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?

So it seems the MN consensus is-

NO, unmarried couples shouldn't have rights like married couples.

"NO, unmarried couples shouldn't have rights like married couples."

A more accurate statement in my mind would be:

"It's impossible to give unmarried couples the same rights as married couples without instituting something that would be functionally identical to marriage but just given a different name"

Completely agree with Badgerspaw's statement.

I would have been appalled if there was some kind of system to automatically "sign us up" for some kind of legally binding commitment, just because we had been together for a certain number of years. We needed a long time together to be able to make the leap to marriage, and would have split up to prevent it happening without our direct consent.

The whole thing about the legal protection being "for the kids" is a red herring too. Even if I was a Xenia-clone and had a high paying job, I would still want the protection of marriage. If DH was unconscious in hospital, I am automatically the person who is there at the bedside and is consulted about his treatment. If he dies, I automatically get the house and the money. And so on.

And being married gives me protection in the eyes of the law (being a SAHM). The law acknowledges my contribution to the household while I bring up the children. It certainly doesn't condemn me to servitude. Now, actually looking after the children might be different (have had a hard day with DDiva1 and DDiva2, but that's a whole other thread ).

"The way I see it at the moment people have two choices, they can-

1. Choose to get married- that has it own costs and benefits

1. Choose to live together- that has different costs and benefits

Choose option 1 or 2 whatever suits you best both you are entirely free to make.

Seem to me people agitating for change want to take away option 2."

This post sums up my point of view nicely. I would be very much opposed to something that forces co-habiting couples to have legal rights to each others' property without their consent. Surely all couples should have the right to decide when/if they want to share assets, next of kin rights and so on? As far as I can see we'd need some kind of opt-in system where people register their partnership (but how is that different from marriage?). Or, opt-out, where if you move in with someone you register the fact that you are not a couple (but imagine having to do this every time you got a new flatmate).

Can someone who wants equal rights for co-habiting couples, explain to me why it would be better for the courts to decide whether or not a couple are a couple, rather than the couple themselves (by signing a register or whatever). I am genuinely struggling to understand that part.

Hmmm I see both sides of this argument. I was married almost three years ago, we've been together almost 15. To be fair I don't feel more protected but then I always had enough trust in him that if things went tits up he wouldn't try and fleece me.

I don't like being called "Mrs" - just because it makes me feel old and I'm still not entirely happy about taking his name (I did because it was important to him but I feel like I've borrowed somebody else's and it's not really my name).

"What's your name?" "it's err...". I still have to think about what my bloody name is!

The biggest committment you'll ever make to somebody is to have a child with them. Marriages can be dissolved, no kids involved then you're both free to walk away and never have another thng to do with them. Kids? well, you've got a permanent bond haven't you?

I think having children with somebody makes it clear enough there is (or at least has been) a sexual relationship and can't be passed off as "the lodger".

Maybe put something in place for co-habiteess who have children? alernatively don't live with somebody who you even remotely suspect would be capable of taking you to the cleaners if it all goes wrong.

'I think having children with somebody makes it clear enough there is (or at least has been) a sexual relationship and can't be passed off as "the lodger"'

But what about people who have children together but don't want be a "recognised couple"? I've known gay people to work something out between them and then there are parents who might split but still live together for one reason or another.

Automatically giving certain rights to parents makes an awful lot of judgements about what it and what isn't a relationship and as said before that's an area that I don't think that the state should be butting into.

"alernatively don't live with somebody who you even remotely suspect would be capable of taking you to the cleaners if it all goes wrong."

Alternatively just leave the law as it is and if you, not the Government, decide that you are a couple then either get married or sort out whatever other legal arrangements that you want.

Its all just an argument about terminology as I implied earlier.

Oh FFS, if you want all the rights and benefits conferred upon one having gone through the marriage "ceremony," then just go through the bloody marriage ceremony.

What's the big deal?

Our problem is this:

We need the legal protection marriage offers due to very complicated dependants situation.

I just want to go to the solicitors and have a piece of paper signed. Unfortunately with all the pieces of paper we'd have to sign (complicated situation) our solicitors bill would be in excess of £1500. We've had several quotes. And that still does not sort out our issues with inheritance tax, probate, and pensions. Getting married would solve everything and more for under £100.

So why don't we just go and get married?

Because the WORDS marriage/wedding/husband/wife mean a lot to one of us, and not to the other. Because one of us would hate to be married and the other would like it. One would enjoy 'wife' and 'husband', 'Mr and Mrs' and having the same family name, and the other would refuse to acknowledge all these things. Because one of us would want guests and tearful vows and the other would run screaming from the room. Because one of us would adore a stag night and the other can't even bear other people's hen dos. It IS more than just a word. And this issue is causing big problems between us right now

i loathe this argument
why should one group in society have less rights
discrimination
Of course we should have equal rights

That's not applicable MoldyWarp. If you were talking about right to get married then that would be applicable, but marriage or civil partnership is available to all single or divorced adults in the UK.

applied for civil partnership got turned down

just want legal rights etc for our children

Well, there must be a reason. Immigration issue? Previous marriages/partnerships? Or are you a heterosexual couple applying for civil partnership - you'd need civil marriage ceremony I should think. I'm not an expert I'm afraid.

no - just same sex couple
over 20 year partnership
dont WANT to have a marriage but would like legal recognition for our six children

same sex??? sorry different sex last time i looked ( it's been a while!)

Legal recognition? As in legitimacy?

Or legal protection? If so see my post above.

Regardless marriage is available to you, the rights are there if you want them, though as I've said I understand the unpalatable form.

protection

equallove.org.uk/

We have been together for nearly 30 years and have never felt the need or desire to get married.

We would both be quite happy to go to a solicitors and sign a legal document saying we want to be treated as a 'couple' in the eyes of the law. As it it we have both drawn up will's that have made our wishes very clear in the event of one of us dying.

I find it strange that we are treated like a married couple when it comes to things like tax & benefits etc, but not for other things.

I do find it strange that legally after all this time, I would have less rights if my partner died than a wife who had met & married her husband within weeks.

agree icantfind

the tax etc really annoys me

The thing that bugs me even more than rights of unmarried couples, is the rights of unmarried fathers. When we had our children, because we were not married my partner had very few rights over the children (even though he was named on the birth certificate) & did more of the childcare tan I did. He had to apply for Parental Responsibility, to get the same rights a married father would get.

I lived with my DH for 9 years before marriage. I got married because I knew this was for keeps. I got married because I wanted children and I wanted the children to be able to say "Mummy & Daddy" forever.

To me marriage meant I had no doubts and I trusted and loved the man I wanted to marry.

All's fair in love and war if there is a contract....

I've been with my partner for 33 years ...the kids had mum and dad forever ...so whats your point Baublelicious?

If I want a chance to win the lottery I have to play the lottery.

If I want a full State pension I need to make my NI contributions.

If you want the rights of a married couple you need to get married.

Sounds fair enough to me.

I can't believe people get married just for the rights not a good reason to marry imo