Should unmarried couples have more rights?

[Niceguy2]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12354670

What do MN'ers think? Should unmarried couples get more rights to claim from each other like married couples?

Or if they wanted that then they should get married?

I disagree with it.

I think that if you want the legal stuff then enter into the legal contract. Either marriage or other legal agreement

If you don't want the legal stuff, then don't enter into the contracts.

If you're with someone who refuses to enter into any agreement that protects your interests then that tells you everything you need to know and if you choose to stay with them, knowing that, then more fool you.

How would it work though?

You can't just give people living together rights to each others properties, you'll end up with all sorts of questions and problems in the event of a break up. For example were they were a couple or just friends living together? Could a lodger or house mate claim half of your house when you asked them to move out? Did house mates become partners after 2 years of happening to share a house or 4?

It's a lawyers dream basically, endless arguments in court about the nature of a relationship.

So you'd have to have some sort of agreement that a couple entered into to indicate that they really are a couple. Something legally binding with another legal process to end.

So a bit like marriage basically.

I completely agree with Hecate.

And, if heterosexual couples get the right to enter a Civil Partnership, then that should be only after the right to marry is granted to homosexual couples, so that they, too, can choose.

What Hecate said.

Plus giving unmarried couples the same rights opens up a whole grey area.

What if two people are just flat sharing, and not in a sexual relationship? How can you prove this, one way or the other?

Why is the fact that a couple are/aren't having sex even relvant?

Why should a sexual partner get a right to any property, from the moment they move in?

It's nonsense. And I don't think it'll ever happen.

X post with Badger.

"And, if heterosexual couples get the right to enter a Civil Partnership, then that should be only after the right to marry is granted to homosexual couples, so that they, too, can choose."

Civil partnerships are just marriage with the word "marriage" tippexed out and overwritten with "Civil Partnership" in order to placate a few religious nutters.

Personally I'd like to see Civil Partnerships scrapped and homosexuals given the right to a civil marriage ceremony.

Dancing around with silly pretend names for things is dishonest and just continues to cater to prejudice.

if you want the rights.. pop down to the registry office and get married. it's not hard.

Never, never, never be a SAHM, or a SAHD, unless you are married.

just heard on news, think it makes sense - why should we have to get married just to have equal rights - seems draconian and surprised many think it should stay the same

So would I, Badger, but the powers that be feel differently.

"why should we have to get married just to have equal rights"

Because trying to argue in court as to whether two people were in a relationship or were just friends is only good for lawyers charging by the hour.

You can see a solicitor and draw up contracts to have the same rights, trouble is, it's far more expensive than getting married.

getting married is sort of daft to some people (me) it doesn't mean anything - unfair that i should do that just to have equal rights - we do live in the 21st century now

"getting married is sort of daft to some people (me) it doesn't mean anything"

But it does mean something, it confers the legal protections of being in a recognised partnership.

"unfair that i should do that just to have equal rights"

But as said what's the alternative? To allow the lawyers to charge you a fortune so that the status of your relationship can be argued over in court?

And isn't it unfair that friends living together would be exposed to the other taking half of their house when they were just house mates or lodgers?

And personally the idea of a court being able to decide what is, and what isn't, a "couple relationship" is appalling.

Far better for people in all sorts of relationships to be able to say at some point "we are a couple" without exposing themselves to having their relationship pulled apart in a court as one tries to claim they were just friends.

No, if people want rights, put your money where your mouth is and get married, easy.

If I split up with DH and moved in with somebody else I don't want them getting half of everything I have. If you give rights to unmarried couples how do you distinguish between them and know what they meant to each other, it's imposable.

As for all the people who claim not to know they didn't have the same rights as married couples, well, how could they think for a minute that they did?

That judge is mad!

the thought of being a married woman makes me wince to be honest - i still think i'm entitled to be looked on by law as having equal rights

think the courts should be given more power

Getting married means a lot. Forget all the woolly romantic crap about dresses, cakes and being in love... at its base is a very serious, legally binding contract conferring joint asset rights, next of kin status and other legal rights on both parties.

Lots of people 'don't think it matters' until they discover they are living with rat, have had a few kids, given up their career etc., but are entitled to walk away with nothing when it all goes tits up.

Having said that, you do see some very sad stories of people who didn't have the protection of marriage. But, they should have got married and if one partner didn't want to then they might have very good reason.

people confuse 'getting married' with 'having a wedding'

I can think of a hundred reasons why committed couples might not want to have a wedding.

I can't understand for a moment why they don't go to the registry office and get married. At it's most basic level it's just a declaration to the state that you are to be treated as a couple, and that you want your couple-rights.

you don't have to have MILs and seating plans and cakes and vows....

There is a big difference between being in a committed relationship (marriage or civil union) and living with someone. I would like them to introduce pre-nups before they go about giving rights to unmarried couples.

Another thing, I disagree with the homosexual couples who want to get married rather than have a civil union. As far as I am aware you can only get married in a church. If go to a registry office you have a civil union regardless of your orientation. Friends of ours got married last year with one of these ceremonies and the language was gender neutral. At no point was the term husband or wife used. I asked my friend about this and she said she was told that if they wanted the husband and wife in their ceremony they would have to get married in a church.

"the thought of being a married woman makes me wince to be honest"

And the thought of your relationship being dragged out in a court as your ex tries to argue that you were just friends doesn't make you wince?

What if the judge decides that you weren't really a "couple" but just lodgers?

"think the courts should be given more power"

Absolutely not, the only people to benefit would be, as I've said before, the lawyers.

We're all grown up adults. Trust us to decide when we want to have our partnership legally acknowledged. Why on earth would I trust a judge to make the decision as to whether I'm in a partnership or not?

so you would rather long term partners who were unmarried would have no protection at all nice

"As far as I am aware you can only get married in a church. If go to a registry office you have a civil union regardless of your orientation."

No, that's bobbins.

A civil marriage is a marriage in the same way as a Church marriage is. Homosexuals cannot have a civil marriage.

Your friend is very much misinformed.

I agree, stubbornhubby.

Getting married is not having your princess day with your meringue dress and your horse drawn cart. It isn't saying you 'belong' to a man. It is a legal protection. A contract. An agreement that affords you certain rights. It's cetainly a hell of a lot better for a woman, legally, to be married than to be living with a bloke, if things go tits up!

If you don't want to have a wedding, fair enough, but a contract that protects you and allows you to use the law to fight your corner - that's sensible.

Otherwise, the law has to come in and try to work out exactly what sort of relationship you had. And that is just going to cause problems with people trying to wriggle out of it. If you have a contract, then everyone is clear.