for thinking marriage is special?

[WashwithCare]

I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons, or that it shouldn't be permissble to end a marriage - sometimes marriages fail...

But to my mind, marriage confers a special status on a relationship with a loved one whom you have chosen to consciously make a public commitment. It doesn't matter how long you cohabit, you didn't do that - you're not married.

I have had a number of long term bfs, some of whom I lived with. I didn't marry them for good reasons. I would hate the thought that I would be legally bound to them in ways I did not agree to simply by living with them.

I don't believe cohabitees should gain automatic rights, however long they live together. After all, there is a simple process and legal framework already in place if you wish to confer this on another person - you can marry them! Do others agree?

Well I am loving my 20 yr experiment

But rebecca if your experience is really bad, dv or similar, then surely looking out for yourself,on an experiential level,means running very fast indeed!

I think getting rights should be made easier, a standard contract that people can sign that appertains to joint possessions and children but not needing a divrorce to escape as there'sno remit outsiode of that immediate shared sector. A middleground.

noddyholder I am glad you are loving your 20 yr experiment.
However, not all cohabitees are in your blessed position.

I agree with HerBeatitude. More rights should be given to children. In the event of the breakdown of any household, the law should put the interests of any children living in that household first.

"If you marry someone, things dont work out, divorce, see ya."

"Once you have children (in or out of marriage) you are tied to that person for life."

Hmm, can you please send that one to my father...

Marantha, I think where children are already living in the household ie from a previous relationship, people should think twice before moving a partner in for

a, experiment with life.
b, have a bit of fun.
c, having a trial run to see if they wanted to marry.

If no children are involved, i dont see why you shouldnt be able to move someone in for any of the above.

So perhaps co-habitees should have the same legal rights as married couples if children are involved?

To me at the present time there is a clear choice:

A, Marry and be tied to all that stems from it.
B, Maintain your status as a single individual and all that stems from it.

If cohabitee rights were to come about there would be no choice anymore. It would be live with someone for a few years and be married to them- like it or not. Choice goes out the window.

They have brought the:"live with someone for a few years and be deemed married to them" thing in New Zealand.
Couples have gotten around this there by either:
splitting up before the required time period to be considered "married".
or...
Cohabitation contracts setting out that they do not wish to be tied to one another in the event of a break-up.

No doubt if these ridiculous cohabitee rights were to be brought in here (zero chance, by the way of this actually happening) couples would do the same here.

You married too soon, WWC.

If you take on a man with commitments to another family, you do so at your own risk. As a lawyer, you will understand about the wisdom of doing due diligence before signing on the dotted line.

You let your heart overrule your head when you hastily entered into the matrimonial contract. Now you do not want to afford the same luxury to your dh in relation to his previous relationship.

Benefit, burden and all that.

I hope it works out for you. But you are on your own.

Mrssparkle, sorry was commenting on a general discussion, not individual cases.

perhaps my comment was a bit too general. I will rephrase as 'most' people once they have children are tied to that person for life.

It's ok claws

claw3 I'm not prepared to disagree with you TOTALLY about the "children involved" bit, but if there are no children the couple are entitled to a private life.

In other words, if there are no children involved, the state should keep the hell out of the private lives of cohabitees. End of.

i feel that some people marry for the right reasons, some people don't. some-people co-inhabit for the right reasons, some people don't. just because you are not married shouldn't mean you don't have the legal rights.

marriage is a religious thing, but in the eyes of god has turned into in the eyes of the law, which i feel is wrong.

we should have the right to opt in to all the legal stuff of marriage without being man and wife. especially when children are involved. personally i live just like a married couple do, and feel we should have rights that can't be contested (even with making a will, you cant be sure it will stand after death) if we want them.

Marantha

A, Marry and be tied to all that stems from it.
B, Maintain your status as a single individual and all that stems from it.

Things are not always so black and white, sometimes there are grey areas. If we are talking about freedom of choice, why shouldnt committed co-habs, have the same choice?

As you said co-habs opting out, if all they want is a bit of fun, an experiment.

Everyone is happy!

I don't see why the legal ramifications of getting out of a signed contract re dividing possessions and child access should be easier than a divorce. That is basically what a divorce is.
If you have couples signing things that give them joint property rights then it is marriage under a different name. Why duplicate a system that's already in place?
In Scotland you only get rights to pensions, savings and property bought/earned during the duration of the marriage anyway.
Reinventing the wheel is pointless.

claw3 I don't understand. Commited co-habs already have the choice of opting in- it's called marriage.

To be honest, further research indicates that cohabitees with children already have in place a raft of legislation to assist if they break up- a man has to pay maintenance to his children married or not and so on, so I feel the "what about the children" bit as regards cohabitee rights is a red herring.

you canlimit the extent of a contract, a mariage is already establishedforwhat it is.

If the contract says 'if wesplit we get % per cent and equalrights tothekids' its very different fromone that says 'andyou can'tmarry anyoneelseuntil all the apperwork is done, a Curchmight refuse you, and you willhave to prove you are divorcedwith allapperwork at every turn of fate'

2rebecca
the point of "reinventing the wheel" would be for couples who don't want anything religious or like me dont believe in marrying a second time like me. my DP wife died and i don't want to take the title of wife away from her (as i see it).

Marantha, times have changed and the Laws usually allow for this change, if enough people are involved.

Some people do not want to marry, the same as others want to live together no string attached, without having 'rights' forced upon them.

Marantha with marriage a woman may be able to claim alimony and also a right to live in the family home. With co-habitation, unless her name is on the mortgage, she has no such rights and that therefore disadvantages her children.

So it is about children's rights - giving rights to the adult gives rights to the child.

For childless adults, I agree with you, they can fend for themselves and don't need to consider anyone else.

stopcopyingme I know of plenty of atheists who are married- religion does not have to enter into it.
Your DP and yourself should make your own private arrangements yourselves as regards your relationship and its legalities and not expect anyone else to do it for you by making you "married" by default.

HerBeatitude I believe-could be wrong- that a court can order that main carer and child stay in family home until child reaches adulthood. Of course, main carer (usually mother) then has to leave but given the fact that she may not have contributed to mortgage and so on I, for one, do not see this as unfair.

I think the whole idea of marriage has changed alot from then and now.

Then, people got married because it is what was expected of you. You got married and had children and to have children out of wedlock was taboo. Back then, even though marriage was what was expected of people, they used to work at their marriage, went through the ups and downs and stuck with eachother. Admittitly women often ended up stuck in miserable, abusive marriages but that's a whole new thread.

Now, getting married seems to be a different story. People don't seem to get married till death do us part, it's more till things get tough or till i get bored (i am not saying someone in an abusive marriage should just stick with it.)

Marriage seems to be more about the flash wedding then the actual marriage these days. Purhaps that's largly due to the fact we live in a very materialistic world now, but few people seem to stick together and work at a marriage, and to keep a marriage strong it takes alot of work.

Regards to rights, i am not sure. I don't think it's all that right to say that a couple who have stuck together for 20 years (unmarried) and brought up a family she have less rights then a married couple with children who have called it quits after a couple of years. I think what i am trying to say is the rights i think a person should have should depend on what the person has put into in the first place. The more effort you have put/tried to put in, the more you should get out of it.

Washwithcare - if you follow up this post with a few suggesting the following:

1. Breastfeeding is bad and formula is best
2. Anyone wearing Boden should be shot
3. No-one should have children if they're on benefits
4. That women should go out to work or they risk losing their husbands

you will have manage even more heated debate from which you can subtly withdraw until you feel things are slowing down a bit...

Of course, you won't see this until later because you'll be at your super high earning job with it being a Monday.

Bella

MsSparkle What you and a lot of people do not seem to understand is this:
It is very, very difficult to know how much "effort" people put into a relationship. It is a difficult thing to quantify.
With a marriage certificate, you can at least say that the couple declared to be seen as a functioning unit.

I find some of the mumsnetters here to be deeply, deeply illogical, they SAY they do not wish to be married but in the same breath want to have "cohabitee rights" which would effectively make them married! BIZARRE.

These mumsnetters are not only annoying but their complaining risks those cohabitees who are NOT illogical (as in if they want to be treated as "married", they'll actually, like, marry) having to be "married" against their will cos they've shacked up for a few years with someone.