The term "Partner".

[marantha]

Am I being unreasonable to find the term "partner" intensely annoying when applied to those in a relationship? Particularly when they are actually married so it should be like, er, husband, wife or spouse instead?
Partner in what exactly? Ballroom dancing, bridge-playing. Isn't there something just a teensy-weeny bit smug about the term?

So a husband of 18 months is entitled to a birthday card - a partner of 30 years isn't?

"Also if a married couple ever did break up the father would have rights for the children. He has a lot less rights for a child when he wasn't married to the mother. That is scary."

This is not true of children born since 2003. And of children born before that date where the father has taken "parental responsibility"

My point was, that a wedding is not so much about proving commitment to each other as a way of getting relatives to accept you as a couple.

And for some darling parents not even the evidence of seeing their DD get married will help them to accept their son-in-law! So yes, I have been on the other side of this too.

Couples have expectations of their relatives and how welcoming they should be to their partner. Without the commitment of marriage, relatives can find it difficult to work out how much to accept the partner into the family.

Fathers will never have as many rights as mothers and whether or not it is law, fathers will have a harder time if not married.

"Fathers will never have as many rights as mothers and whether or not it is law, fathers will have a harder time if not married."

Any proof of either of those statements?

pugsandseals, I agree that marriage provides an useful social tool in deeming the serious of a relationship.
When the relationship is running smoothly, it is nobody else's business (how serious the relationship is, that is), however, cohabitees split up (just like married people) and then some of them expect to be compensated for the break-up. This is unreasonable of them- they chose NOT to marry (thus making the nature of their relationship EXPLICIT to the rest of society) yet they expect the courts to intervene when they split.
In other words, they did not involve the law in their relationship (by getting married) yet expect the law to support them when they broke up. It is unreasonable.

No proof. I guess it something that we will find out. It's just my opinion, and who am I? I just think marriage is important. For me anyway. Each to their own.

Marriage is there for a reason. It is not to oppress, it is not to take away freedoms to those that do not wish it, it is not anti-feminist (if anything it PROTECTS women), it is there so that people can -in the event of their long-term love dying- can point at a piece of paper and say: "I am his next-of-kin".
That is all it is for; simple, honest proof. I honestly do not see why cohabitees who wish to live together in the long-term (obviously if they do not wish to be together for life they should NOT be expected to marry) do not marry. I mean, why not?

Summed up lovely marantha

why do some people assume marriage is the xenith of relationships.marriage does not confer an automatic serious status

is it so hard to comprehend that some people do not need or want to be married

protected?pah sounds liker damsel in distress

i have never wanted to marry.i have positive role models of marriage.parents married (to each other)

never wanted to be a wife

never wanted to be defined by my relationship status

Next of kin has no legal meaning.NOK current good practice is to ask pts to nominate their NOK,or people can carry a NOK card.or nominate with GP and this will be on your med notes as many same sex couples and cohabitees do

I think that marriage DOES confer an automatic serious status- at least to the government and society at large.
And if a patient DOESN'T- for whatever reason- nominate a NOK, then the NOK will not be their partner, it will probably be their parents.
Whereas with a MARRIED person, the default position is the spouse.
That's the difference.
Some may say this is unfair; I think it is entirely fair.
If we go down the road of making cohabitation a legal construct like marriage, then we are giving the government carte blanche to peak into the bedroom and sexual habits of the inhabitants of Britain. It's not on.
Cohabitees can cohabit if they like- I pass no MORAL judgement on the practice- but they should be treated as single people in their own right in the event of relationship breakdown/death.

I will say this: any hosptial worker who does not explicitly hear from the patient his/herself that they wish their cohabitee to be their next-of-kin, is making a big, big mistake in taking the cohabitee's word for it that they are in fact NOK of the patient.
Cohabitation means bugger all in itself. Just because two people are living with each other, does not mean that they are in any way shape of form committed.
I would go ballistic with any nurse/healthcare worker that took my fellow cohabitee's word for it that they were my NOK without my express permission. In fact, I would complain strongly to their manager.
If I were married, I would have absolutely no problem with the healthcare worker assuming that my husband was my NOK. After all, that is the default position of the married.

why are so so fraught and worked up about what other people do

and NOK as i said has no legal stsus,nor is not automatically family

NHS Trust policy on NOK from pt leaflet

Who can be my next of kin?
A: Historically, the next of kin was the spouse or nearest relative of the
patient, but modern day families may have a different structure -
cohabiting but unmarried, long term relationships but not co-habiting,
same-sex partners etc. Your next of kin does not need to be a blood
relative or spouse; they may be your long-term partner, cohabitee or even a close friend.

also to clarify role of NOK is not to consent to,or deny treatment.it is consultative.

Q: What is the role of my next of kin?
A: Your next of kin cannot consent or withhold consent for care on your behalf.
But as your next of kin, their views on what you would have decided will be sought. These views will contribute to the decision that the clinicians caring for you (and who have a duty to act in your best interest) will make regarding your treatment and care. Thus, if you cannot make that decision for yourself, the final decision of care rests with the clinician in charge of
your care.
If, in the case of an emergency, you have not had the opportunity to
nominate anybody as your next of kin, we would prefer to seek advice from whoever we believe to be ?closest? to you and best able to reflect your wishes; for example, your current partner or closest relative.

so nok can be partner,pal or nominated person

Hang on, marantha - so you are saying thatif a couple live together for 10 years unmarried and she gives up work to take cae of the children and they split up, she should have no rights at all in the house, because they weren't married? That really is bonkers, surely?

Hmm seeker, that is a tricky area.
If the house was in joint names AND they split the mortgage between them then obviously they should (and would) be entitled to half each- but the NATURE of their relationship in this case would be irrelevant- they'd just be two individuals who had taken out a business arrangmement.

But I think what you are suggesting here is should the woman be entitled to have rights in the house EVEN IF SHE HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE MORTGAGE NOR HAD ANY PART TO PLAY IN ITS PURCHASE to which my answer would be no, absolutely not.
And, thankfully, as the law stands I believe this is what happens now.
It may seem harsh to some but I have two reasons to which the answer should be no:
1, The man in her life obviously "paid" her at the time to stay at home and look after their children- I am assuming that as she stayed at home with the children he was the breadwinner. Why should she be "paid" twice?

2, It would make a mockery of property law which is based upon firm declarations set in writing. These things HAVE to be set in stone. There would be anarchy otherwise.

3, It would give cohabitation a legal status which would give the government carte blanche to poke its nose into the private lives of cohabitees -a group of people who, unlike the married, have not invited the state into their private lives.

If it can be argued that the female is somehow compensated for the breakdown of a cohabiting relationship as she looked after the children and could not work, cannot it be argued that the man should ALSO be compensated because he DIDN'T spend time with his children.
After all, he lost out, too, didn't he?

people on this thread were making my veins stick out but luckily seeker and scottishmummy v=chucked a large bucket of sanity into the mix

(m - mother of six - unmarried 42 year old 20 years unmarried bliss)

'why not?' we are happy - not many marriages last this long

So DP and I who have been together 20 years,supported each other as students,dealt with 7 years of ivf,owned 3 houses jointly and had 3 children together should be regarded as single people?

And even though DP and I have spent half our lives together and I supported him financially when he did his masters degree,gave him 3 children and gave up my career to raise his children I should have no rights to our house?

Thankfully dp doesn't regard me as single and has put our house in both our names even though I've never paid a single penny towards it's mortgage.

Marantha I think you find just because a person is married it doesn't in any way mean they are committed. You can get married in your lunch hour if you care to. Signing a piece of paper means buggar all,it doesn't keep you together which is why we've never bothered.

What keeps a couple together is love and sheer determination,if you haven't got both of those you can sign all you want,declare all you want but as the divorce stats indicate you won't last 2 minutes. Staying together through thick and thin because you want to means far more than a ceremony in my book.

"Marantha I think you find just because a person is married it doesn't in any way mean they are committed. You can get married in your lunch hour if you care to. Signing a piece of paper means buggar all,it doesn't keep you together which is why we've never bothered."

Totally, anyone can get married and people can be commited emotionally to each other whether or not they are married. Marriage means legal commitment though. So in the case of breakup both parties get a share of everything for the reasons you all have stated.

No you shouldnt get part of his house because you have chosen to stay (legally) 'you' and 'him' rather than 'a couple' (again legally) It was your chioce to stay like this so you should except what goes along with that. It is 'his' house because he bought it. You have no right to it because LEGALLY (which is all I am talking about here, not your actual reationship) you are nothing to do with him. Dont make your marrige legal and dont expect your relationship to be treated as legal because that is what a marriage is and what it is for.

Why would you expect law to jump in on your side when you have not invovled law in your relationship? There is nothing legal about your relationship so dont expect to make something legal out of it if it falls apart. Maybe morrally you should get a share of his house but the law cant chop and change for different situations. It has to be set and ridgid for it to work. For many reasons you couldnt make the same legal thing for a couple living together with kids as a married couple.

The statement that a relationship is MORE likely to fail because of marriage is total nonsense. No evidence because so many relationship breakdowns that are in unmarried couples will go on without being recorded. I would say the opposite to be honest.

What is wrong with what i said Otter?

I am not talking morals. Should you get part of your partners house? Of course! We go back to legally though. It would be so complicated to sort that out legally. There would then be others that suffered for those that wanted legal rights of a married couple but weren't willing to sort their relationship out legally.

Why not sign the piece of paper on your lunch break if you are not wanting a wedding? Then you have all the legal rights. It's no effort and if you don't want it to, it wont change your relationship. The only reason it would, is if you were unhappy with being legally binded to someone, but then you contradict yourself in wanting legal rights if you split up.

Maybe I am totally wrong??

bemused at rants about unmarried folks.not sure why it provokes such ire

I am not ranting at unmarried folks. I dont mind if a couple chose to get married or not. More curious as HOW the unmarried couple expect to get the legal rights of an unmarried couple?

'weren't willing'

i am in a relationship not a contract

dp and i have outlived both our parents legal contracts