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?

MoldyWarp - by all means read it that way if you want. It was a throwaway comment, no more.

its ok gaelicsheep I like being a rebellious type

usualsuspect - I do challenge things, like people not respecting the choices I make, like choosing to get married and having the lifestyle I choose to have, without judging others for their choices.

It doesn't make you any better or worse than other people because you want to rebel and do something differently - it means you're doing what YOU want to do, and that's fantastic. We should have choices as to what to do with our lives, isn't that what all the womens lib stuff was about - creating choice? You're just making different choices, ones that lots of married people respect.

You seem to have an underlying need to be 'right' about not getting married...seems a bit strange

I don't agree that a new contract, exactly the SAME as a marriage contract, just without using the word 'married' should be devised, what a waste of time, resources and effort.

All the legal stuff is already there if people don't want to get married. Good luck to them and they are capeable of achieving the same rights as marrieds without needing a new type of contract. Waste of time.

Also marriage doesn't act as blanket protection if things go wrong, it's more useful when things go right IYSWIM and neither would a co-habiting contract - you also need a blindingly good solicitor if you ever get divorced/un-cohabit

bb99 - I'm not happy with the legal stuff. I need the legal protection but I don't want to be a wife.

We will have to get married or face severe financial penalties.

Unfortunately because it is CALLED 'marriage' and 'wedding' it means a lot to my DP. And the whole not changing your name/wearing a ring/making a fuss thing is fine as long as both parties agree. But it's not just one persons choice is it. Granted noone can make you change your name etc. But it is supposed to be about partnership.

I resent the whole situation and it's causing problems between us.

Normality - what legal protection do you mean.

When I got married it made it slightly easier to split up ie if I get a good solicitor, I could get a good long term settlement , but there's no real 'protection'

I only have rights to the house as it's in joint names - you could own a house in common. When our last house was in his sole name, even though we were married he could have sold the house out from under me, taken the money and run and legally I wouldn't have had any redress (other than to do what an unmarried couple would have to do and sue him) as it was legally HIS house.

I am through marriage, DHs next of kin, so would get to decide if the life support got turned off or left on You could have legal documents drawn up making you next of kin to each other.

There's a small level of inheritance advantage (I believe / hope) as we're next of kin / married.

There's a small advantage with his death in service benefits, but with most pension schemes that I've come across you can actually name any relevant beneficiaries, so you could do that.

I think I automatically inherit the rest of the estate if he dies first and vica versa, again drawing up a will (packs can be bought for less than £50) would resolve this.

What 'severe financial penalties' are you facing - you know there's NO married tax allowance now and no financial advantage (that I've found) to being married. Infact DH and I often joke that we'd be MUCH better off financially if we did get divorced...

Marriage is about partnership and trust, as any other relationship is.

If you really don't want to be married but you CAN still have the same rights as marrieds without getting married (which you can now, at little cost) why are you so annoyed about marriage?

I only have rights to the house as it's in joint names - you could own a house in common. When our last house was in his sole name, even though we were married he could have sold the house out from under me, taken the money and run and legally I wouldn't have had any redress (other than to do what an unmarried couple would have to do and sue him) as it was legally HIS house.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE.. both partners in a marriage have a 50/50 right to the 'marital home' and for it to be split.

see www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/matrimonial-home-rights/4534742085

I am currently in a complicated situation having several legal dependants (adults) and a considerable estate of my own, including things held in trust for minors and others, I cannot really go into it here. In order to have documents drawn up protecting my responsibilities and assets I would have to pay a minimum of £1500 to a solicitor and more if and when the documents were invoked. We have seen three solicitors so far, that is the minimum quote, and most have them have said - get married, then make wills, and it will all be sorted for well under £300.

I also cannot get protection against two of the main concerns (DP's pension which is only payable to legal spouse/civil partner or dependant child under 18) and inheritance tax due on my estate should I die without legal partnership, without getting married.

It is very difficult for us to name my DP as secondary carer for my dependants, in a legal sense, with us not being married.

All in all, in a worst case scenario, if I died early DP would face a large inheritance tax bill. If DP died early I would face a large inheritance tax bill AND lose his pension.

I stand to lose tens of thousands as an unmarried person.

fluffles - thank you, an interesting site and always happy to reduce my ignorance.

BUT - he could have sold the house without my knowledge as it was only HIS name on the deeds. THEN I would have had to take him to court to gain possession / monies etc. So a limited protection, still resorting in costly court action, the same as if we weren't married. I would just have less to prove once we were in court and a better chance of redress.

Joint mortgage / joint names on the deeds are MUCH more effective IMO to ensure that in the event of a break up house is split evenly and anyone can do that.

Friends who co-habit and have a family and have no intention of marrying were teased by their solicitor that the mortgage contract and joint ownership of their house would probably be MORE complicated to get out of than a marriage!

Normality, it sounds v. complicated - my sympathies to you.

Does your DP want to get married, but you are not comfortable with this?

We are both happy unmarried. We have joint names on our mortgage/ownership of our house. And parental responsibility. Etc.

The key point is though - DP is not happy with the idea of just seeing marriage as a piece of paper. If it is marriage or nothing, then it is wedding, or nothing. He is concerned about upsetting his family, considers wedding day a day of love and sharing that love with an extended group. HE would then want me to take his name, and wear a ring. Not because he wants ownership of me but because he shares the attitude of many here, that these things are a traditional expression of love and just what you do. He is right in that his family owuld be very upset if we just married without fuss. It IS a big deal to them. And to him, by extension. He's already been upset that I don't want marriage many times. This feels like rubbing salt in the wound.

Having a legal paper which solved all of these problems but wasn't called marriage would solve all of these problems.

"Having a legal paper which solved all of these problems but wasn't called marriage would solve all of these problems."

As people have already point out so the state has to go through the whole process of setting up something that would basically be identical to marriage, has to arrange for a register that would basically be identical to the marriage register and has to arrange for laws to be put into place to set up a process to separate a couple that would basically be the same as divorce?

So a whole lot of effort, jobs, parliamentary time, legislation, training and cost to replicate marriage but called something else.

And all because some people just don't like the word "marriage".

And so supposing we call that a "Legally recognised partnership", what do we then do if another group of people start moaning that they want the same rights but want it to be called something else?

Ridiculous.

The state offers a recognised "contract" called marriage, it's not then the states responsibility to repeat all of that just because people don't like the name the "contract" is given.

It's for those reasons that I dislike the "Civil Partnerships" for homosexuals and would rather just see them allowed marriage.

What next? A campaign for people who want a permit to drive but disagree with it being called a "driving license"?

NOT because some people don't like the word marriage.

Because marriage goes with other things. And some people cannot seperate the legal piece of paper from those things.

I don't give a fuck about marriage. But the person I am being forced to marry does.

No-one has yet given me a single suggestion as to how this could be resolved.

Have I to marry against my will, take a name against my will, be known as Mrs Hisname against my will, have a wedding and wear a ring against my will?

Or should he be forced to enter what he considers a pointless and loveless union, not allowing him the ceremony and traditions he believes an integral part, upsetting his family and friends to whom BECAUSE of the word marriage it is a big deal. Should he be forced to marry someone who does not wish to be married to him?

Or should be lose out on our money, our inheritances, pensions, and complicate matters hugely for all those who depend on our union?

Normality, I hate to say this, but I don't think it is the Law that is the problem in your case but your DP!

If you love him and he loves you, then you should book 15 mins down the Registry Office - End Of!

If it for religious reasons, then that adds an extra dimension, but in that case, why did you get this far?

Why is all the other stuff even important? It is obviously a big deal to him, but surely you knew this?

I used to live with a guy who was absolutely lovely. He didn't WANT to get married though - didn't believe in it. He also used to think that you shouldn't say "I love you" too often as that lessened the specialness of the sentiment in some way.

I am not with him any more. I am married to someone else who believes in OUR little family unit. That is what is important to him, not all the other stuff, not what his family thinks etc...

Normality - £1500 is very cheap compared to the cost of the kind of wedding your DP would like.

No-one is 'forcing' you into marriage. You have a choice. Pay to get married, or pay the legal expenses to sort out your legal issues. It IS a choice and £1500 is a LOT cheaper than any but the most basic wedding.

We spent about £7000 on our wedding - it was exactly what we wanted and we had a blast (the free bar was inspiring...) but I know it can be done a lot cheaper, or a lot more expensively.

The cost seems to be what you're objecting to (amongst other things), but if you want the choice of having equal legal rights without the responsibility of marriage or entering into a marriage license, you'll just have to pay up.

I don't expect to win the lottery unless I buy a ticket, why would you expect to basically have a marriage license without a marriage?

How to resolve, you have 4 choices

1. Get the £1500 out of the bank/liquidate assets, as you have suggested you DO have substantial assets, it doesn't sound as though it's a problem, and protect your and DPs legal rights ASAP by getting the relevant documents drawn up, plus set aside an amount to use in the event the papers need to be acted on (possibly in a trust fund).

2. Discuss and negotiate with DP (as communication is important in ANY relationship) what you object to with the concept of marriage - how and why you would prefer to keep your name / not wear a ring / not have too large a ceremony, and negotiate a COMPROMISE position on a wedding that would cost less than £1500 (though only a really basic ceremony etc would probably be less)

3. Blow £1500 or less by going to Las Vegas to get married avoiding the whole family and big dress day thing. Plus vegas is really good fun, even if you don't like gambling.

4. Take DPs wishes into consideration as clearly marriage is far more important to DP than you, and again discuss what sort of a wedding could please you both (especially as you 'don't give a fuck about marriage' why does it bother you so much? Could be a convenience to you and a more meaningful thing to DP - you don't have to agree on EVERYTHING in any relationship...)

As you feel so vitriollic about marriage, personally I'd look at option 1. Cheap compared to a wedding and a lot more peace of mind than you seem to have now. What cost is peace of mind?

Normality, I think that really quite sad, but sometimes in relationships you just have to compromise. Portofino's right though, it's not the law that's at fault here though.

Some friends of mine (married) had a similar problem in that- he wanted children, she didn't. It's something that you just can't meet half way on, one of you has to give in. They stayed together but don't have children, he had to give up that dream to be with her.

What you could do by way of compromise is have a traditional wedding for him but don't take his name or use Mrs. That seems about as fair as you could get.

I think stamping your foot and saying "why should I" is a bit immature, you can see the sense in getting married so you both have to give a bit, if you decide to do it.

Thankyou for those considered responses.

I'm not stamping my foot as such. Why did I let it get this far? Because we're both happy to be NOT married, it's just if we have to marry it means much more to him than me. And all of a sudden - unexpectedly and overnight - life changed, I acquired all of these legal problems, dependants, and so on, and marriage/equivalent legal status has become necessary. You can't really plan for things like that. We've been together for 11 years - cohabiting for 10 years. I knew marriage/wedding was a big deal to him but he knew it would never be something I would want to do and we were both fine with being unmarried forever.

I'm already compromising hugely by agreeing to marriage.

Why agree to marriage if you are so unsure about it - why not just stump up the £1500, which is FAR cheaper than the kind of wedding your DP seems to want?

Does it really matter if it means so much more to him than you? What difference would that make in the long run?

You don't have to change name / wear ring, essentially things could continue along the same lines whichever course of action you take, to do the legal papers or to get married.

Surely £1500 for the legal papers is a much less expensive option than a marriage???

Because of the guardianship issues, along with the inheritance tax/pension ones.

DP wants to dress up and invite his family, wear rings, change names and have a party - and say romantic things, and for me to mean it. But I don't actually know how much any of that would cost because we're not going to do it.

Sorry I'm quite down about it all. I have never been to a wedding as a guest. My parents married because they were not allowed a joint mortgage otherwise. Registry office, pub. Grandparents married to get a house, Registry office, cycled home. I just don't get the whole marriage thing.

I don't understand this "for me to mean it" stuff. Do you love him and want to be with for always, or not? I just had a simple registry office wedding with dh - me, him, dd and 2 friends. We went for lunch afterwards. I cried though, during the "ceremony" or whatever you call it. Because I love him - and it was an emotional moment.

The way you talk, it is purely about maximising your inheritance, and the practical care of your dependents. Do you have any feelings for this man at all? I am sure you do, but it doesn't come over from your posts.

"having kids and a mortgage together does tie you a bit"

IME some men particularly if unmarried find both the above all too easy to walk away from. Look at the stats for men who no longer have contact with their children 2 or 3 years after seperation. A marriage split can be very complicated but a cohabitation split can be also a protracted and drawn out process, particularly for the woman involved who can be left with nothing.

If you are unmarried you are regarded as not being related to each other and are totally seperate. Basically what is his is his and what is yours is yours. It is of no consequence how long you have lived together; the concept of common law wife does not exist as many women have discovered in courts of law. Many people still wrongly assume that "common law" exists legally as a concept in this country.

Education regarding such matters is both necessary and warranted.

Many people are also unaware of the many legal ramifications on death particularly if the couple involved are unmarried. Apart from complications surrounding the estate (you cannot open letters of administration for the deceased) you cannot even choose a headstone. If also for example the man dies suddenly and the couple are unmarried the lady cannot claim widows benefit as she is not entitled to it!. Additional financial hardship on top of grieving is very hard to bear. People, particularly men, just don't think about these things.

it would just be completely impractical to make 'living together and having sex' equal to 'combined assets' in law.

what about student flatmates who shag occassionally? or when a boyfriend moves into a flatshare for a few weeks between homes or jobs... how long counts as 'co-habiting'?

if co-habiting couples had 'rights' then the decision to co-habit would have to be taken as seriously as the decision to marry is now.

the only alternative i can see is that co-habiting couples decide to go to the registry office and sign a bit of paper. and in time some will celebrate that moment when they do that... and others will not want to do that because of the associations with the other people who are celebrating and they'll want something different.. and we'll be back where we are now.

"Many people still wrongly assume that "common law" exists legally as a concept in this country."

This is very true, maybe this needs to be tackled in schools when the do sex education. Teachers could just briefly explain the law and the advantages and disadvantages of being married or co-habiting.

Kendodd, spot on.
I agree that this is something to be tackled by better education about what rights are actually available - not knee-jerk changes to legislation.

Yes, its absolutely amazing how many people believe (wrongly) that common law exists.

Look at the stats for men who no longer have contact with their children 2 or 3 years after seperation.