De facto relationships

[Puddinger]

In Australia, if you've been living with your partner for 2 years, you have the same legal status as if you were married (de facto marriage), but it sounds like in the UK you can live with someone for 20 years and it means nothing!

I feel bad because there are all these threads from mothers who are living in a partnership with kids and everyone is saying oh no you are financially vulnerable. Why should they be? Why shouldn't they get compensation for liss of income, for example, if the relationship ends or access to their partner's pension? Do people not see this as a feminist issue?

The feminist issue is women should avail themselves of information so they should NOT be entered into marriage by stealth

I'm a broken record on this subject. The wedding industry has a lot to answer for. People put off getting married until they can afford a big wedding. They move in together and have children first, and where they can afford it they buy a house together first too. Sadly, something often goes wrong (which could be one partner's death or serious illness, not just the relationship going sour) before they've got the money together for the Big Day, and that can leave one party at a serious disadvantage financially - usually the woman. Marriage makes the legal standing of the relationship clear and there are some state benefits/allowances that you only get if you're married. Plus, if you're married, the widow/er is the one who makes decisions about life support, funeral arrangements and so on, not the deceased partner's parents/siblings.

One of the few good things to come out of lockdown is that big weddings have largely not been able to go ahead and many couples are re-thinking whether they really need one. Huge financial savings and maybe they'll do the legal stuff earlier on as a result.

Not all women want or need to be married, and don’t need it by stealth

It's hardly by stealth! It's not as if you don't notice living in a cohabiting sexual relationship for years.

what about the women, often single mums, who find themselves saddled with a useless cocklodger

He would need to prove the de facto relationship, and if his name is not on the lease, there's no joint accounts and he doesn't share bills, he'd be lucky to do it. But yes, good point. Nothing more annoying than having to pay maintenance to an ex cocklodger, lol.

When I lived in Iceland dp and I had something called a "cohabitation agreement" which was pretty common. You had to have been living together for 2 years without children, or for any length of time with children to qualify. It gives the couple a reduction in their tax rate, and confers a few rights and responsibilities. I can't remember all of them as it was a long time ago but I know that dp was legally obligated to support me financially while I was out of work, and that I would have been entitled to stay in our (rented) house if we split up even if my name wasn't on the tenancy. There was more to it than that but I can't remember it all. It didn't entitle either of us to any assets or anything like that. You had to sign some papers and get them witnessed when you first signed up, but thereafter it was just a case of ticking the "renew" box on your annual tax documents. There was no ceremony or expectation of a ceremony, it wasn't seen as a big deal, it just gave a few basic protections to the non earning partner with the added bonus of less tax. Obviously for the case of long relationships where the woman has contributed significantly to the man's assets and income but is entitled to nothing it doesn't help much, but it would protect women from being made homeless and penniless at the whim of their partner, especially with a child in the picture. I don't think that common law marriage is the answer for the reasons already laid out, but something like being "registered cohabiting" might be a workable middle ground.

It’s by stealth if it’s not an active choice and becomes conferred after 2 years

There should be more education on this at school and perhaps a handy list of responses every time a man says “it’s just a bit of paper”

If people want the protection of marriage, then get married.

Abd yes agree with PP, wedding industry has a lot to answer for!

Are you married?

It seems to me that there are men extorting women's labour by stealth when she finds to her surprise that he won't marry her after all and she has no rights to any financial aspect of their lives three children and 18 years later, like on another thread. How is that less stealthy? Know the law, everyone says, it's the same.

something like being "registered cohabiting" might be a workable middle ground.

Yes, exactly. Why not?

Are you married?

Me? Yes.

Women should passively wait on men marrying them,they shouldn’t give men that power over them
Other thread she initially didn’t want to marry ,changed her mind and has spent years hoping he’d marry her

Gah, Women should NOT passively wait on men marrying them,they shouldn’t give men that power over them

I feel like it's a bit harsh to blame women for men's power over them, especially when it's so supported by the legal system.

Men have the power we give them
If a woman isn’t conversant with the difference between cohabitation vs marriage, why not?

@Puddinger

I feel like it's a bit harsh to blame women for men's power over them, especially when it's so supported by the legal system.

Women and men are as capable of finding out what marriage means as each other. The sheer numbers of couples where the man says it’s just a piece of paper that they don’t need and the woman blindly goes along with it until it’s too late shows that a lot of men know exactly what marriage means and that’s why they don’t want it.

As above, it’s fuck all to do with rings, insta-worthy proposals, big dresses and “being traditional”. Marriage is a significant legal contract. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone without their express consent.

Marriage is a significant legal contract. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone without their express consent
⬆️Absolutely agree, marriage can’t be an add on by stealth. It’s one of the most significant contracts an adult enters into

What people often forget is the issue of legal next of kin should they become ill or die. It's not just about children and houses. A friend's long term partner became ill and died quite suddenly. They owned a house together but had somehow omitted the business of wills. Her family wanted her half of the house. He had to massively increase his mortgage and take in lodgers to cover it. But what really hurt. REALLY HURT. Was that he was not allowed to arrange the funeral service and choose the words on her gravestone.

I would say to anyone: you don't need a meringue dress and massive party for 200 guests. Just go and get a civil partnership if you don't want marriage. Drag a couple of witnesses off the street. But if you want legal protection then you have to opt in. Do it.

And if you don't want to be constrained and financially disadvantaged because your live in lover wants a share: Actually I think that's fair enough. People just need to understand the law and make an informed choice.

A lot of people were surprised when I got married as I am quite a forthright feminist and not traditional. Most of them were also surprised by my explanation- that I think we should be able to make an explicit choice about our relationship status and would hate as situation where one is treated as married without having chosen it.

I would have preferred a civil partnership if it had been possible though.

@HeelsHandbagPerfumeCoffee

Marriage is a significant legal contract. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone without their express consent ⬆️Absolutely agree, marriage can’t be an add on by stealth. It’s one of the most significant contracts an adult enters into

Thirded.

I may be a cynical old battle axe but even so, cynic that I am, I'm not entirely ruling out meeting a bloke in my early 60s, finding we fancied each other and liked each other enough to want to spend our declining years together. And if I did get the chance to shack up with someone, I would like the option to have the companionship and sex without entangling our finances. I certainly would not want the state telling me I could only live with someone if I were prepared to pool financial resources. That's none of the state's business.

Plus, if you're married, the widow/er is the one who makes decisions about life support, funeral arrangements and so on, not the deceased partner's parents/siblings.

Sorry. Cross post Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I think many former U.K. colonies have this de facto marriage (Aus/NZ) or common law wife/husband (US/Canada) in their legal system as an outdated vestige from being so remote. It dates back to when you’d have pioneer communities with no priest or minister available to marry willing partners. The priest or minister might ride a circuit in a region and only come through your settlement once every few years. So they set up this common law or de facto marriages so that couples could cohabit quickly without “living in sin” and the idea was that they’d be officially married next time the priest/minister passed through town. It was many times needed in the harsh conditions to have couples cohabit quickly. Widows who lost a husband in summer, would risk starving to death if they did not couple up with a new husband to bring in the harvest and hunt over winter. A man who lost a wife and had young children similarly would need another adult woman to take over child rearing and household support- vegetable farming, cooking, etc. They couldn’t wait months on end for a man of god to arrive and do the ceremony.

Really interesting that, Plan thanks!

I got married quite young. People questioned why. 'I love him' wasn't an acceptable answer, and we didn't have kids for ages, so it wasn't that. Neither of us had any assets at that point. I came up with the next of kin thing. I wanted him to be my family, if was in a coma I wanted him to make decisions on my behalf. If he kicks the bucket, I wouldn't want to marry again. I might let a fellow live in my house but if I would find myself accidentally married to him after 2 years I wouldn't let him move in.
I hate the idea I could end up married without actively doing it in purpose.

I don't think it will change in the UK.
According to the c of e, marriage is a sacrament, not a contact (sacrament = an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace) and c of e has some standing in the house of lords.

Just go and get a civil partnership if you don't want marriage. Drag a couple of witnesses off the street.

I meant wedding. You don't need a big wedding. You can choose marriage or civil partnership.

hate the idea I could end up married without actively doing it in purpose
⬆️Agree

Very interesting Plan thanks.