AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

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

It may well have done. I disagree.

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.

Well that's arguable the other way round as well isn't it when the government does take into consideration the earnings of the unmarried partner for benefit purposes.
As this is something most people pay into for emergency situations such as the death of a husband /wife, it is discrimination. It's discrimination against those who have paid in the same amount and get nothing back. And it's discrimination against their children who have no control over any of it.

If you have children and can't work or end up paying for the bulk of the childcare then @zsazsajuju then you're better off being married, that is a fact, not misogyny. Misogyny is what happens atm, ie, society IGNORES the disadvantages women face in their career and ability to earn money. This only happens because men allow it and society allows men to allow it. So don't get confused with your issues.

My children are old enough for me to work now, but even when I was cornered by responsibility for two very young children I was a feminist. Internalising patriarchy is what makes us see this shit as the norm and not challenge it.

If you stick your head in the sand because you're alright yourself and label anybody who points out that mothers and especially mothers of younger children face a lot of obstacles financially, then that you're not seeing the bigger picture.

@Gin96 - it’s a reasonable amount of money which is exactly why it should be going to all bereaved children.

I think that the recent development of civil partnerships for straight people will be helpful here. All of the legal protections without the connotations of marriage for those that dislike it.

UserV
@Gin96
YABU to not put a clickable link in your OP

She did - 4th post.

I was just reading this and thought exactly the same. If you want marital rights then get married.

I don't think the expanded CP will do much to assist. It will help some people, but it won't do anything about those who don't know the law or haven't got round to sorting it out. They're the main issue really.

People who object to marriage on principle, but also knew enough about the benefits of state recognition of a union to find marriage in another name desirable, had probably protected themselves anyway. Going forward, as new relationships form and some of those couples choose CP, they're going to be the people who would've either married or made other provisions anyway.

@Theyearofthedog - women are not necessarily better off being married. Assuming that women always have fewer assets or lower earnings is misogyny. Assuming that marriage “protects” women is misogyny. Marriage gives you a claim on your partners assets and them a claim on yours. If they have less than you, regardless of the childcare position you will end up worse off. Just ask Notbeingrobbed who ended up doing the Vast majority of the childcare and handing over loads of her assets to her lower earning ex husband anyway. Marriage and silly traditional views are not the answer to misogyny.

In any event, that is not what this thread is about. It’s about attacking a bereaved family who have been unlawfully discriminated against because the parents didn’t choose to get married. Which is pretty disgusting if you ask me.

@zsazsajuju i’ve not attacked anyone or made nasty comments I think I have hit a nerve. Why are you so upset when you are obviously financially independent, each individual circumstance is different, marriage is not for everyone, i’m just putting the information out there.

And @Theyearofthedog - I don’t think I am the one not recognising that mothers of young children face financial barriers. I am the one saying state benefits should not discriminate on the basis of marital status.

Women aren't always better off being married. As a cohort and on the whole, yes, and failure to recognise that does us no favours. But all that means is that if we pick a woman in a relationship at random, especially if there are DC, that she is more likely than not to be better off married. It doesn't mean every woman is.

Surely if a couple decide not to get married that is their choice but they then can't complain they don't get the benefits associated with marriage and should make their own arrangements such as life insurance etc.

Assuming that women always have fewer assets or lower earnings is misogyny

No, it’s realism because, except for a tiny minority, it’s the case.

@Gin96 - read your posts! Such utterly awful behaviour should hit a nerve with everyone. I personally have not been bereaved but that doesn’t mean I am perfectly happy for you to make nasty comments about those who have.

You also did tell me to “protect myself” by getting married. I am offended by your misogyny too. I am a woman and your sexism is offensive to me.

So don’t try to make this about me. This is about you and your sexism and lack of sympathy for a bereaved family.

@Alsohuman - no it isn’t. A significant minority of women in relationships are better off than their partners. About 1/3rd or so. But your sexist views are so entrenched that you can’t understand that marriage isn’t a wonderful thing financially for many women. That’s sad.

And I think that a bereaved family absolutely can complain about not getting a benefit that the Supreme Court said should be paid to them 18 months ago. Whether or not they are married

I would abandon marriage altogether. It is outdated. People should be properly educated and they should choose what forms of legal arrangement they wish to have.

Marriage is still on here touted as "good for women". It is not by default good for women. My best friend should never have got married as her bastard husband had no money, was "studying to improve his career" and left her, (taking half her house and money she had been left by the early death of her parents). That set him up very nicely.
If you are a second wife with your own kids and you marry - and die first - chances are your kids will get nothing.

Make a conscious choice: what responsibilities do you want? what rights do you want? As for children the state should change the law regarding responsibility for them and not simply be a default solution for men, ( and occasionally women) who don't care.

People don’t know though. I remember having a financial health check-type appointment before we married and talking about future plans, I said they were get married, then buy a house, then start a family. The woman I was meeting said something along the lines of ‘ah, doing it the old fashioned way!’ She meant it lightly, but still, it wasn’t so much the ‘propriety’ of it that motivated us as the legalities... but clearly more needs to be done to raise awareness of this. I agree it should be taught in school.

**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 agree with @Bigearringsbigsmile on this one.

However I see that as the ideal, being more pragmatic if this does happen then I also think the relationship should be looked at in terms of length, shared children and personal circumstances, no matter how much I disagree in hindsight it does feel inhumane not to help just because they weren't married.

In financially equal relationships the more powerful person will often refuse marriage/civil partnership because they don’t want provide for the other, even in the event of death. Of course there is often an element of ignorance but not always. Sometimes it’s about control. The problem with saying things like why do they just get married etc is because it does leave people (often women) vulnerable to financial abuse. Once you are financially dependent on someone it’s not like you can threaten to leave them unless they marry you or go out and become financially independent against your partners will at the risk of them withdrawing financial support.

Yes marriage continues to be an issue in our society. But the prevalence and acceptance of financial abuse is far more pressing.

IMO it’s comparable to not getting house insurance and then complaining that you’re not getting a pay out when your house burns down. Looking at those who did have insurance and saying it’s not fair.

I feel sorry for her, but if she is savvy enough to take this issue to court she likely knew the risks of not getting married before having children.

Changing the law would be to say that two adults who had chosen not to get married should have all the benefits (and presumably also the downsides?) of marriage imposed on them. Where will the line be drawn?

@Reginabambina Are you implying that refusing to marry your partner, if you are the higher earning partner, financial abuse now?

There isn't much incentive for the higher income partner to want to get married. Perhaps marriage could be somehow redesigned so that incentive is there? I have no idea how that would work though.

It is unfortunate for the woman in this story that she wasn’t married and terrible to be bereaved in this way. Nonetheless, if you’re not married then you can’t expect the benefits that married/widowed people get. As someone else said, where do you draw the line? People together for 6 months? Have a child after a one night stand?

I feel sorry for Laura, she has been through a terrible experience. But at the same time I think that as an intelligent woman she has been very remiss.

They bought a house together , they must have discussed life and critical illness insurance with regard to the mortgage beforehand, and if not why not. This would also have been the time to talk about safeguarding their child's financial future in other ways naming each other on death in service benefits, pension benefits etc. Neither of them were young kids with no thought of the future, they had nine years to have the financial talk.

I can't see either that her proposal has legs, for one thing, as mentioned above, how would a committed relationship be assessed? Nine years , a child and a mortgage good, two years , a child and no mortgage bad.

What would happen to the serial baby daddies we read about on MN, two women, both with young children , who qualifies for the benefits?

It would be a legal and social minefield and I don't think any government would want to put legislation in place which would have to be so open ended, especially when a legal solution in the form of marriage or a civil partnership already exists, has legal parameters that everyone understands and is easily and cheaply available.

It's not just a piece of paper, it is a legal binding contract which carries huge benefits for most women, people who say it is not relevant in the 21st century, that people live different lives, have different priorities in their relationships etc etc are being very naive. As others have said, it should be taught in schools. There are countries in the world where women's rights in a marriage count for nothing, it seems ridiculous that in the UK women are deliberately choosing NOT to protect their rights and the rights of their children.