Legal protection for unmarried SAHMs

[lilyaldrin]

Basically, what do I need to do to confer the same financial/legal protection as marriage would?

We have joint children and although we don't currently own property together, we hope to in the next few years.

First thing I'm tackling is wills leaving everything to each other. What next?

Yes I'm all for an education campaign - in all aspects of legal rights within marriage.

Immigration, estate and wills, children and residence, medical consent, next of kin, property - all of this needs to be seriously explained to young people so they don't end up (like me) thinking it's all about principles and what's RIGHT when it's actually about what you've signed up for on a piece of paper witnessed by two people.

Perhaps someone could start a human rights equality/discrimination case against this.

They would lose, for any number of reasons, even assuming there's anyone that cares enough to try. The reason why no-one is seriously proposing it is that most of the people that asked for it were homophobic members of the House of Lords who thought they'd identified a good wrecking amendment.

For a start off, they'll need to explain what, apart from the name, they think they want to be different between marriage and civil partnership.

If the differences are insignificant, the courts will just say "de minimis non curat lex" (the law does not concern itself with trifles). Calling broccoli something else might make your toddler more likely to eat it, but it's still broccoli. The courts have better things to worry about.

If the differences are substantial, then you'd be asking to make civil partnerships even less like marriage and (until the Same Sex Marriage Act is fully implemented, which is some years off), that would be discriminatory towards same-sex couples.

If you want a heterosexual civil partnership that isn't like the civil partnership on offer to same-sex couples (how? no one seems terribly clear) then that's not a discrimination case anyway.

I missed out sexual consent - another poorly explained point of law that gives people the idea that sexual assault is legal within marriage.

we looked into all the alternatives in depth, the difference in finance we could live with,

One thing that came up over and over, was next of kin, I had a run of near death emergencies and some seriouse health issues, despite having DP as next of kin, in some of the emergency situations, doctors felt the need to talk to my family,

Since we have been married, we have not had that situation come up again.

It does seem unfair that a couple can be together for many years, show commitment etc - but not through marriage - but have less rights than a couple who get married after a few weeks.

Perhaps we could have a mechanism by which you go to a public building with your partner and sign a piece of paper to say that you're committed to each other, and that henceforth you'd like various legal protections in exchange for certain legal responsibilities towards each other. I wonder what it might be called?

Yes education is important, especially for women who believe that common-law marriage exists and that simply by cohabiting or by having children they have equal rights.

But IMO you can't have this conversation without taking into account that marriage comes with historical, emotional and moral baggage that mean many people aren't comfortable with it, or even with civil partnership.

What we need is something like the French system whereby an individual can nominate somehow as their next of kin and inheritor etc, whether it is their partner, their sibling or just their friend.

This is entirely personal, of course, but I just don't believe in having to register my emotional, sexual, romantic etc relationship with anyone. The idea baffles me. I just don't really get why consenting adults need to register with the state in this way, why we have to declare to the state that this is the person we love, why we have to involves laws and difficulties of separating and all that in our romantic relationships. That's a lot of what marriage is about, if you boil it down to its core. IMO this should be separate from saying you want to be legally and financially involved with someone.

Apparently registrars could marry people outside a religious context in England since 1836. Why do people always talk about marriage as being religious - and why have the church got any say in it at all? We have had civil marriages since 1836.

The more I learn the more confused I am.

I would have married dp years ago if it were just a commitment to love in the romantic sense. The ring would be to signify that we were faithful to each other.

But using the ring to signify that we are going to commit all our money to each other and he was going to be able to make important decisions about my life, death and health... I'm not even sure about that now, 20something years later. This is what's the problem with marriage. It is a one size fits all and when one size doesn't fit we need something else. Or someone else that does fit.

Why do people always talk about marriage as being religious

They don't. In 2010, 68% of marriages were civil. Church weddings haven't been a majority for more than twenty years.

friday I was just thinking that!

Perhaps, for a few weeks before the signing there should be a list of people intending to sign - just to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.

(Off to gym club in a minute or would be happy to play "what would be involved in a perfect commitment contract" with you all afternoon!)

But the state can legally register marriages in a registry office with no religion involved at all - since 1836. Why did the government even consult with the Church at all on same sex marriage? Why not just decide how they wanted state marriages to be and let the church stay in their dark retrospective inward-looking place and miss out on all the fun?

Sorry if I'm going off-piste again. I really should get on with my work. I don't like being confused.

His attitude is that men in what he calls "traditional set-ups" go out to work and earn money which "enables" their partners to do more of the childcare. It sounded like he thinks men are doing women a big favour and that is not an attitude I want to be married to

I wouldn't want to be just living with someone with that attitude, unless I was working full time and earning at least as much as him.

I bet the Queen was behind it. Her and her pomp and circumstance and confused religious inheritance. None of it makes sense but if the Queen was involved it would.

Why did the government even consult with the Church at all on same sex marriage?

Because the issue at hand was whether the CofE would be forced to conduct same-sex marriages on its premises, with its ministers officiating. That doesn't arise for Catholics or Jews or whatever, because they are private members clubs. But everyone historically had the right to be married in their parish church, and the vicar could not refuse you provided the marriage was lawful. A straightforward same-sex marriage provision would not override that.

There was a similar provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act of whenever, which finally legitimised remarriage. Churches weren't forced to carry them out, even though register offices would. That seems a reasonable compromise, under the circumstances. Disestablishment seems a somewhat extreme measure.

The CofE also had views as a campaigning body on social issues, and has a lot of members. It is entirely reasonable that government consult with large, noisy stakeholders on issues of social policy, just as ChildLine get consulted on child abuse and the Anglers' Association on the issuance of fishing permits. The CofE got nothing it asked for, other than the (reasonable) right to not conduct ceremonies on its premises.

I don't really understand where the wave of negativity towards traditional marriage has come from? The thing is, if the reason that you don't feel you should have to get married in order to get the protection and recognition within law that it provides is just because you 'don't believe in having to register your emotional... relationship with anyone', then essentially you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You wouldn't choose to not register your child's birth because you didn't feel it was anyone else's business that you'd procreated would you?

No, nyssalina, it's not cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. It's just saying there are some thing some people (in this case me) feel are right to register with the state, and some things that aren't. So births or deaths make sense to register, the state needs to know how many people are born or die. Registering who you want to share your assets with or have NoK rights for you - so wills, trusts, powers of attorney etc - makes sense. But to me, I don't think it is any business of the state who I am in love with and chose to live with, not in the sense of saying "I legally commit to being with this one person."

But it's also not a wave of negativity towards traditional marriage. I am very happy when people I know chose to get married. I think it's a great excuse for a lovely party/celebration of a couple being together. I just don't feel it is for me.

What I mean is, if you think it makes sense to register to share your assets and be legally tied to another individual etc, then at the moment to do that without being married involves all sorts of solicitors fees and messing about, and you still don't qualify for many benefits that are currently only available to married couples (like inheritance tax threshold being transferable).
If the only reason you wouldn't just have a civil ceremony to get the same benefits, is because you feel it's no one else's business who you're in love with, then I guess it just seems a bit petty. It doesn't affect anyone else except you, your partner, and your children, and you are the only people who will benefit from it, so why not?
That's what to cut off ones nose to spite one's face means, it's a warning against acting out of pique rather than in your own best interests.
Obviously it's a simplification mind you, there's two parties involved in any decision, and you and your partners own circumstances may make things more complicated, but I do think what this thread has shown is that when it comes to getting the benefits associated with marriage, nothing beats just getting married.

But to me, I don't think it is any business of the state who I am in love with and chose to live with, not in the sense of saying "I legally commit to being with this one person."

But marriage isn't that, in any useful sense. There's nothing stopping married couples living apart, and many do. There's nothing stopping married couples being polyamorous so long as both consent. There's nothing stopping married couples from being celibate. The provisions for divorce aren't enacted by the state, they're enacted by the other party, so as long as both of you are happy, the details of your relationship are none of anyone else's business, particularly the state. The issue of non-consummation as a grounds for annulment (a) only arises in historical novels and (b) again, requires one party who's not happy about it to raise it as a challenge; the state doesn't come into your bedroom to check.

What marriage does is allow you to get an LPoA-lite, a will (in that intestacy mostly does "the right thing" for married couples), a bunch of tax exemptions and some provision for sorting the mess out if it goes wrong, all for fifty quid (it might be a hundred: it's certainly a fraction of the cost of obtaining and registering an LPoA). If you want to do them individually, tweaking as you go, fine. But for most people, the package deal is cheaper, easier and faster.

So does that mean people can be married, but not actually be in a relationship - live apart, have polyamorous rls, but children together and marriage for legal purposes (inheritance, property etc) remains intact?

Interesting...

And thank you Friday for being so patient with me!

I do know one polyamorous trio where two of them are married - they married before meeting the 3rd person, who now lives with them.

They all seem very happy but I can't help but wonder what the long-term implications are for the woman who isn't married. Emotionally, perhaps, more than financially.

Wow, I can't imagine how that can possibly work to all three people's satisfaction, but I guess it must do for it to continue... I'd imagine paranoia must be rife, but I'd suppose that they'd all have to be very emotionally mature and able to deal with it...
For that arrangement should they get to the point where the couple wants to provide legal protection for the other woman, I guess they have no choice but to do it the long way round with a solicitor!!

So does that mean people can be married, but not actually be in a relationship - live apart, have polyamorous rls, but children together and marriage for legal purposes (inheritance, property etc) remains intact?

Of course. Such as, for example, the Prince of Wales when he was married to Diana Spencer. What makes you think that they couldn't?

The state does not enforce the terms of marriage. If both parties decide that they are happy with their marriage, they are married (subject to laws on bigamy, incest and so on). Divorce only arises when one party wants out of the arrangement, and as we aren't living in 1935 any more, that's usually on the basis of just dissolving the marriage because they agree to do so (the days of private detectives following people to seedy hotels to prove adultery are all rather gone, although they do occasionally happen).

This is why I don't understand the animus towards marriage. The state will recognise a relationship, and give you certain rights. The bundle you get for your fifty quid is for most people the right set. But you can rescind those rights if you don't like them: a will overrides intestacy provision so you can cut your spouse out of your inheritance (subject to some fairly narrowly drawn exceptions), an LPoA overrides next of kin, etc. So if you want to be married but want your sister rather than your husband to speak for you medically, you can do that. You don't have to live with them, share a bank account with them or even fuck them if you don't want to. It's just a way to recognise a relationship that conveys certain powers, that's all.

Friday - could you tell me what tax exemptions there are with marriage? For some reason I thought those had gone out the window (except for Cameron's recent mumblings about a tax break for married couples)

Friday - could you tell me what tax exemptions there are with marriage?

Inheritance tax. Transfers between spouses are exempt in their entirety at the time of death, and there's then a joint allowance of 650k when the second dies.

Transfers between unmarried partners attract an immediate IHT liability on the deceased's assets over 325k at the point of death (including, if it's held as tenants in common, their half of the house), and then when the second partner dies there is only a 325k exemption on their assets, which will include their late partner's assets.

Yes, there are all sorts of caveats, ways around it, etc, etc. But they're a lot more complex, and rarely as effective.