Why do people think less of a couple who aren't married?

coolcait

Callie22 wrote: »

Why not? I don't mean that aggressively, but it's pretty awful to treat people differently. Let's say that Sue met John on holiday eighteen months ago and got married after a whirlwind romance. Then there's Margaret and Dave (or Dave and Colin ...), who've been living together for twenty years. It would be a tragedy if any of them were to die but why is Margaret (or Dave) less deserving of compassionate leave than Sue? I can only speak for my workplace but I can't see a reason to differentiate. Grief is grief - if you've lived with someone for however many years you're not going to grieve 'more' just because you married them, or any 'less' because you didn't.

My pension scheme doesn't differentiate between spouses and partners. I know when I filled the forms in I did have to say how long OH and I had been together and they do say that they reserve the right to ask questions about your relationship if you nominate someone for a partner pension and you are not married, but as long as you can show some kind of connection and evidence that you've been living together (i.e. a joint house purchase, joint tenancy agreements etc) then a partner is equally as entitled to a pension as a spouse. I've no idea if that's unusual as I've only ever had one workplace pension

I'll need to check my own employer's guidance on this tomorrow, but I suspect that a lot will be down to the organisation's policy on these things.


If there isn't actually a written policy, it is likely to be down to what the individual manager's views are on married/not married.


I think that my employer's policy is worded in such a way that 'partners', 'spouses' and 'civil partners' all get the same rights to compassionate leave.


However, 'partners' don't get the same automatic rights to pensions etc - paperwork has to be dealt with.


And I've seen some situations where a former spouse has received pensions etc, while the 'now' partner of 20 years or more has received nothing - because the paperwork wasn't dealt with.

missbiggles1

Callie22 wrote: »

Why not? I don't mean that aggressively, but it's pretty awful to treat people differently. Let's say that Sue met John on holiday eighteen months ago and got married after a whirlwind romance. Then there's Margaret and Dave (or Dave and Colin ...), who've been living together for twenty years. It would be a tragedy if any of them were to die but why is Margaret (or Dave) less deserving of compassionate leave than Sue? I can only speak for my workplace but I can't see a reason to differentiate. Grief is grief - if you've lived with someone for however many years you're not going to grieve 'more' just because you married them, or any 'less' because you didn't.

My pension scheme doesn't differentiate between spouses and partners. I know when I filled the forms in I did have to say how long OH and I had been together and they do say that they reserve the right to ask questions about your relationship if you nominate someone for a partner pension and you are not married, but as long as you can show some kind of connection and evidence that you've been living together (i.e. a joint house purchase, joint tenancy agreements etc) then a partner is equally as entitled to a pension as a spouse. I've no idea if that's unusual as I've only ever had one workplace pension

Because cases of compassionate leave are, IME, quite formalised, so you get a set number of days for a child's death, a different number for a spouse's death, and yet a different number for a parent's. I've known someone who was brought up by her grandmother have to take unpaid leave because there was no provision for that different sort of relationship in the rules.

It would seem very difficult to decide whose unmarried relationship warranted leave and could, I think, become very complicated.

coolcait

Peter333 wrote: »

All this may well be true, but still, many people will take the relationship of the married couple more seriously. Even if they have been together 10 years less than the unmarried couple.

That is the way it is. I don't think anyone can pinpoint exactly why.

I feel the same. I take a married couples relationship more seriously than that of an unmarried couple.

I just do. Like I said, I can't say why.

I had a whirlwind romance, and a quick marriage. I don't think that many people took my marriage seriously until it had lasted for a few years.


Luckily, I wasn't bothered by their views.


As a general point, I always think that's there's value in exploring why you (general) feel or think a certain way.


If you can explain those feelings or views, there's a good chance that they come from a reasoned evaluation, or an element of self-awareness.


If you can't explain them, then why not ask yourself critical questions. Is it something that you were brought up to believe/think? Is it the result of an unfortunate personal experience? And so on.

anamenottaken

Rambosmum wrote: »

I was adamant for years that we wouldn't get married, I didn't see the point. But people certainly do view you differently, I don't see why. I am now more committed to my OH now than I was a year ago. The reason we did it that I was insistent that any children had my name, he wanted them to have his name. Now we have the same name.

So, given that you don't have to get married to change your name, though it seems you did marry:

Do you all use (a) his surname or (b) your surname or (c) a combination of the two - or (d) a completely new name that you both liked?

missbiggles1

I think another thing to bear in mind is that not all live in relationships involve commitment to each other. Obviously people posting here feel that their relationships are but it would be a mistake to think that was always the case.

Some people don't take their marriages seriously enough but the concept of an "uncommited marriage" is an oxymoron in a way that an uncommitted live in relationship isn't.

duchy

fairy_lights wrote: »

Neither the wedding or the traditional concept of marriage e.g. being a mrs, changing last names has ever appealed to me. I think a lot of people who get married don't consider the rights they're getting at all and do it purely for the wedding.
You're right though, the legal contact of marriage would be beneficial and we are seriously considering it - the only problem is that my oh's very traditional mother doesn't understand why we don't want a wedding and would cause some major drama if we just quietly slipped off to the registry office. We don't want to upset anyone but we don't want to spend time and money on something we really don't want either.


Also I'm not sure if the second part of your post was aimed at me but I'd never call my partner my husband, I call him my oh because he's my other half.

Actually the custom of a woman changing her surname is a relatively recent custom -and originally women didn't take their husband's name upon marriage . There's no law that says a woman must take her husband's name when she marries now either. It's just a western custom and considered quite alien by some other cultures.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the difference between wedding customs and marriage in this thread .

If you don't want a wedding but do want marriage- then book a late morning registry office and take his mother out to lunch afterwards somewhere smart so she can justify it as chic and smart and a "proper wedding" . No need to break the bank. We will slope off to Vegas at some point - we've done the white wedding thing (to other people ) before. We don't want a wedding but we do want to be married so it's cheap, simple (and the chapel is very elegant and not an Elvis in sight) and we will already be on honeymoon the same day. Very simple and easy. I couldn't be bothered with all the nonsense that goes with weddings nowadays- for me it's about securing our futures and making a legally binding as well as an emotional commitment -I don't need favours and bridesmaids and table plans and all the stressful nonsense let alone the expense. It's just not me (or him). We aren't inviting anyone else along except my son -all the family know we have no expectation of them attending and it's a ceremony for us alone and not "a wedding" in the traditional sense.


As for the last paragraph - What on earth are you on about ? If you'd never call your partner your husband (and how would I know what you call him anyway?) then why would you think I was referring to you? It was clear I was talking about people who DO call their partnerss husband or wife. This thread is about views about marriage in general and not just about you and what you do. Defensive or what !!!

BarryBlue

We were together for over 20 years before we got married and it has made little difference to us or the way people regard our relationship. We didn't even tell most of our friends until we had done the deed and had a very quiet do with minimum fuss.

Our reasoning for finally getting married was related to pensions, inheritance, next-of-kin and other legal matters. It has made no difference to our relationship or how we conduct our lives. My wife didn't even bother changing her name.

We regard marriage as no big deal, it's just a legal matter at the end of the day. We wouldn't dream of regarding our unmarried friends as having a 'lesser' relationship to those who are married.

ellesbellesxxx

I don't think of anyone differently. We are married but that's what we both wanted. One of my best friends got married to someone she had been with for 10 years, lovely church wedding... 18 months later he sodded off and as they had no property or children the divorce was over in weeks. Now though she is with a wonderful guy, they have a baby and own a house together... More commitment then she had before! Whether they get married or not, they are one of the strongest couples I know

Slinky

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Good point actually. Forgot about that. Before I read that on here once, I just always assumed that things like Pensions and Death in Service payouts were payable to common law spouses.

There is no such status in legal terms as 'common law spouse'. It's a unfortunate term that people think will protect them and will not.

dirty_magic

I think the general conclusion is that everyone has different ideas of commitment. This debate could go on forever, but does it really matter whether other people think you're committed or not if you know you are?

The only thing that really matters in a relationship are the people in it. You can never please everyone so you may aswell please yourselves and forget about everyone else!