AIBU to think why did this couple just get married

[Gin96]

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

It’s like there needs to be some way to go to a government office and certify your economic and legal partnership.

If only they could come up with some document you could sign that would take care of this easily.

@DCOkeford at present any partner has a choice. Any prospective partner of mine can choose not to live with me if my decision against marriage doesn't align with their interests. It isn't my problem if other people move in with partners and then decide after the fact that the terms they are living under leave them vulnerable.

I object to being married off without my consent. Which is what will happen to thousands of people if cohabitation is given equal rights to marriage.

If I were to marry now, a split would put my children's home in danger. So I conciously choose not to do it. Any partner moving in will know this and can plan accordingly.

What sort of man wants to leave his partner and children vulnerable without financial protection, why don’t these men step up. So many threads on here from women about men not wanting to get married but they have children and the woman is the sahp with no income 😞

I object to being married off without my consent. Which is what will happen to thousands of people if cohabitation is given equal rights to marriage

And I think that’s perfectly fair. Would anyone seriously disagree with that?

Purple obviously marriage is the ideal document but given that many men refuse to DO that, then a better idea might be to instigate similar rules to those in Australia. The De-facto Relationship rules in Australia are simple to manage and it's not hard to prove a couple have been living in a genuine relationship under one roof.

www.gotocourt.com.au/family-law/de-facto-relationships/

This gives each partner certain rights in the event of a breakup, including the division of property and pensions. Even if only one partner's name is on a mortgage.

@Scott72 no. I’m saying that financial abusers refuse marriage in order to maintain their position of power. There are lots of reasons to refuse marriage but if someone is financially dependent on you and want to ensure they stay that way then the best way to achieve that is to refuse marriage and threaten to leave them each time they attempt to gain independence.

I still believe we shouldn’t be forced to get married.

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.

Also yes...the same people who won't marry their partners because they want to protect their assets. So the answer is not to marry and it SHOULD be not to cohabit UNLESS you're happy to share.

MissIllusioned objects to being "married off" but I wonder if she'd object if she were the one with no property and her partner refused to marry her.

Doubt it.

There are probably ways to draw up pre-nup type documents to protect people's property if they want it left to their kids.

I am ALL for cohabiting couples to be treated as they are in Oz. People don't move in together lightly here. After 2 years you're considered De-facto.

@Missillusioned i’m with you, I wouldn’t marry again. I won’t be having anymore children, the money l have is for my children not for any man or his children to have.

People can live their life however they please, they don't need the permission of MN! Me and my partner have two children but aren't married. However, all legalities in the event of either of our deaths are dealt with through our wills. We don't need to be married for that to be enacted.

Schaden unfortunately though...it's often NOT the choice of one partner.

So this rule only benefits people who want the comfort of a live-in partner without the commitment of marriage.

So, having a rule like the De-facto rule would make more sense. I KNOW women should not have children with men who won't marry them...but what does that tell you about society? That it's built on rules that benefit MEN.

Not everyone has the same needs or makes the same choices. Some women (how many is irrelevant) would be worse off being married for one reason or another. Some don’t want to get married, because of previous bad experiences or ideological objections. That’s fine for you, but you can’t use that as an argument for scrapping marriage altogether, which is what some people are arguing.

Also, unfortunately the fact is that most bad experiences women have are down to bad men. Who will be mean, lazy selfish fuckers whether they’re married or not, but at least married the law is on their wife’s side. And, and I’m waiting for my flaming, there are a fuck load of mean, selfish fuckers hiding their meanness and their total lack of interest in protecting the mothers of their children behind woke coolness. I’m sorry if your partner is one of them, but changing the law to either water down marriage or shuffle your cohabiting relationship into a quasi-marriage by default will not change his attitude. And I’m truly sorry if that’s a particularly harsh thing to say in the context of the petition starter’s situation.

Google That's all very well if you both work full time, have careers and property.

It's when women are in the position of having kids with men who won't marry them and then being SAHM or working in low paid jobs that they're in a terribly unstable position.

Of COURSE it's not advisable to get into this position...but it happens and it won't stop happening. There needs to be change.

I heard Pre-nups are not legally binding in the UK?

Doo marriage is not necessary if there are laws protecting both parties when they live together. Laws like the De-facto one in Australia.

People can still get married if they like. Nobody's suggesting scrapping it. It's something many people like the idea of. But for those men who like to try to keep their property 'safe' from their partners...well, fuck them.

They shouldn't be allowed to.

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.

Gin I don't know. Possibly they're not. The main point I'm making is that De-facto type rules stop women being taken advantage of and they make a certain type of man think twice before cohabiting without any intention of sharing assets.

@FortunesFave i wouldn't have a man's children, live in his house and provide him with free labour without marriage.

And now I'm too old to have further children, I am free not to take on the contract of marriage. I want to retain that freedom without having to worry about any future partner targeting me with a view to assets.

Being considered married without your consent is surely a retrograde step? If you have to consent to a medical procedure or sex, surely it’s ridiculous to be considered married without your consent.

But for those men who like to try to keep their property 'safe' from their partners...well, fuck them.

They shouldn't be allowed to.

Why shouldn't they? Any more than women are also allowed to keep their assets safe from people who choose to shack up with them without marriage. There will not be change because the majority do not support altering the law to cater to ignorance and stupidity on the part of people who don't make themselves aware of their ramifications of their life choices. There's civil partnership and marriage available to all couples if they want the legal rights conferred by both. The majority of people do not want to be de-facto married to whomever they shack up with, hence there is no impetus to change the law for the complicated foolery that is 'common law' marriage.

The sad thing is women confuse 'marriage' and 'wedding'. Neither is mutually inclusive but you need the former more than you need the latter. Marriage is not about love these days - it is a legally binding contract.
If you want the legal protections that come with marriage, you have to get married. Automatically giving co-habiting couples the same rights will remove the sanctity of marriage.

I was nodding until this the sanctity of marriage. Marriage isn’t a sacred union for most people, it’s a legal contract dressed up as romance.

@Missillusioned as pro-marriage as I am, I agree with all your posts (and others might too if they actually read them properly 😉), and it’s definitely what worries me about cohabitation being given equal legal status. Ultimately, it all leads to women losing out eventually, however much certain people think it’s progress.

OK; for me it was a bit of both. Standing in front of my friends and family and in front of god and declaring this was the person I wanted to commit to. Also ensuring I was legally protected and recognised as such

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!