Should I get married just for the financial security??

sunshinejoclaire

Errata wrote: »

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.

A civil ceremony is just that too for straight couples though!

Doh - i'm half asleep.. i've basically repeated what you said!

WolfSong2000

I know Humanist Society Scotland (HSS) to civil ceremonies...will technically still be "marriage" I suspect, but they're about as un-religious and equal as you're gonna get. I've had dealings with HSS myself (not for their civil ceremony, mind), and they've been lovely...may be worth trying to get in contact with them and have a word about it?

doodle-bug_2

I had a registry office 'wedding'. We opted for the quicky version (which was used so much the person had to find it at the back of a dusty filing cabinet). It was - are you free to marry? - will you marry?

That was it!!!

By the time family and friends had all filed in we were on the way out to the pub!

Valli

From here

Until recently in Scotland, there was a form of common law marriage called 'marriage by cohabitation with habit and repute'. The theory behind this law was that if a man and woman cohabited as husband and wife in Scotland for sufficient time and were generally held and reputed to be husband and wife and were free to marry each other, they would be presumed to have consented to marry each other and if this presumption was not overturned, they would be considered to be legally married. This form of common law marriage has now been abolished by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 which came into force on 4 May 2006.

So, to conclude, if you are an unmarried couple living together (cohabitation), it is extremely unclear as to whether you have any special rights against your partner if you separate, however long you have lived together and however many children you may have. This means that you may not have any special rights for financial help if things go wrong.

But there are steps you can take to ensure that you will be financially provided for in the event of separation, illness or death. A simple step you can take is to make a will.

Ah my apologies I had not realised there had been a change to Scottish law!

olly300

Unfortunately it may actually be cheaper to get married at a registrars office then to consult solicitors etc.

friendofchocolate

Thanks for your input, all.

Errata wrote: »

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.

Errata, this is a civil marriage, not a civil partnership. As I mentioned before, straight couples cannot (yet!) have a civil partnership.

Marriage carries a lot of historical and religious baggage which I don't want to be associated with, and I would feel hypocritical going through with a marriage ceremony. For example:

•!On a marriage certificate, the occupations of the bride's and groom's fathers is recorded, but not their mothers. Why? Because it's not (or wasn't considered) sufficiently important.
•!Similarly, the bachelor/spinster distinction on the marriage certificate, and, for that matter, the terms husband and wife –!I just don't identify with these terms, have never wanted to be a wife, and strongly feel that there needs to be an equal alternative.
•!"Wilful refusal to have sexual intercourse", as it is termed, is still a valid reason for a marriage to be annulled, plus the fact that marital rape was only outlawed in 1991 ...

I could go on ...

LittleMissAspie

friendofchocolate wrote: »

Errata, this is a civil marriage, not a civil partnership. As I mentioned before, straight couples cannot (yet!) have a civil partnership.
What is the difference though if they are both done in a registry office? I thought marriage was the same but done in a church.

Marriage carries a lot of historical and religious baggage which I don't want to be associated with, and I would feel hypocritical going through with a marriage ceremony. For example:

•!On a marriage certificate, the occupations of the bride's and groom's fathers is recorded, but not their mothers. Why? Because it's not (or wasn't considered) sufficiently important.
So don't record either, I don't see how it's relevant to anything anyway.
•!Similarly, the bachelor/spinster distinction on the marriage certificate, and, for that matter, the terms husband and wife –!I just don't identify with these terms, have never wanted to be a wife, and strongly feel that there needs to be an equal alternative.
They are just other terms for "married man" and "married woman". You could use "spouse".
•!"Wilful refusal to have sexual intercourse", as it is termed, is still a valid reason for a marriage to be annulled, plus the fact that marital rape was only outlawed in 1991 ...
Well I don't think they can backdate laws.

I could go on ...

If the intention behind a partnership and a marriage are the same, what does it matter what it is called or what the paperwork says? It is literally just a piece of paper. It doesn't mean anything but to give you the legal rights you want, which is what a solicitor's piece of paper would do too.

ninky_2

isn't it the case that civil partnerships can take place in a private setting whilst marriage must take place in a public one - and marriage goes in the public register whilst civil partnership doesn't - you just get a certificate. could be wrong though....

here's some info on the differences (looks like you have to give notice in a 'public building', but the signing 'ceremony' can take place anywhere you like). i'm not familiar with divorce laws but wonder if the civil partnership 'dissolution' is legally different too?

http://www.civilpartnershipinfo.co.uk/

olly300

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

If the intention behind a partnership and a marriage are the same, what does it matter what it is called or what the paperwork says? It is literally just a piece of paper. It doesn't mean anything but to give you the legal rights you want, which is what a solicitor's piece of paper would do too.

And probably cost more.

ninky_2

one thing i find odd in this day and age is women changing their surname to their husband's name. or even worse the traditionally correct use of Mrs Michael Smith for example. if you divorce you are supposed to keep your husband's surname but keep your own first name with the Mrs. !!!!!! is that all about?!!

if a bloke wants to change his surname to his wife's he has to get it changed by deed poll whilst a woman can just use the marriage certificate. surely this is sexist?

i think if civil partners want to change name they have to go deedpoll also.

as for me, i'm taking the name i was given at birth to the grave.