Should I get married just for the financial security??

friendofchocolate

Sorry, wasn't sure exactly where to post this, but life insurance does come into it!

I don't believe in marriage for various reasons and have always assumed I would never do it, but it seems there are so many loopholes in the law preventing me and my partner having equal rights to those of married couples, that I'm now starting to get a bit worried. For example, if (god forbid) my partner were to die, I wouldn't automatically have the right to proceeds of house sale, his pension, etc etc, would I? Does anyone know exactly where we stand? We do both have life insurance which names the other though.

And if I were to die or we were to split up, he would have no rights over our two small children, is that correct? Does anyone know where I can find out all these things for sure, ie the legal differences between being married and not, where home ownership and children are concerned?

Does anyone know if it's possible to have a legal document drawn up which gives us exactly the same rights as married couples? Has anyone done this?

Thanks!

Alikay

Not if it's JUST for the financial security, no. But if you love your partner, want to spend the rest of your lives together and think there are legal and practical advantages, why not?

You could get married without any religious vows or anything approaching a typical wedding celebration: jeans and a couple of witnesses during your lunch break type of thing. But if you want the freedom to just up and leave if you go off each other, it's not worth it -divorce is an expensive pain in the backside. However, with 2 small kids and a jointly owned home do you have that kind of freedom anyhow?:D

Horace

If you love your partner then get married - it doesnt have to be a religious ceremony at all. To get married purely for financial reasons though is not a good idea. I have friends who waited 35 years before they tied the knot, they had just never gotten round to it but eventually they did.

Life is full of what ifs...

As for custody of kids if you do split - then he could apply for joint custody and that way the kids still have two parents, they just live in different houses.

friendofchocolate

Thanks –!I really don't believe in marriage, sorry, I probably should have used a different title for the thread. I'm really trying to find out the exact differences/discrepancies in the two situations. What we want is the kind of civil partnership that gay couples are now able to have – entirely equal, which marriage is not –!but my partner and I are unable to have this option until the law changes (which I'm thinking is possibly discrimination, in fact?).

Valli

OP
if you live in Scotland it will be different from England and Wales as you can establish Common Law marriage in Scotland.

In England, although the term IS used there is no legal precedent.

If you don't want to marry you can write wills and ensure that everything is in joint names. re pensions - 'Expression of Wish' forms can be written. The pension administrators can choose to abide by these wishes or to ignore them though!

Re property ownership you can establish joint ownership. Problems arise when one partner is sole named as owner, dies and then the property is claimed by next of kin (ie parents/siblings) and the partner is 'thrown out'.

Either
(a) marry
or
(b) get legal advice on the situation if you remain unmarried relevant to your particular circumstances.

While you're at it you can write wills and appoint legal guardians for your children.

HTH

friendofchocolate

Thanks Valli, I appreciate it. I am in Scotland, but I understood there was no such thing as common law marriage any more, and that it's a widespread misconception that those who have lived together for years have the same/similar rights to those of married couples?

luci

You can usually get 30 mins free legal advice via the Citizen's Advice Centre. That may be enough to put your mind at rest. Otherwise, if you have Legal Expenses Insurance on your home contents insurance, they may be able to advise you.

Errata

What we want is the kind of civil partnership that gay couples are now able to have –

Isn't the point of a civil partnership for gay couples that it's exactly the same as a civil partnership - register office - for a heterosexual couple ?

friendofchocolate

Errata, a heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership, at a registry office or otherwise. Our only option is a marriage. Which, if you ask me, is discrimination. I don't understand why CPs couldn't have been extended to straight couples when they were introduced, but that's beside the point. There are many differences between a marriage and a CP though.

noh

friendofchocolate wrote: »

Errata, a heterosexual couple can't have a civil partnership, at a registry office or otherwise. Our only option is a marriage. Which, if you ask me, is discrimination. I don't understand why CPs couldn't have been extended to straight couples when they were introduced, but that's beside the point. There are many differences between a marriage and a CP though.

For practical purposes I can't see any differences (apart from the religous aspects of even a civil marriage ceremony.) What do you believe they are?

Errata

A civil partnership is what it says on the tin - a non religious one conducted by someone licensed to conduct it on premises licensed for such a purpose.