Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

This is my pledge to Yorkiegirl ....

202 replies

moaningpaper · 28/10/2006 15:02

This is my pledge to Yorkiegirl .... (well to my family really)

I WILL swallow my horror at the whole wife thing and get married in the next 12 months so that my family has more legal protection.

Who wants to join me?

OP posts:
GraceUnderFire · 28/10/2006 20:51

I'm not being obtuse (at least I hope I'm not) but I just can't see why it's a problem. No-one needs to know - it's a piece of paper. My wedding was as low key as you could possibly get - and the reasons for it were as YG has described (we already had a child, a mortgage, a complete commmitment - I had no need in myself for an official marriage).

A while ago I saw on the news about a soldier killed abroad and all the hassle his dp was having - because they were not married she wasn't entitled to a widow's pension from the army. They had a child and another on the way and had been together about 10 years, but none of that mattered to the army. And even though I really felt for her - and agree that marital status shouldn't matter and the fact that she was his wife in all but name was irrelevant - I couldn't help thinking - "you silly, silly people - he was going into war zones...why didn't you get married?"

Extreme example I know - but as long as the law stands as is - I think YG is absoluely right: it's hard enough when you are married.

GraceUnderFire · 28/10/2006 20:52

oooh, lots of mmmms in that commmmitment (that'd be the wine)

Yorkiegirl · 28/10/2006 21:51

Message withdrawn

scarysuejonez · 28/10/2006 21:59

I have two questions out of curiosity:

If you are not married and your DP dies and leaves you his share of house, joint assets etc do you have to pay inheritance tax if they are over the threshold?

I am genuinely puzzled as to the difference between the new civil partnerships for same sex couple and registry office weddings for different sex couples. Apart from not being able to call teh first a "wedding" or "marriage", what is the difference?

scarysuejonez · 28/10/2006 22:02

GraceUnderFire - the difference between marrriage and no marriage to institutions like the army is that if you don't have to be married how will they know whether there is a genuine partnership or just your mate who you've said is your partner so someone benefits?

If non-married partners could benefit everyone in the army would mysteriously have a partner. (My ex is ex-army, I know that he would STILL put me down as his partner if her thought it would cost the army a buck! )

scarysuejonez · 29/10/2006 09:49

anyone know answers to my questions?

crunchie · 29/10/2006 10:22

Suejonez, I would love to know answers to those. SOrry I cant help.

However I do remember recently a case of a couple of sisters who wanted to have a civil partnership, so they could each inherit the family house (where they had lived and were still living, for all their lives) but as family they were not allowed to.

I think it would take one serious case going to the European court of Human rights that would possibly force teh government to allow civil partnerships to hetrosexuals. That would be teh thing for all those who want the rights, but not the 'wife'

BTW I really believe in marriage and think as people are saying it means nothing etc, how much more important it was for me to make teh statement to everyone about DH.

drosophila · 29/10/2006 12:31

The next of kin situation happened with my DP's brother. A decision had to be made in hosp and they did consult with his partner for treatment but when a signature was required they did get the parents to sign. DP's brother nominated his partner as next of kin when he entered hosp. See this here . His partner also arranged the funeral. Just thought this may be of interest to those who balk at the idea of marriage.

Blackduck · 29/10/2006 13:21

I'm with MI on this one...I have seriously given it some thought because of the protection issues (more for ds than me) and have thought of sneaking away, hauling two people off the street, ding it, and going back to work.....BUTm, I don't know, I just baulk at it....

lemonAIIEEE · 29/10/2006 13:56

SJ - yes, you're right on the IHT (although if house is held jointly rather than in common then you won't need to worry about IHT on that because technically it isn't inherited).

Dottydot · 29/10/2006 14:20

dp and I got married in July and it was wonderful - a laid back, low key event - lunch at Pizza Express afterwards and party at my Mum's in the evening just sitting out on the grass drinking wine and eating Chinese takeaway!

Sue - there's no difference between a heterosexual marriage and gay civil partnership - both give couples exactly the same rights. We just can't use the word "marriage" (one step too far..!).

Am glad we're covered in terms of if one of us dies, the other is the legal next of kin - you never know what's going to happen and how families might react in grief. The ceremony was just a lovely day and life now is just as it was - we've kept our names, titles, etc.

jura · 29/10/2006 16:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

puppydavies · 29/10/2006 17:20

these threads have made me think about and look into the situation. as far as i can see the only issues are inheritance tax - which will not apply to me - and the widowed parent's allowance. next of kin doesn't appear to be a legally defined term and partners can carry a card nominating who they would like to be regarded as next of kin by the nhs. wills need to be completed after marriage anyway regarding care of children, so marriage would not be the cheaper option.

so the widow's/widower's benefit is the only real consideration to be weighed up against the fact that i do not want to get married.

i'm still weighing it...

(i do appreciate the posts which have raised the whole issue)

Yorkiegirl · 29/10/2006 17:22

Message withdrawn

drosophila · 29/10/2006 18:58

From what I understand the hosp decided who is 'next of kin'. It seems that their judgement is what matters. You don't need to carry a card as they make some assumptions and make the decision. See this link here Next of Kin .

I must admit I assumed that it was enshrined in law but it seems not. I know the hosp where dp's brother died told his sister after the death that they considered his partner as next of kin.

suedonim · 29/10/2006 20:07

My ds2 knew a couple, A & B, involved in a really sad case re next of kin. B had a terrible motorbike accident which left him in a coma and very brain-damaged. A visited him each day for months and then his parents stepped in and moved him, against her wishes, to a hospital down south where she's only be able to visit occasionally. It broke her heart.

As if the accident wasn't bad enough, they were in the midst of buying a house. In Scotland you are legally bound to purchase if your offer's been accepted but in this case the purchase couldn't progress because of the accident. The people they were buying from wouldn't let A withdraw from the contract and sued her for damages, getting about 10K!! I don't know if being married would have made any difference to that particular situation but I was that anyone could be so mean as to sue someone whose partner was, at that time, in a life and death situation.

Original poster
moaningpaper · 29/10/2006 20:12

Suejonez: If you are not married and your DP dies and leaves you his share of house, joint assets etc do you have to pay inheritance tax if they are over the threshold?

Yes that's right.

Most hospitals consider partners next of kin for life-saving matters - e.g. if you were to have problems giving birth, it wouldn't be an issue - but in terms of long-term rights then parents would have the priority I believe (e.g. in the case where the parents wanted their son moved against his partner's wishes)

OP posts:
RottenOtter · 29/10/2006 20:15

i think this is wrong
we should be badgering the government for change not succumbing to social pressure

Tatties · 29/10/2006 20:25

RottenOtter - I just see it as working the system tbh. If there is any money to be made from people getting married (or from co-habiting couples if the worst happens) they're not going to give us another (cheaper?) option to get the same rights.

But in an ideal world I agree with you.

Yorkiegirl · 29/10/2006 20:29

Message withdrawn

ProfYaffle · 29/10/2006 20:49

Re the next of kin thing. When my dh (then dp) was admitted to hospital he was unconscious, in those circumstances i was not allowed to be considered next of kin for invasive procedures. His parents had to do that. A few days later when he regained consciousness he nominated me as his next of kin, hospital still contacted fil in preference to me though.

shimmy21 · 29/10/2006 21:08

to moaning paper - I felt like you about marriage, I'm an old fashioned feminist and just didn't feel any need or wish to legally bind myself to anyone else. I'm not religious so really didn't see the point of making any promises to other people that me and dp hadn't already made to each other. I was terrified that marriage would somehow turn me into a 'wife' and that the meaingless piece of paper would make my relationship with dp fall into sterotypical husband/wife patterns.

I was so wrong. I married dh for nationality reasons (or he couldn't stay in the UK) and I love being married. We had a lovely wedding day with friends and family in my parents' garden. I honestly don't think that marriage has changed our way of behaving to each other (unlike having kids).

Marriage can be a lovely happy positive experience. If you have found the right person don't be afriad of it.

scarysuejonez · 30/10/2006 00:22

But those who say that we should be campaigning for a civil partnership for hetero couples like the civil partnership for same sex couples - isn't that a registery office wedding? I don't see how it is different if you don't like the term wedding or marriage, call it civilly partnered because thats exactly what it is.

And there are massive practical implications involved in people who have no publically recognised contract (which is essentially what marriage is legally). How do you (or a hospital, or a company pension scheme etc) judge who is a partner and who isn't if you aren't prepared as a couple to stand in front of a government officer and a couple of witnesses and say that you are partners and there are legal ramifications if you decide you don't want to be any more (ie it is a serious undertaking and you can't change your mind once a week).

It seems ironic to me that same sex partners have campaigned for years to get the practical benefit of a state recognised partnership, because they recognise the benefits but hetero couple seem to be blase about the advantages.

What do I know, I'm not married but I do find it confusing.

fortyplus · 30/10/2006 00:50

Sorry to hijack, but this made me smile.
DH & i lived together 8 years before deciding we'd like children. Me REALLY not bothered about marriage - him - said he quite liked the idea of being married but didn't want to have to go to the wedding!
At the end of the day we decided that we were 'joined together' by a child whether we liked it or not. Life is a whole lot less complicated if you take yourself off to the Registry Office and get the bit of paper. The children like it, too.
So in my opinion if you're committed enough to have a child together, what's the big deal in getting married?
We had a very low key affair with a barbecue for close friends - just an excuse for a party, really! It's the folk who do the big white virginal bride thing at a £25,000 bash in some chav country club who may find that the reality doesn't live up to expectations!

threebob · 30/10/2006 02:15

Move to NZ - you can have a civil union regardless of your gender and that of your partner.