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?

My partner and I have been together for 9 years. We are not married. I'm 16 weeks pregnant - we have no money to get married because of our bills and now having a wee one on the way.

I wont just nip down to the registry office for a quick marriage just so we can have legal rights, I want it to be an amazing special day and we will save up...probably wont happen until we're much older. It's unfair that we cant have legal rights despite our evident relationship, mortgage (more bounding than marriage anyway in my book) and havng a child together.

My younger sister is disabled and do you know that my parents had to go through a very expensive, long and painful process of going to a lawyer to apply for financial guardianship for her, to avoid her being ripped off my the social work should something happen to them...their own daughter. I feel things are a bit back to front for it beign the 21st Century.

Normality The average cost of a big wedding of the type your DP wants is £15000-£25000 nowadays. I assume that if you and/or DP could afford to pay that, but you don't want to (even if he does), then paying £1500 for some non-marriage-flavoured legal contracts to sort out your joint and separate estates is peanuts in comparison.

Mampa1986 but the choice is there for you to make but you don't want to make it because you want it to be "an amazing special day".

The phrase "Some people want to get married. Others just want a big wedding" spring to mind. Marriage is about commitment and along with it comes the legal protection it affords.

The question is, why should you get that same protection without having made the commitment?

If you want the legal rights then get married. You can save up and have an amazing special day at a later date.
People should be free to choose to remain unmarried and avoid the legal ramifications of marriage if they so choose. Imposing these obligation,duties or advantages on them by default is just a non-starter.

No I do not think unmarried people should have any rights other than those they explicitly make themselves (drawing up of joint financial contracts such as both names on deeds etc. Making of wills naming other as inheritor).

I say this not because I believe that marriage is superior to cohabitation, but because I do not wish to live in a country where the state can declare me 'married' because I live with someone.

If people wish to have marriage rights, they should get married; there is no need for religion (I'm an atheist and I tied the knot), great expense (can be done for 100 quid) or anything else.
If they have a principled objection to marriage then it is up to them as adult human beings to draw up their own legally-binding agreements.

Concept and conception. Baby and bathwater. What is the core/crux of the matter. I was with my now dh for nigh on 10 yrs before we were married. I was not Mrs and didn't take someone elses family name. I could have legally done so by deed poll. Now married. I am not Mrs and haven't taken anyone else's family name. I could do so legally 'cos of marriage. Same difference. This is all frippery.

In agreeing to get married, we both actively consented to a legal recognition of our relationship. The convention by which this is done is called marriage. You can call it another name but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....!

I guess my main point is we both actively signed our little contract. It was not marriage under the guise of another name forced by default upon either of us. Not talking about children's rights here, merely consensual agreement between two adults.

Saying you don't agree with marriage 'cos the origins of marriage lie in the position of women as chattels is kind of like saying you don't agree with democracy or even will not vote 'cos ancient greek founders of concept of democracy didn't believe there was anything wrong with slavery or didn't think the vote should be extended to women.

As far as I know the marriage contract basically confers equal rights on each partner i.e. no rape within marriage etc. Therefore we can do it without worrying. Just as we don't have to be consciencious (sp?) objectors to voting 'cos of it's origins.

Are there any lawyers on here? Was there any small print in that marriage contract I should be worried about. I'm worried now.

jeepers, meant 'no recognition of rape withing marriage' etc gotten rid.

I think that the knock-on effect of this (ridiculous) proposal being brought in would be that the number of cohabiting couples would plummet.
I am not a man, but I do not buy for one second that men refuse marriage to their long-term partner who wants it out of 'principled objections' or 'religious' reasons. If they do, I think 'Bulls*, You're not getting married to your partner because you don't want the legal ties of wedlock. You're just making excuses. I also think you are an up yourself wimp' (disclaimer: if both parties neutral towards marriage, does not apply).
Bottom line is this: Many people will simply not cohabit if marriage is effectively forced upon them by cohabitation (because for all the talk about 'fairness' to cohabitees, these cohabitation rights are forced marriage).

Cohabitation rights= decline in cohabitation.
Perhaps if brought in only those seriously committed would live together and, if seriously committed, they'd probably get wed. So perhaps we would be going back to the 1950's.

"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"

This ^ is utter shite!
I am a registrar and marry people almost every day of the week I am at work. Every ceremony that we use mentions the words husband and wife (other than a Civil Partnership). At the end of every ceremony we declare the couple to be husband and wife to varying degrees of celebration dependent on how many people they invite to the ceremony. Yesterday, I officiated at three weddings, all of which were comprised of the couple and two witnesses.
A Civil Partnership (same sex) confers the same rights as a marriage. The reason it is not called a marriage is because of the legal definition of a marriage as it stands at the moment. I personally have no problem with the notion that the definition of marriage changing to incorporate same sex unions (same as most of my colleagues).
On the issue of the same legal rights for co-habitees - no, they are not entitled to them. If they want to be treated like a married couple, then get married. As said previously, a marriage/civil partnership is not about the dress, cake and party. It is a legal contract.

^^ should have mentioned that we do not have to declare a couple as h&w at end of ceremony if couple prefer not to.
There is a choice of declarations (where you declare you are free, in law, to marry) and the contracting vows (where you take each other as husband and wife). They can be as simple or as fanciful as you like (as long as they contain the prescribed wording).
It really can be a simple transaction or a huge celebration - and all without the religious aspect - which can often not be recognised in other countries (or this one) anyway.

I doubt it will happen despite the change in Scottish law already being here.

If it does it will be very wrong. People should have a choice of marriage or otherwise. People are adult enough to make their own decisions. If it does happen it will be a huge infringement on people's freedoms.

And let's not be sexist. It works both ways. I and many other women have paid out a lot of women on divorce. Not all women are housewives or work for pin money earning a fraction of their man.

The problem is how long before you get rights? One week, one year? How can you prove it? I'm a will writer and often am alarmed that unmarried women do not know their rights. Everyone should be sure they are informed and take appropriate steps to protect themselves. i.e. jointly own property etc. If you don't want to get married be sure you have not left yourself vulnerable.

I agree with southeastastra. I do not want to be married. I do not want to be anyone's spouse, chattel, or anything else. I'm me. I have lived with the same man for 21 years and we have a dd. It irks me that our family doesn't get the same legal breaks and protection that other families do. A civil union is what I want and that would solve my problem. With what justification can it be denied me?

morfamawddach, I genuinely am perplexed by your last few sentences here; please let me explain: a civil union is ALREADY available to you - it is called a civil marriage.

I will be blunt here: if you want these 'breaks' you should go down register office with two witnesses and sign the form.

I find people like yourself exasperating because people like you will demand rights when there is ALREADY a solution available to you.

Why should a person who may wish to cohabit free of any legal ties (and believe me, there are LOTS of people like this: those who have been through misery of divorce, those 'testing' a relationship to see if they wish to marry)
be effectively married because you cannot be bothered to take up a solution that is ALREADY available to you?

It is not fair on them for heaven's sake.

This cohabitee right thing is just plain nuts.

I also think that a person who claims that they do not wish to be seen as a 'chattel' (which is reasonable) should accept the downside of not being seen as a chattel is that the law will play no part in treating you as a chattel should you break up from a partner.
In short, it won't get involved,
It is no good a person saying that they do not wish to be a chattel if they're going to play the 'damsel in distress' card and run to the courts if they split with a partner (other than the sorting out of explicit, joint financial arrangements like jointly-held property).

since when did marrying someone make you a 'chattel'?

'Marriage, according to the law of this country, is the UNION of one man and one woman VOLUNTARILY entered into, for life, to the exclusion of all others'.

That is the legal definition of marriage - nope, still cannot see the word chattel.

Neither myself, nor any of my friends, entered marriage as anything other than equal partners. If your partner is inclined to think otherwise then the problem lies with them not with the institution of marriage per se.

Marriage is a legal contract. Some couples choose to add a religous dimension. But if you are looking for security within the law, then marriage is already available to provide that security.

Just as an aside, if there were to be some sort of co-habitee rights, how would that contract be ended?

I'm with Marantha. I don't see why you can't just go to the registry office and get married?

You don't have to take his name, hell don't even call him your partner for all we care.

But what you are saying is you want the recognition in law without the need to actually do anything to get it. Sorry but it simply doesn't work that way.

And what do you call your other half then if you are not his "spouse"/partner/whatever

"A civil union is what I want and that would solve my problem. With what justification can it be denied me?"

Nobody.It's easy for you to get your family equal legal recognition of those married in religious ceremonies. Go and get a non-denominational civil union. As others have said why would the law be pro-active in assigning a legal status to your relationship when there is a perfectly viable option for you to do so yourself.
Nobody should be married de-facto because others are ignorant or their legal status or rights.

sorry, meant to say nobody is trying to deny you this right. at the start rather than just nobody

I'm beginning to think that civil partnerships for heterosexual couples are a good idea after all. I genuinely believe that although marriage is essentially a legal matter, most people do attach other things to it: religion, not needing a piece of paper to love one another etc, so a lot of people may be missing out on legalising their coupleship because of it and, to be honest, a lot of people do use religion etc as an excuse not to make a legal commitment.

The civil partnerships for heterosexuals would STILL require explicit agreement by both members of the couple (just like marriage) and would be, legally, exactly the same.
So nobody would be having something imposed on them that they did not wish like these 'cohabitee rights'.

It would certainly make things clearer for people: nobody would be able to get out of making an explicit legal commitment on grounds of religion etc anymore.
If someone's partner won't make the trip to the register office, I think people would soon reach the conclusion that they (the partner that won't form the civil partnership) wish to have a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Yes, perhaps it would be daft having two separate names (marriage, civil partnerships) for exactly the same thing, but I can see that there may be things in favour of this.

Marantha
You seem to be assuming a difference between a CP for hetros and marriage. A CP (same sex) provides the same legal rights as a marriage. I'm struggling to distinguish...
Just because a CP is called something different, it does not mean it has a lesser legal status. You can't simply wake up one morning and say you don't want to be one half of that partnership any longer.
I really don't see what is so difficult to understand - a registry office marriage/cp carries no less legal weight than a religious ceremony. It is the case, however, that some religious ceremonies, do not carry any legal weight at all.
By suggesting that a CP for hetros should be available instead of marriage, it could be implied that there is a belief that they are 'inferior' to marriage. That is not so.

^^ by inferior, I mean of lesser legality and therefore easier to extrapolate yourself from.

LaydeeC, I know that a CP provides same legal rights as marriage- I never said that it didn't, however, I am trying to take into account the views here of people who say they want to be effectively legally married without the 'baggage' that marriage has.

Yes I know that they can already go to register office and do this but, nevertheless, this baggage attached with marriage stops them from doing so.
I admit my response is: 'Just have a register office wedding' but I can also understand that some people who are widowed may think that 'marriage' is something that is only done once but would like something that would provide same rights legally as marriage without being marriage and as such think a civil partnership without connotations of marriage may suit them (obviously, a person could not form civil partnership if married to someone else).

I think the advantages would be:
Complete severance of religion and associated baggage from the legal side of marriage. A clear message.

Reduction of cohabitees complaining of lack of rights: After all, a simple legal remedy would be available to them via heterosexual civil partnerships.

Cohabitee right argument would disappear- nobody could use excuse of not being religious etc not to form that legal bond anymore.
In short, nobody would have much sympathy with those who did not form a heterosexual civil partnership whereas perhaps with marriage there may be sympathy with 'not religious' or 'don't need piece of paper to love one another' argument.

The downside would be that some cohabiting couples would no doubt split- especially the ones where one partner has used the 'not religious' etc argument not to form a legal tie with their partner.