Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal contract...

36 replies

marantha · 13/01/2010 10:47

I post this because I believe that that is what marriage is at the end of the day- a legal construct that two people make in front of witnesses to assert that that they wish to be considered a "unit" so that there is no confusion if one of them were to die over who was to inherit and so on.

It IS true that 99% of couples who marry are in love- why else would they wish to join themselves in such a way otherwise?- BUT this does not mean to say that long-term cohabitees are incapable of having devoted, loving relationships.

To me, marriage ITSELF is not about love- it is about making clear a person's position to another individual and this is why I believe the act of giving cohabitees similar "marital" rights is wrong- they simply have not asked to be classed as married.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 10:55

Oh, I forgot to ask, AIBU in thinking this way?

OP posts:
addictedtomn · 13/01/2010 11:00

your not bu to have a pov, if you were to go around forcing every one to think this way then you would be U

addictedtomn · 13/01/2010 11:00

your not bu to have a pov, if you were to go around forcing every one to think this way then you would be U

posieparker · 13/01/2010 11:02

I think it can be quite personal, for me it was about being a family as we already had three dcs together and another due in four days. And I wanted to take care of any inheritance. For my parents it was about being wildly in love.

onagar · 13/01/2010 11:02

YANBU. I've decided that I think assigning cohabitees legal rights automatically is wrong.

However any assumption by friends and neighbours that their relationship is NOT serious because they don't have a bit of paper is also wrong.

ArcticFox · 13/01/2010 11:03

YANBU.

Long term cohabitees may well have the same level of commmitment to one another but not necessarily, which is why it doesn't make sense to give them the same rights as married people.

That would actually not fair to the proportion of cohabitees who dont want to be treated this way, hence did not get married.

Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:03

I don't expect everybody to share the same view as myself, but the way I see it- some married people hating each other,some cohabitees loving each other, I can only conclude that in ITSELF marriage is just a legal construct. Why is this unreasonable?
You can also add a religious aspect for some people BUT religion does not have to enter into marriage.
I mean, at its purest level, isn't marriage just a legal thing?

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:04

onagar Completely agree - I am not denying cohabitees can't have deep, loving relationships. Far from it.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:08

However, onagar wouldn't it be easier for that couple to have a piece of paper (marriage certificate) in terms of inheritance etc so that there is no guesswork involved as regards legalities and stuff like that if one of them were to die?

OP posts:
fembear · 13/01/2010 11:14

I totally agree marantha. Marriage is a legal contract which, in turn, delivers some legal benefits. Equally and oppositely, those legal benefits should not be given to those who choose not to get married.
There may have been an argument in the past that unmarrieds should get these concessions because there were some people who could not get married. But now that marriage or civil partnerships are available to all, we should draw a distinct line between marrieds and unmarrieds. After all, it is only respecting the wishes of the unmarrieds isn't it?

Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:20

I suppose I started this thread because I am a bit sick of the "some married hate each other"/"some cohabitees are devoted" stuff going around here - of course this is true but in a strange kind of way the love aspect is irrelevant.

OP posts:
Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:22

fembear There may still be people who cannot, for whatever reason marry, but this does not mean to say that they can't devise contracts between them to make them virtually married.

OP posts:
Chulita · 13/01/2010 11:22

I think depending on your religious POV marriage is either purely a legal contract or simply a promise before a higher being to be committed to someone else. You can be married in a church but not legally married, or legally married but not have any religion at all. It is a way of ensuring (as far as you can) that your children will be looked after when you're gone and your stuff will be sorted out. I agree that marriage isn't proof of undying love or unfailing commitment. In our culture it is a legal thing.

flockwallpaper · 13/01/2010 11:27

I agree with what has been said so far.

Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:29

I agree that by marrying in a church people are marrying themselves in the eyes of God BUT they still have sign the marriage register, don't they. This MUST be for legal reasons- surely God doesn't need a signature?

OP posts:
Bonsoir · 13/01/2010 11:29

I completely agree with the OP - marriage is a legal contract that gives rights and responsibilities to couples in love, if they so choose to accept them.

LeQueen · 13/01/2010 11:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:38

LeQueen I agree that it may not have made any difference whatsover to how your friends actually felt about each other but it very much would make a difference to how they were viewed legally towards their- for want of a better word- "other half".

Marriage is about making a couple's INTERNAL wishes EXTERNAL so that society at large- the law and so on- knows what their wishes are as regards one another- without marriage, who is to know?

OP posts:
chandellina · 13/01/2010 11:38

i agree it's mainly a legal contract, but different societies also endow it with more or less importance. I think it's still viewed as more than just a legal thing in modern British society.

Original poster
marantha · 13/01/2010 11:42

chandellina I think it is still viewed as more than just a legal thing in modern British society, too, for the reasons expressed above i.e. making the couple's wishes to support and love each other EXPLICIT to all and sundry.

OP posts:
posieparker · 13/01/2010 11:54

i don't think it's a legal thing fpr most people.

I hate my keyboard, damned sticky keys.

Chulita · 13/01/2010 11:56

You can marry in a church and not sign the register - it's not usually done because not many people have strong views about promising God something and then not bothering with the government but it can be done.

onagar · 13/01/2010 11:58

marantha, yeah I agree. I just wanted to cover all the bases in case anyone thought I was dismissing cohabitees.

Without a bit of paper the law isn't really in a position to know the kind of relationship they have. They might be flat sharing to save money.

So the law should disregard it. The neighbours & friends will know it is a 'marriage' and treat it accordingly.

ChickensLoveMarmite · 13/01/2010 11:59

YANBU. I am with DH because I love him, but I am married to him because if one of us snuffs it, there will be less legal wrangling. Morbid, but true.

onagar · 13/01/2010 12:03

All marriages have two parts really. There is the legal bit for inheritance/tax etc and the 'promise' you make to the other person. If you get married in a church you make the promise there. If you marry in a registry office you can do it there. If you just live together you can promise in your living room or some other place of your choosing.

The promises are equally valid and serious.