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?

Does that apply to the man/ woman who is on his/ her fifth spouse Marantha?

I suppose you can argue they've put a lot of effort into all five...

HerBeatitude Exactly. Nobody knows how much effort is put into a MARRIAGE where the couple at least DECLARED that they were committed to one another so how the hell can anyone deem how much effort was put into a cohabitation where not even a declaration of intent was made?!
It is even MORE problematic, can't you see this?

Even IF I agreed with cohabitee "rights" I would have to admit that deciding which cohabitees were "worthy" and which were not would be a logistical nightmare.

The bottom line is this:
society hasn't the time or inclination to really give a sh*t about people's circumstances and, if you want it to care, you've got to have something in writing to say your "other half" would support you in some way. Otherwise, it hasn't the time or ability to pass judgement.

I think people are making the mistake of assuming that marriage for a woman is all about acquiring rights (to the partner's property, financial support). The fact is, marriage confers rights AND responsibilities at law. High earning women do pay alimony upon divorce.

As a matter of principle, the law should not confer a change in legal status, unless both parties actively chose it. This is because this change in status comes with changes in rights and responsibilities for both parties.

Hence, I am not in favour of the law automatically conferring co-habitees the same rights and responsibilities as married people. To do otherwise is patronising and patriarchal.

However, the law can and should step in to confer rights and impose responsibilities for the benefit of the vulnerable who do not have free choice. This applies to the children of a relationship. This is on grounds of public policy which overrides the earlier principle in relation to the parents who should look out for themselves.

Hence, the rights given to children (not mother) to claim maintenance against their bio father.

If the mother wants the rights and responsibilities of marriage, she should sign on the dotted line. And if sensible, not have children with that man until that happens.

The law works as it currently stands. The balance is right.

I don't think it's the state's job to decide which cohabitees, married people etc. are worthy. Just treat all children from all relationships the same.

I suppose many people would see a childless marriage that only lasted 6 months as being quite insignifant in the scheme of things... but (by family law is quite good) if a marriage ended after 6 mths, the marriage woudl be considered by English courts as a short marriage, and assets would be divided on the basis of what parties came into the marriage with. A marriage that produced a child, or whatever lenght, will always be significant

WWC said the above.

Can I just say that your wrong in that a marriage if lasted under 2 years and that assets divided by how many months in a relationship.

In the UK, you can only get a divorce after 2 years of marriage, and assets will be divided by 2 years.

Children and a divorce of marriage are under a different "category" in the law.

Marriage in church is getting married in god's eyes. In a registry office it's about getting married in the neighbour's eyes. The only eyes that matter are those of your partner.

The paperwork is not what counts.

Depends on the marriage...

Jumping into marriage quickly and behaving in a way that could end marriage after a short time is not indicative of special, strong marriage imo.

blueshoes
"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"
Good post

Of course a good marriage can be very special indeed.
Sadly given the divorce stats too many fall way short of that ideal.

I don't think marriage is "special", I think it is a formal, legal contract with very clear rights and responsibilities that include provision for divorce ie a post-relationship contract.

If you don't want the rights and responsibilities of marriage that is absolutely fine and your relationship can be just as "special". However, you cannot argue that you have equivalent post-relationship rights to couples who are divorcing if that relationship ends.

Of course, many people want lots of rights and no responsibilities and will argue until they are blue in the face that they have rights that they do not in fact have in any reasonable jurisdiction!

belle, you forgot parent and toddler parking spaces...

EleanorRigby I take it there's a time out clause on that post? We married very quickly but have been married happily for 10 years- I presume we have accrued that status now?

There is no such thing as UK divorce law. I live in Scotland and Scottish divorce law is very different to English, no alimony for a start, although a retraining allowance may be paid to an exspouse for a limited period.

2rebecca -retraining allowance .retraining ? as in relearning how to live support oneself independently.????
thinks this retraining is a good thing and should be extended to co-habities who split for a period of 2 years , just to be nice.

AF

What I do think is important is informing people that there is currently no such thing as cohabitee rights. Because a lot of women have come badly unstuck by believing (or being led to believe) that they are in a 'common law marriage' by having lived with a partner for some time, so don;t bother about useful things like making sure their name is on the mortgage/tenancy agreement. WHich means that the man, usually the higher earner, can throw the woman out of the house with no notice whatsoever if he decides the relationship is over and she has no legal comeback.
OK that sounds very sexist, but it's usually the way round it happens.
Of course, this doesn;t mean that people shoudl marry if they don't want to, more that people should not believe the myth about common law marriage.

Another word of warning on cohabiting.

A good friend of mine got together with a bloke and they bought a house, he was still living with his mother, whereas she had a house with a good amount of equity which she sold and used as a deposit on the the new house.

They got a joint mortgage, joint names, he maintained his single life, she had his baby, he shagged someone from the office and she chucked him out.

One year of this joyous relationship cost her £10k, he insisted he wanted his share of the increase in the value of the house and, according to his and her solicitor, he was entitled to it.

Not a bad sideline if you're in a crappy job.

The retraining allowance is paid by the exspouse in exceptional circumstances if the other person has no qualifications or training and stayed at home looking after kids and is paid for finite period to allow them to train for a job.
There is no meal ticket for life for able adults aspect to Scottish divorce law. CSA payments are seperate and are as for England.

So my 26 years of co-habitation are as nothing compared to an 18 month marriage? Is that what you are saying, OP?

I don't personally think that the OP is saying that cohabitees CAN'T have long lasting relationships JUST that if they want those relationships to be recognised in some way legally -for example to be next-of-kin and stuff like that- they have to make explicit arrangements to say so because, frankly, nobody outside of the relationship can reasonably expected to know the exact nature of the relationship.

I do not find this unreasonable. Quite the opposite; it is entirely reasonable.

i also find the 'word of warning' snippets of advice from the pro marriage lobby patronising

you can come to me for advise on how to maintain a relationship for 20 years if you like

I don't give a sh*t how stable cohabiting relationships are, if cohabitees wish to have "rights" (if they don't, fine) they have to register their relationship in some way so that people OUTSIDE of the relationship can recognise their wish to be tied in some way.
For god's sake, how the heck is anyone supposed to know otherwise?
I am pleased to say that most sensible people agree with me.

NotAnOtter - yup, very patronising, I agree. As if we non married people didn't have our own good reasons!