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?

GiddyPickle To be honest, I should imagine that the commonest reason for not marrying is not wishing to be legally tied to another adult, for every person not marrying for religious reasons or not wanting a 'piece of paper' I bet there are four who simply do not want the legal ties - a position which is reasonable I think.

So I suppose the question is: Should the rights of the many to have a non-legal relationship be ignored in order to support the wishes of the minority to have something which they can ALREADY have via marriage?
The answer for me is a firm, 'No'.
I'm supportive of civil partnerships for heterosexual people and gay people and marriage for heterosexual people and gay people (bit of a waste of time having FOUR things which give the same rights, but I can see the arguments for all of them)- but the point is this: an explicit contract would have to be agreed to and signed for in all four cases which would be very different from just imposing a legal framework upon the couple without their consent.

I certainly would object to civil partnerships for men and women although they can have a civil marriage if they want but not forcing the unmarried who live together into h aving marriage type rights automatically. That would be very wrong and unfair on many people.

^^ Marantha, I have read your post (17.08) twice now and still don't really understand it.
It seems to say that hetro couples who don't want the 'baggage' of marriage (for whatever reason) should be able to avail themselves of some type of legal partnership so that they can have the rights that a marriage would bring - but would not be the same .

A Civil Partnership (for same sex couples) is, in all but name, a marriage. So we would be introducing another framework for both hetros and gay couples that would not have the 'baggage of the legal side of marriage'. What would be the point? What would they be protected from that they wouldn't be from entering a marriage/CP. Would the aim be to end the contract more easily? If so, what would then be the point of marriage or CPs in their current form.

And all for what, because some people want the protection that being married gives them but don't want to get married.

I'm not dis-respecting your comments/view, but I honestly don't understand them.

LaydeeC, Are you saying here that it would seem that there would be no point having FOUR things (civil partnerships for homosexual AND heterosexual people, marriage for homosexual AND heterosexual people) that mean exactly the same thing in terms of legal rights?

If so, yes, I agree with you BUT...

I can see the argument FOR having marriage for all couples and civil partnerships for all couples.
It seems to me that many couples miss the wood for the trees when it comes to marriage and fail to sort the legal side out for themselves by getting married because of 'not needing a piece of paper to love one another' or not being religious or whatever.
I think that civil partnerships for heterosexuals would go some way to totally separating the act of securing these rights from any associations of marriage and that may be a good thing.

Yes it IS daft to have four things that would give the same legal rights at first glance. Absolutely. But on closer inspection there may be good reasons for it.
Just a point of view- I appreciate that the reason the law did not introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is because they already had option of getting wed.
I don't know if civil partnerships are identical to marriage, but it would seem logical to me that in order not to discriminate against homosexual people, they would HAVE to be identical IYSWIM.

Whatever, though, if there is a problem with cohabiting couples not having legal things in place, I think the solution is NOT making cohabitees effectively married-like it or not (and I suspect that the majority would not like it)- but some kind of campaign to emphasize that cohabitation in itself has no rights attached to it and that in order to secure these rights marriage (might) be a good idea for people.

Today's news is that civil partnership may be available going forward for hetero couples. That is much better than giving live in lovers leech like rights to drain dry financially the stronger financial party in breach of fundamental rights and freedoms.

I agree with marantha that thre shiould be a lot more publicity. Mumsnet is littered with foolish women who earn virtually nothing and have no idea that their financial position is much much worse because their man pulled the wool over their silly little eyes about the legal differences between marriage and cohabition or may be they just feel lucky someone temporarily until he tries to throw them out is a meal ticket.

I don't understand why straight people need civil partnerships. They can get married if they so wish. What would the difference be between a civil partnership and a marriage?

Nothing really but it's better than giving unmarried couples married status when they don't want it so let people who don't like "marriage" w9th all itshistorical and religious connotations and past avoid it by civil partnership if they want to. Also they might feel is they are consumeristic idiots they have to spend £20k on a wedding so not marry but accept they could have a civil partnership for £50 or whatever.

^^They can also have a civil marriage for about £20 - well a bit more but not much.
I really think that the point of Civil Partnerships for gay couples and marriage for hetros is being missed. They are tantamount to the same thing in terms of the legal protection they offer.

If there were say, marriages for straight/gay couples and civil partnerships for straight/gay couples - I'm not sure what the differences would be. Unless, of course, the idea would be to give couples an easier way out of the civil partnership contract whilst retaining the protection that current marriages and civil partnerships (in their current guise) offer.

In which case, what would the point of marriages and civil partnerships in their current guise be?

I'm not necessarily saying that I disagree with what is being said, just that, four contracts...? With differing degrees of 'get out'...?

It is discriminatory nt to let gay people marry but we are sweeping that away so it's fine. Civil partnerships and marriages I believe result in the same legal consequences. Some people just don't like the concept of marriage because of it's past history I suppose although I agree it is a bit silly to have that.

I have in business had a man here who had a religious (Hindu) ceremony but was not married to his "wife" under English law. I am not sure if she was aware how very few rights she had thinking she was "married " when she wasn't and even Mick Jagger's ex partner she found out they weren't properly married on some foreign island so didn't have divorce rights when they split. All interesting stuff and quite a bit of discrimination there too betwee4n different religions in the UK as regards civil and other marriages. I think if you marry in the Christian religions, Jewish and Hindu here you have to have a civil ceremony as well so are married in the eyes of the state but not if you're Muslim.