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?

See a solicitor then, south, and name each other next of kin.

marriage is a religious institution invented by men to trap woman into servitude, it makes no difference now days in you are contracted to be a twosome or not it's easy enough to get out of it.

More rights/equal rights for all.

Is this the century of imposed legal obligations or something?

kendodd - i think you've hit the nail on the head with both of your posts.

south - i'm not a smug married as you so put it, I just don't any issues with the words marriage or wife. I don't understand peoples hang ups on words or the history of such words. I got married because i love my husband and wish people to know that, however the legal protection this offers me is a huge bonus. Having had a lot of contact with widows and widowers through the charity my mil helped to set up i seriously don't understand why anyone wouldn't want that protection that marriage offers, however i do not believe that the law of the land should make this automatic after x years of cohabiting.

'More rights/equal rights for all'

exactly

Yes why don't you do as expat suggests south? Not having a go, just think it would be very sensible, in fact foolish not to.

but you don't know what i have in place already!

After 16 years living together as a couple and 5 children together it would be nice if we had the same rights if we split up as somebody who had only been married for 2 years (as an example).
The taxman and benefit system view us as legally together so why can't the law regarding our rights.

because by recognising your rights would disregard other peoples, and there is a mechanism in place to protect those rights, its called marriage. its not hard to achieve them, pop to the registry office, get the peace of paper and nothing has to change except that legal protection is in place.

Maybe i just don't get peoples reservations with marriage.

No I don't, and I hope you have covered yourself. One advantage of not being married is that you can much more easily dismantle anything you have put in place. If people living together get the rights of married couples without explicitly agreeing to them (signing something) they might not be so easy to revoke.

having kids and a mortgage together does tie you a bit

i think we need to start to see each other's points rather than take sides.

Why should marriage offer any protection? it's the 21st century people shouldn't be having more rights if they are married.

marriage and family are two totally different things, if you are a married couple, your rights should be no different to a couple, if you are married with kids it should be no different to being a couple with kids.

So you want to get married because you like the idea, doesn't mean everyone feels the same and why should people feel forced by the state to get married or loose out on rights?.

I say again equality for all.

Does anyone even know if such a thing as a 'next of kin' agreement exists, in the event of an accident or something when you can't give consent for things yourself?

I understand completely what you mean Kendodd

but maybe I just don't get why women want to be married

Katz Surely following your argument through would mean that recognising the rights of marriage disregards my rights.
Your argument about disregarding other people could be used both ways.

but by making those rights automatic you are taking the rights of others away who don't want them.

Its like organ donation, you have to opt in to do it, a better system could be opt out. Thats what marriage is, if you want to opt in you get the legal protection then you do if you don't then you don't.

I say it again-

"Cohabitant Agreement But Definitely Not Marriage"

Would you sign that?

no

no i'd disagree because your rights can be protected by getting married, your choosing not to, by making the system automatic then people have no rights at all.

I'm agreeing with usual and sea.

DP wanted us to get married but i just couldn't do it.

Could never be a wife.

Couldn't be called Mrs although it doesn't bother me when people do it.

I have no idea why i have this aversion but i do.
He understood and we're 25 years in now.

Minor problem at the moment are his estranged parents who for many good reasons are estranged.
They may well cut up rough should he die before them.

I got married because I love my DH and for all the romantic reasons that that brings, I know that might make some people heave though. I also wanted him to be my next of kin and me to be his, if I has a serious accident I wanted him to be saying if they could operate on me or not, not my mum. We didn't have any money/property at the time (we a bit) so that didn't come into it. Now 15 years later I still love him just as much and we have three children and I appreciate the rights marriage gives us both and our children.

I do understand though why some people don't like marriage though, be it just the word or the whole institution, that's fine. Make you own legal agreements, define your relationships how you like, but all parties must be in agreement (as I said signing something) and should not just fall into it by default. The law should not be expected to have to guess your intentions.

And BTW without any snipes at any unmarried on here, I'm sure your relationships are as committed as mine. But, cohabiting couples are far more likely to split than married couples, even when they have children. This could be seen that some of them at least do not want the rights and obligations being married brings.

Yes Disco, that's a good point.

IMO it is unjust for the state to treat coupled as married for the purposes of benefits and tax regardless if their legal status.

I think any couple (straight, gay, co-parents not in a sexual partnership, friends, siblings) that lives together should have the option of legally registering that relationship to receive certain legal protections and take on certain obligations to each other.

In the absence of such a public registration I think people's living arrangements are not thd concern of the state.

Kendodd I think you got married for the right reasons for you ...thats why some people should marry if they choose too ,not just for the legal protection, thats just wrong imo I am not anti marriage for other people even though I would never choose to get married ,my eldest dd did marry her partner and thats ok, her choice

I think any couple (straight, gay, co-parents not in a sexual partnership, friends, siblings) that lives together should have the option of legally registering that relationship to receive certain legal protections and take on certain obligations to each other.

But with the exception of siblings in your list they can register their relationships and obtain legal protection, its called marriage or civil partnerships.

I couldn't get married, I've been engaged for 7 years I think he's finally cottoned on.

My mum hates my dad but never had any money to leave him and used to tell me when I was a kid if I ever tried to get married she would shoot my future husband during the ceremony, she is all so the one who installed the notion in my head that marriage was invented by men to control and trap woman.

Altho I think she was lying about the shooting and wouldn't actually do it, I totally agree with her other points, the wife/mother is normally the one left without work, they are trapped should they wish to break up and the other half doesn't and I don't know if the law has been changed but wifes used to get only half there pension contributions paid via the tax system, if they wanted a full pension they had to manually top it up otherwise they would be counted as a half with the husband getting a full pension and them only half thus making them still dependent/worth less then the male in the relationship.