying your head in the sand. At present, if you want those protections then get married / have a civil partnership. If you really don’t want to for whatever reason, you accept those risks as part of that decision and try to mitigate against them (ie life insurance policies etc).

You have to work within the current system until it’s changed. It’s a totally separate issue from whether the system is right or wrong. If you believe it’s wrong, campaign to change it.

Also not the point but I hate it when people say they are not ready for the commitment of marriage as an excuse not to get marriage but have kids, which is by far and away the bigger commitment. I also agree with the PP who made the argument about marriage being a piece of paper but likening it to a passport or driving license, which are also bits of paper conferring legal rights in the holder and which most folk don’t have an issue with obtaining !

The thing that I think a lot of people don’t really understand is that the benefits of being married....don’t really kick in until one of you dies or you divorce.

Divorce is the main issue here. The death rate prior to old age in our society is low. So young-ish marriage is mostly a protection against divorce. And that protection benefits the lower earning partner at the expense of the higher earning partner, who is still likely to be the man.

I’m with @leckford and @Doobigetta in that it’s a slippery slope. If they start conveying the benefits of marriage to non-married people, you can bet your life it still won’t end up protecting the people it’s supposed to. Random “partners” will be claiming the money and wives of 20 years will be left with nothing. Men will somehow use it to their advantage like always.

@Autumnsloth, that’s just ridiculous. If you can afford a house and a child, you can afford to get married. You don’t need a sit down meal for 1000, a big white dress, a horse drawn carriage and 10 matching bridesmaids; you’re not Katie Price! A register office wedding costs £117 - you can save the bloody party for another time.

“ 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.”

Cn we stop with the generalisations?

Not all women are the same. Not all men are the same. Not all families are the same.

Instead of assuming women are always the weaker partner economically and writing things like this forcing them back into their box why not just say

Do not leave yourself financially vulnerable or reliant on others. Take independent legal and financial advice before entering into any personal relationship which combines your finances or involves joint purchasing. Ensure you have plans and protection in place for your present and future financial planning.

This applies, woman, child, regardless of marital status.

Well, as a single mother, I guess I'm pretty fucked, then?! But, then I don't expect the state to provide financial support for my children in case of my bereavement and have made more than adequate provision for them in the event of my death.

It is actually something that is funded out of national insurance contributions. Why shouldn't people get back what they pay in for times like this? And you may be a single parent but your children do have a father. Does he not pay towards their upkeep? And should your children miss out because if he died?

@Gin96

YABU to not put a clickable link in your OP!

Seriously though,😝 I agree with you 100%. Women having children with a man they are not married to just gives me the rage.

Also, I have seen a number of cases like this sadly.

More recently I know a woman who had been with her man for 20 years (he was 55 and she was 43... and they met at 35 and 23.)

He had an ex wife and 2 kids, and was divorced from his wife just before my friend met him. (Been married 10 years at the time.)

When he died suddenly 2 years ago, my friend discovered she was entitled to FUCK-ALL, and his ex wife and 2 kids had more rights than her.

My friend had no more rights than someone who is your flatmate at uni!

I don't think it is discrimination. Marriage is a legal contract. If marriage is available to all and you don't choose to marry then you have chosen not to have that legal contract. You can't then expect it to apply to you when it suits you and not have it apply to you the rest of the time. You want the legal contract get married. That's what marriage is. You don't have to have a big wedding or even a wedding.

It isn’t discrimination. If you don’t take out an insurance policy, you can’t claim if things go tits up. Simple as that.

If you are married, have children and your partner dies you receive £3500 first payment and then £350 a month for the next 18 months which does not effect any state benefits. Worth considering.

@Gin96 you are not just “putting information out there”. You are making nasty comments about a bereaved family being unlawfully discriminated against. The Supreme Court has already ruled this situation to be unlawful.

And your comments about how I should “protect myself” by getting married are idiotic. Marriage wouldn’t “protect“ me from anything (not to mention that I or any other woman can’t unilaterally decide to get married in any event). I am financially much better off being unmarried and it is “good for me” that I am independent and able to look after myself.

It’s pathetic that you feel the need to attack a family seeking benefits for bereaved children because the parents were not married. I would have a think as to why you feel you need to do that.

@Alsohuman - it is discrimination as the Supreme Court have already determined that.