Should marriage be taken out of the finance system?

Poll Started 16 Oct: Should marriage be taken out of the finance system? Should 'common law partners' or couples that live together automatically get the same rights and financial benefits as married couples/civil partnerships?

A. Yes
B. No

Vote here or click reply to discuss
threadbanner.gif
«1345

Replies

  • The poll is neck and neck right now, 43 votes a piece.
    “Ordinary riches can be stolen, real riches cannot. In your soul are infinitely precious things that cannot be taken from you.” - Oscar Wilde
  • Mrs_pbradley936Mrs_pbradley936 Forumite
    14.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    If you want the rights that come along with marriage just get married! If not live together. Those that shout "It is only a piece of paper" are among the first to want equal division of property, pensions and other assets that the piece of paper would bring.
  • All studies show that the best way to raise children is in a family with a Dad & Mum committed to each other for life in marriage. Surely happy, secure kids is what we want. Just because many of us fail it doesn't diminish the fact that marriage is best and so fiscal policies should encourage it.
  • My buidling society states quite clearly from the Bsoc stats that those couples who are not married are in a much higher risk category for repossession becasue of all the problems associated with splitting up and who is responsible for paying the mortgage when it happens. So although married couples are cohabiting couples are seen as the same in the rest of life for financial situations the statistics say otherwise.
  • SandzSandz Forumite
    10 Posts
    This is one of those dodgy subjects , as some couples can be together a life-time without being married ..They should make a form of will to ptotect both partners ..If none is made then it should go On percentages of how may years you were together , or to state whatever in event of a death or split up ...

    Best I can come up with folks lol

    Sandz x
  • If you want the rights that come along with marriage just get married! If not live together. Those that shout "It is only a piece of paper" are among the first to want equal division of property, pensions and other assets that the piece of paper would bring.


    Hear hear!
    If you can't be bothered to look after your family, then why should we be bothered? :confused:

    If you want the rights and responsibilities that go with marriage - get married. If you don't then don't.The choice is yours. Simple.
  • Mrs_pbradley936Mrs_pbradley936 Forumite
    14.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    A few years ago there was a story on the news about a young woman who had been living with a soldier, they had a child. He was killed in action and she was not legally entitled to anything, she even had to get out of the army accommodation. Had they been married she could have stayed in the place plus she would have had a pension and all sorts of other advantages. I am not sure what happened to her but anyway rather than fight or plead your case in these circumstances surely getting married is easier.
  • Martin_EdneyMartin_Edney Forumite
    25 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Marriage is such a devalued and degraded institution that I don't feel even slightly tempted to go along with it. Why do I say "devalued and degraded"? Because of the behaviour I see around me of married people, with close to 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce a few years later.

    I won't marry in a church because I'm not religious, and I think registry office marriages are cold and functional. I would consider a humanist wedding, but of course this has no legal validity so a registrar would still have to be invovled.

    I've been with my partner for nearly 15 years, so I don't see why our partnership should be considered less stable than those of people who marry, then divorce after a couple of years.

    Marriage is an institution that was invented by society when we were dominated by religion. Since that's no longer the case, I think the whole thing needs to be overhauled to become attractive, inclusive and not just an offshoot of an outdated religious doctrine designed to control people and keep them in the fold of the church.

    I don't think it's fair that my partner and I are discriminated against in many financial and other ways because we choose to live together but not marry. This is tantamount to (and related to) the sort of treatment that used to be dished out to people who refused to go to church, or (dare I say it) chose to "live in sin". These attitudes belong in the 19th century, not the 21st century.

    I'm sure lots of people won't agree with what I've said here, so over to you to try to convince me that I'm wrong (that's the point of having a discussion forum, after all!).
  • Mrs_pbradley936Mrs_pbradley936 Forumite
    14.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Martin much of what you say is true but the roots of marriage being based on Church doctrine matters far less than the legal implications. The whole can be put down to the term “legitimate” 1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>.

    In a nutshell the law is on your side if you, your child or your case is legitimate. While it may be of little consequence to anyone these days if we look back in history to Henry VIII and his antics, the whole of English history, the church and the law was altered when he divorced his first wife. It made a difference to who could inherit and under what circumstances.

    If you live together you are making a declaration it says “I do not want to share my name or my assets with you”. So if it all goes wrong you can say goodbye without strings. That at least is the theory behind it. I am all for living together for a while to make sure it is the right thing for both but prefer the legitimacy of marriage once children, property and other complications begin to intrude into the partnership. I think lots of women have been badly advised about living together because there is a split they can find themselves short changed.

    A man (it usually is a man!) who finds himself in one relationship after another would possibly face the situation of having several partners all vying for a share of his pension or his house or other assets if everyone was allowed to lay claim on the basis that they had slept with him or had a child by him. You have the crime of bigamy to ensure that only one spouse at a time has a claim to anything.
  • teddycoteddyco Forumite
    397 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    The bible is clear about homosexuality! It says that it is a sin!
    The bible is clear about sexual activity outside of marriage! It says that it is a sin!

    When we support sin in our laws, rules and government, then we will suffer the results of what sin brings, destruction!
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Who can suggest a top-notch bed?

This Forumite's mattress is in need of a base

MSE Forum

Top theatre lotteries

How to grab £10-£25 tix for Cabaret, Matilda etc

MSE Deals