Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

for thinking marriage is special?

254 replies

WashwithCare · 10/01/2010 22:30

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?

OP posts:
marantha · 11/01/2010 17:34

wubblybubbly Your friend made a business relationship with another human being. The fact that they were in a relationship is/was irrelevant- if she'd bought the house with a female friend I dare say the female friend would have got 10k, too.

marantha · 11/01/2010 17:38

Bonsoir the problem with a lot of non married people is that they DO wish to be married -why call for cohabitee rights otherwise? For what are cohabitee rights if not marriage by default?
They want their effing cake and eat it. Life doesn't work like that.
You can't bemoan marriage then expect to be treated as married when the relationship goes t*ts up.

Original poster
WashwithCare · 11/01/2010 17:40

tend to agree with everything marantha has said... will go away and think about a bf-ing post.....

OP posts:
Bonsoir · 11/01/2010 17:41

I completely agree that there are a lot of people around who want rights for which they have not accepted the concommitant responsibilities.

English marriage is a very good deal for women. If I were in England I'd get married like a shot!

pigletmania · 11/01/2010 17:44

IMO yes marriage is special that it

marantha · 11/01/2010 17:53

pigletmania It is special I agree, it's special because it gives a legal status to a relationship. Do I think it means that married people ALWAYS love each other more than cohabitees? No I most definitely do not but it's all about making things clear to people outside the relationship when all is said and done and I'm afraid to say that simply living with someone should not be grounds to be considered "tied" to them legally.

lal123 · 11/01/2010 18:03

Marantha - I've been living with my partner for 15 years now, 2 DC. I've made sure that house is in joint names etc, we're named on each others pensions etc, DP has legal parental responsibility for the kids etc etc. Hasn't made our relationship any more special - just (as you say) more secure legally for us and our children. We didn't need to get married for that.

thedogsgottago · 11/01/2010 18:03

We've been together since we were teenagers, bought a house, had 2 kids, Im not keen on having a wedding, but we are on the verge of making the decision get married, soley because if one of us dies it makes things like inheritence and tax alot more simple, and also dont like the idea that if he was seriously ill in hospital I wouldnt even be consulted. So literally gonna go down registrars office and do it.
THe problem with this is the endless bullshit we'll have to endure from his family, for not having a "wedding".

HerBeatitude · 11/01/2010 18:04

I agree with that. Living with someone shouldn't automatically tie you to them legally. Having a child with them though, should. (And actually, it does, when it comes to things like contact. A formerly co-habiting NRP is treated exactly the same as a formerly married one. Which is as it should be.)

thedogsgottago · 11/01/2010 18:05

ANd no I dont think our relationship will be more special, thats just aload of sentimental bull!

lal123 · 11/01/2010 18:08

actually in Scotland if your child is born before some date(think its 2004?) even if named on the birth certificate the father doesn't have any parental rights if not married to the mother.

thedogsgottago - think we're in a similar situation - its not that I'm against getting married - its just that we don't seem to be able to get round to it and the thought of a wedding makes me feel ill

marantha · 11/01/2010 18:08

lall23 Too often on threads like this people fall into the trap of thinking that to be anti cohabitee rights is to be anti COHABITATION and that anyone who says that cohabitee rights are unacceptable is some kind of pro-marriage loon. That's not what I am about at all. I'm just about cohabitees making explicit their wishes towards one another so that an outside party does not have to guess their intentions towards one another, because, if they don't, cohabitees may have to face rights being endowed upon them which they do not want.

HerBeatitude · 11/01/2010 18:14

lal it's the same in England and Wales in that a NRP who wasn't married, would need to apply ot the court for Parental Responsibility.

It would automatically be granted however, unless there was a very good reason for not doing.

wubblybubbly · 11/01/2010 18:14

I was in no way attempting to be patronising so apologise if that's how it came across. I don't think being married would have made any difference to my friend's circumstances, other than it would've been harder to get rid of the toad.

I'm certainly not suggesting that all marriages are happier/superior/longer lasting than a committed cohabiting relationship.

Having said that, I do wonder whether she might have been a bit more cautious if she had been committing herself to a marriage, rather than just living together. Maybe not, it's all hypothetical.

Marantha is right that had my friend bought a house together with a female friend, she would also have had to fork out the £10k, although she probably wouldn't be in bits because her mate had shagged someone at work whilst she was at home looking after their new baby. She would also have been less likely to stump up the whole deposit, pay for the house refurb and buy the bloke a new car, if it hadn't been for her rose tinted glasses.

My point was really more to do with financial arrangements rather than marriage vs cohabiting, which whilst probably OT had been mentioned earlier in the thread I think?

thedogsgottago · 11/01/2010 18:14

lal123 - same here, we did actually get engaged in one of our more mushy moments, then started looking into it all, and though "oh no this is not for me!"
I just think now we've got kids a massive mortgage it just makes more sense, people wont like the way we do it though!

marantha · 11/01/2010 18:33

wubbly... agree with you. I don't think for a nanosecond that marriage makes any difference at all to whether or not a couple love one another, I really don't.
It's a legal thing when all is said and done whereby a couple set out their stall as it were so others know where their stand.

If cohabitees want to "set out their stall" to make each other next-of-kin and so on they've got to bite the bullet and put it in writing, too. Cos if they DON'T nobody else can know.

seeker · 11/01/2010 18:44

What I find seriously bizarre is that people think that marriage shows more comittment than living together because if you're living together you can just walk away from each other. Surely the fact that we can walk away but choose not to shows far more comittment than those who have to be shackled together by Church and/or State to prevent them abandoning each other!

drloves8 · 11/01/2010 18:50

marrieds may be shacked together by church and/or state , but they ask for the shackles seeker

marantha · 11/01/2010 18:52

seeker interesting point. Nevertheless, if two cohabitees choose not to put in writing in some form their intentions towards one another, I would find it impossible to know what their intentions were to one another in the event of one of them dying or splitting up because I do not know what goes on behind closed doors.

seeker · 11/01/2010 18:53

Sure. But I don't want the shackles. And I object to my relationship being regarded as in some way second class because I choose to stay with my partner because I want to, not because the Church/State says I must.

MissWooWoo · 11/01/2010 18:55

YABU and living in the dark ages.

drloves8 · 11/01/2010 18:56

seeker i dont think your relationship is second class , just different.

lovechoc · 11/01/2010 18:57

marriage is special but it also has it's downsides. for example...a relative of mine found out a year ago that her DH was having an affair with a (!!) man. Yep, made her feel very special - NOT. They are now in the process of a divorce. Marriage isn't a guarantee folks, it can go wrong sometimes.

Co-habiting would have worked in their favour in this kind of scenario as they could just walk away without having to 'undo' the marriage, so to speak. They'd have no legal ties to each other. No messy and costly divorce to go through.

Marriage is great when it's going well, but when it's not and things get bad, they get really bad and there's a lot more legal stuff to sort out.

Both have their ups and downs.

marantha · 11/01/2010 18:58

seeker So I take it you are opposed to cohabitee rights, then? Because you don't want the shackles?

marantha · 11/01/2010 18:59

After all, these rights will marry you by default.