Men - a meal ticket for life?

[marantha]

Reading the amount of abuse the poster Washwithcare has received here over the past few days for suggesting that her husband does not offer more money to his ex-partner (not NOT married, no contract signed) and her (not biologically HIS) children it strikes me that feminism doesn't really exist- or only exists when it suits women.
Women are still baby machines that try to get as much money off a man as they can, when the chips are down.
AIBU?

You gotta go with the obvious answer at the end of the day- if people aren't married, it's because they have no desire (for the moment at least) to be legally tied to one another.

No, I think it is because the word "marriage" carries a lot more connotations than just legal ones.

Perhaps it carries a lot more connotations than just the legal ones, but surely it is just a legal thing when all is said and done- I mean, if it WASN'T, why does the legal profession have to be involved when two people divorce? At least they do in the western world.

You can say marriage is about religion, but atheists marry, I know I did.

You can say it's about love, but plenty of people marry who aren't in love and plenty of people in love don't marry.

You can say it's about children, but infertile people marry.

The only thing that constantly applies to all marriages in the UK is the legal aspect.

Perhaps if this were stressed a bit more we'd have less problems and confusion.

Totally agree with marantha re: cohabitee rights.

I married dh for love and because I wanted to raise children with him and be together ideally for the rest of our lives. I also married him for the protection that being married offered to him and me and our children. The law is what it is, ignore it at your peril.

I would never have agreed to have a family with a man without our being married, because I know I would be making myself legally and financially vulnerable otherwise.

Why should the law presume that women are incapable of making decisions to take the protection of the law that is freely available to them by getting married? That is patronising in extreme.

Peachy, on your suggestion of a marriage-lite contract, the briefer the contract, the more room there is for disagreement and hence the more opportunities for lawyers to line their pockets.

Should this contract cover joint assets, inherited property, custodial rights to children, maintenance to spouse and if so which spouse and in what circumstances (bearing in mind even in your case the breadwinner kept changing), child support and for how long, legal standing for making life-and-death decisions eg switching off life support ... I could go on and on.

Don't forget that once a marriage fails, what might be self-evident rights to a person is an unaccceptable burden to the partner who wants out. The partner will contest that simple contract to the death - hurray for lawyers anyway.

At least with marriage, there is evolving weight of statutory protection and caselaw that takes into account different circumstances which seeks to achieve a reasonably fair result.

Yes, it is certainly true that people (married or not) can play dirty at the end of a relationship.

A cohabitee can always deny that the relationship was "serious" if they want.

Married people cannot do this: as they have married in front of witnesses who heard them declare that their relationship was very serious (whether or not it is actually serious is another matter, of course, but you can only take people at their word and a judge would rightly deem the relationship to be a serious one at the time of actual marriage).

I don't mean to be disrespectful to any lawyers-people have got to earn a living- but I cannot help but feel that as people are choosing to cohabit rather than marry they now have less work in the line of divorces.
Can't help but feel that cohabitee rights are partly about putting legalities on a situation (cohabitation) that never existed in that situation before in order to make a bit of money. Can't blame the lawyers, but I think that is the case all the same.

Notice how all the non Daily Mail bigots have now left this thread...

luckymummy2010 I don't personally subscribe to the Daily Mail "married people love each other, cohabitees don't" mentality.

I do, however, realise that if two people wish to be considered a couple by the law and the rest of society they have to make some kind of a declaration to make things clear.

You still haven't answered my question, by the way, i.e. if you don't declare your relationship with your partner how can the rest of the world know about it?

This is not, and never has been, about religion, love or, indeed, morality.
It's been about eliminating the guesswork that is present with cohabiting couples who wish to be "as married" without actually, er, being married.

I think deep down you know that the whole issue of cohabitee rights is flawed (as in like, why don't you actually get married IF you want rights?) and are resorting to insults that are really unfounded because, personally, I don't give a monkey's if people marry or not, what I DO care about is that the unmarried do not have legalities forced upon them which they have not asked for.

You luckymummy are the bigot because you want everyone to be married via cohabitee rights whether they like it or not!!

So for actually standing up and in effect saying: "f* off, if I cohabit with a man- I don't blooming well wish for "cohabitee rights" that would tie us together against my will" I get accused of bigotry - the mind boggles...

i think if you are living with someone,sharing lives,maybe children,then that IS a declaration......

Tiffany, a co-habiting partner who wants to to avoid responsibilities after a relationship has ended will swear black-and-blue to a court that there was no such Declaration, implied or otherwise. It will then fall to the co-habiting partner to PROVE to the court that there was such an implied declaration.

Messy, isn't it.

Why not just come out as a couple and Make the Declaration in writing before it goes tits up. It's called marriage.

No it's not, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors between a couple UNLESS they declare it. They could have some kind of agreement going on between them. They could have made an arrangement to stay together for a while until the kids got a bit older then go their separate ways without touching the other's assets.
But the woman (or man) cries wolf and decides to kick up a fuss and demands their partner's stuff all the same.

It is not a declaration at all.
Funnily enough, there is a thing that takes away all element of doubt- marriage.

I actually think Morloth has had a brilliant idea with the "civil partnerships" for heterosexuals idea (although I must say that I regard myself as being civilly-partnered, anyway).
If these were made available for straight people, there'd be none of this "we're not religious", "society pressure" nonsense anymore- it would be CLEARLY a legal thing for people and it would go some way to quell the cohabitee rights brigade.

but its got nothing to do with you,or anyone,other than the couple involved!!

why do YOU need to know anything?

marriages tend to fail anyway

ILoveTIFFANY I agree that if a cohabiting couple wish to keep themselves to themselves and NOT go to court over their split if their relationship breaks up, then it is very much nobody else's business.

If, however, they choose to go to court then they are very much involving other people.

People cannot have their cake and eat it- they cannot tell society "why do YOU need to know anything?" then expect the law to help them out and pass judgement on their relationship.

Cannot you see how unreasonable it would for a person to say, "Mind your own business" and in the next breath say, "My partner has left me, pass judgement on our relationship so I can get a bit of cash of him/her" ?

Tiffany I am sorry but the marriages tend to fail anyway bit is a non-sequitur.

and you say marriage takes away all element of doubt? you sure about that? really? if so,how come divorces drag on and on...and end up costing the divorcees more in the long run

ILoveTiffany - don't waste your time and energy, have a look in other threads for marantha's name - she rants on about this endlessly and doesn't listen or take on board anyone else's view.

Marantha - your ignorance on the law is laughable

And now I will leave you to it, your clearly love to just force your views down others throats

Yes it does take away an element of doubt.

A judge will take a marriage certificate as evidence that a couple intended to stay together for life (even if they actually don't).

A marriage is a contract, if one of the parties break it, they are answerable for their actions.

Anyway, cohabitee rights are all about making the unmarried married by default- I don't think it's right to put more poor buggers through the rigamorale of a quasi divorce when they've kept their private lives out of the hands of the law by not formally marrying.

What are you saying, Tiffany, you want cohabitees to suffer, too?

luckymummy2010 Laughable, is it? You're the person who wants cohabitee rights, not me.
If YOU had any knowledge of the law, you'd realise that there is not a cat's in hell chance of them coming about- they've been trying for years to no avail.

You are far more ignorant than I will ever be. You expect cohabitee rights so that the nanny state can lift you out of the mess you made by not getting married.

To be told by someone who would have me married against my will to a bloke just because I lived with him for a few years that I am forcing my views down people's throats is absolutely outrageous.

You are the Daily Mail bigot here, love, not me.

Err, I'm a lawyer and write text books on family law. And don't call me love, you patronising bigot.

I am no expert on the law, luckymummy2010 but I DO know that there is no such thing as common-law married, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS!

Oh and I'm the main earner in my family, not looking for anyone's help thanks