Should marriage be taken out of the finance system?

steve_cov

While there was a bar on such rights being available to same-sex couples, I would have voted "Yes" in this poll.

Now that civil partnership is an option, the same rights are available to all if they want them. I have therefore voted "No".

It is neither difficult nor expensive to gain such rights if people want them.

Mrs_pbradley936

I have no knowledge about civil partnerships so I "googled" it and found this:-

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

in case anyone else wants to read about it. It is basically like a Registry Office wedding i.e. not relgious but legal.

Then I recalled the case of two elderly sisters who lived together and were worried about having to sell the house to pay the IHT if one of them died. They might have been able to have a Civil Union but would not enquire because they thought it would be an admission of being lesbians which they were not.

Former_MSE_Natasha

Below are the results for our previous poll. Thanks to the 2372 participants who took part.

Previous Poll Title: 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?

B. No 54.7% (1297 Votes)
A. Yes 45.3% (1075 Votes)

Total Votes: 2372

sluggy1967

Martin_Edney wrote:

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.

Whilst it is true to say that nearly 1 in 2 marriages ends in divorce, this is misleading, as this does not take into account "serial divorcees" - i.e if you divorce once, you stand a higher chance of divorcing again. The rate of divorce amongst two people who have never been married before is much lower than 1 in 2. Also, if your parents divorced you are far more likely to suffer a break-up. My parents were married for 40 yrs before death, not divorce, parted them & they had 4 children all of whom have had long, lasting marriages. This is because we have been set a good example[/B]. A good, lasting marriage between one's parents is THE SINGLE GREATEST FACTOR in a child's behaviour and success at school, superceding all other factors, including wealth and social class.

sluggy1967

teddyco wrote:

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!

Oh dear! Such a shame that so many people are so worried about what others get up to in the privacy of their own homes.

PLEASE someone tell me, how can LOVE between 2 consenting adults ever be wrong or cause harm in a world filled with so much hate?

sluggy1967

Sorry, I feel like I'm hogging this but I'm on a roll!

How many men who are living with the mother of their children realise that they have NO LEGAL RIGHTS over their kids? My friend's brother was powerless to stop his girlfriend who he had lived with for over 10 years putting their children up for adoption when she was suffering a nervous breakdown. Try telling him marriage is "Just a piece of paper". Unless his children choose to look for their natural father when they are 18, he will never see them again.

seven-day-weekend

Sluggy, that is such a shame about your brother's children.

However, it does illustrate that if one wants legal protection over many aspects of their relationship, then they should get married. (Why should you not get married if you've been togethr for ten years and have children? Beats me.)

Gingham_Ribbon

Marriage should be part of the system, financial and otherwise. If couples want their partner to be their next of kin and everything that comes with that, there is a way to do it. They can get married.

If they DON'T want that, there is a way to do that. DON'T get married. Then it is clear cut as to who gets what and what the rules are. Maybe marriage itself should be updated so people who aren't religious and feel that registry weddings are 'cold' could feel like it meant more to them. But it is a fairly straightforward way of ensuring that people are a legal couple and not living together with no desire to commit. Clearly most couples who have been together for some years have commited as much as a married couple, but not all of them. Some people don't want their partner to be entitled to half of what is theirs for example. Some people have good reasons for not marrying and wouldn't want to be seen in law as the next of kin (eg if their partner had lots of debt that they didn't want responsibiltiy for.)

So a clear cut difference in rights makes it easier for people to KNOW their rights and make decisions imo. But I am including gay marriage in this as otherwise commited couples who were gay could not have the same rights as those who are straight and in my mind that is wrong.

Supernova

Martin_Edney wrote:

One year after we both retire, we both die. So my colleague's widow (who was married for only 2 years) will draw a widow's pension for the remaider of his/her life, while my partner of 42 years will receive nothing. Both I and my colleague have paid the same amount into our company pension scheme, but my colleague is receiving an extra benefit at no extra cost.

Can you not designate a partner via an Expression Of Wish form?