Living together, and Marriage?

Fredrik


How is guaranteeing anyone "rights" an example of government interference ? Who's being interfered with ?


Regards

Marriage is an "opt in" scheme. Those who don't do it, and I am talking here about the civil not Church version, it seems to me are making as much of a decision as those who opt in.

This is not cast iron of course, but I believe there should be an option to co-habit without either party having any rights over the other if both agree to this if the law really is to be changed...

But why fiddle with an existing scheme, which can easily bre made to work well? A civil marriage is easy to arrange and the law does not need altering in my view to marry people, "de facto," because they live together.

As with transplant donations after death, I would prefer that the existing "opt in" arrangements were left as they are. Everyone knows the rules and doing the thing that pleases the individuals concerned is their own choice and not requiring any extra effort to avoid complications. "Opting out" requires an un-necessary extra effort. that the state wishes to change this perhaps impies that there is a view [among those in authority] that the married staus is inherently better than the unmarried one, which is surely not so as marriage requires certain commitments, which if the people concerned want to make them they certainly will. If they care enough to be committed to marriage, then they will arrange for a marriage contract under the existing rules.

But separating from the married status is much messier if it comes to that, than two individuals just want to go their separate ways. The situation is arguably different when children are involved, but the changes mentioned have not mentioned anything about this...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
The situation is arguably different when children are involved, but the changes mentioned have not mentioned anything about this...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Just so. The children have no choice and cannot "opt in" or "out"

Presumable this would protect them in instances where the parents would otherwise be lax.


Regards

The name is..

Unstoppable

Dear Unstoppable,

I am not going to say that my view is the only correct or valid one, but my parents were married, and at that in a Church, but separated and divorced when I was eight or nine...

If people are responsible then they are responsible. I don't think the law by default "marrying for co-habiting" is going to alter the mess some people make for their children what ever the law says, and in general, divorce is a point where the acrimony gets even worse. A straight moving out of one parent would quite often be better "for the children" in such circumstances, and I cannot see the law making the blindest bit of difference to the approach of those too appathetic to actually get married in the first place. But adding divorce style settlements really can make things worse.

It is one view, but in my opinion one cannot legislate morality and good behaviour into people, but only in some cases deter people from crime or evil actions. The law does not generally promote what a better unbringing would have yielded, all in my opinion, of course. So I do call this a nanny state meddling where is can do no good, as as it can do no good, then it is making a law that will only serve lawyers, and otherwise be an "ass."

I hope you do not mind me disagreeing with you. Fredrik

Fredrik

Nope, don't mind the disagreement at all.


The trouble is, if the working party dissolves the cohabit, then very often the kids become wards of the State. That's OUR taxpayer money. If one of the individuals in a partnership has the dosh, they should support their off spring, not us.


I now see you point now about 'State' interference.



Regards


Unstoppable

Dear Unstoppable,

I see your point, as well, and mine is jut one view. In reality if the parent with the money has no responsibility, as we have seen from the Child Supoort Agency's singular lack of success in far too many cases, there is not a lot the law can do to guarantee that an irresponsible individual is legislated into doing the right thing. It just so often fails, and creates as many problems as it solves. I quite agree that Joe Tax Payer picking up the tab for peoples' stupidity is frustrating [but neessary for the best possible welfare of the child under the circumstances], but that is the function of a fifty year decline in the general attutude of society on the issue of the responsibilities of rearing children. I quite agree that the ideal is two people married and bringing a natural balance to the child's upbrigning for the whole time till the child becomes adult, but this has been badly eroded by changes in society in general.

I just don't think laws can change that. I am not sure what can. In this respect mankind or at least in Britain seems to be descending to the level of fickle sheep for example, who easily abandon lambs under certain circumstances [I grew up on a farm!] where it is suits the mother [Ewe] better. Of course the father [Tup] is invariably an absentee parent in that case. Analogies only work so far!

ATB from Fredrik

PS: For a time I was made a Ward of Court, but this was to prevent my Norwegian mother gaining custody! No British Court would have granted guadianship to a foreigner more than thrity years ago, however nice she might have been, whcih in fact neither parent was! That was a case were no law would have helped. They neither of them wanted the familly they had brought forth! my father gained guardianship to spite her...

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
What are the views of people here on making the rights of co-habiting couples similar those of Married couples [in UK]?

Is this sensible? Does it erode the institution of Marriage? Is this another example of the State interfereing where it has no business to be involved?

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Fredrik,

Here in NZ, the law says that if you live together for 3 years, then the couple are deemed to be "married" as far as property rights go.

Dear PJT,

I have a friend who has just started a familly, and has no intention of getting married. I have met his lady, and have no doubt that they are utterly responsible, amd good people, who are committed to bringing up their children properly. I was talking to him about the legal problems of not being married, so when the BBC News had an item on this yeaterday, it seemed a good moment to start a thread. I have personal experience, as well as a brother who has mucked it up big style. The irony is that he thinks my loyalty should be to him and not his kids!

What effect does the law on this have in NZ? Does it lead to painful divorce style settlements if the "marriage by default" goes wrong?

It seems to me that the whole issue of divorce, as such, is very damaging, and often in the spite and heat of moment, the children's interests all too often get relegated down the list of priorities, among such considerations [usually] of the wife getting a hunk of money and the kids, much to a resentful husbands disgust, while not considering how even the money he looses may be insufficient to look after the children as well as they would have been without a breech...

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

What effect does the law on this have in NZ? Does it lead to painful divorce style settlements if the "marriage by default" goes wrong?

I wonder if I might venture to answer these two questions.

Supposedly, a relationship in the nature of marriage (de facto) is, after three years, treated as if it were a marriage for the purposes of the division of property. However, the law and the body of decisions of Family Court Judges allow a lot of discretion on the judge's part as to whether a relationship is considered a de facto marriage or not - as well as some amount of discretion with respect to division of matrimonial property.

I'm not sure what to say about the second question - other than to comment that a painful divorce-style settlement is much preferred by the party that had absolutely no protection whatsoever under the old law (or lack of law). It's better to fight over the house in the Courts than to lose your half and have no recourse to the law at all. These inequities were what the amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act were meant to address.

It is possible for a couple to contract out of the Act - the good old "pre-nuptial agreement" in other words. However, I don't think that such a contract has been rigorously contested in the courts in NZ yet - like such agreements have been in the US.

People happily speak about rates of marital breakdown, whilst conveniently forgetting that relationship breakdown is much higher in 'living together' than in marriage. Marriage is still the most stable form of relationship.

Marriage is about much more than the individual couple. Whether in civil or church celebration marriage is a publicly-made commitment to a faithful and life-long bond. 'Living together' is a private arrangement. That is the essential difference.

Also, the fact that some people are not willing or able to honour their marriage commitment doesn't undermine marriage per se. You could say that about anything. It is a fatally-flawed argument.

We - individually and as a society - must be sympathetic and caring towards those who suffer because of marital breakdown (and indeed these days relationship breakdown of all kinds).

But that huge numbers of people can and do remain happily married throughout their lives proves it can be done!

And I totally agree when people say that those celebrating 60th wedding anniversaries 'were married in different circumstances'. Yes indeed - often very young (certainly much younger than the average today), having known each for only a few weeks, and enduring long separations, with worries about whether the husband would return at all - i.e. Wartime. And then the period of economic struggle that followed.

It doesn't help that we do have a throw away society - if it's broken, don't fix it (beyond economical repair) throw it away and get a new one.

And I'm not sure that people can get married, and then still expect to lead a single lifestyle.

None of these statements is being 'judgmental' but simply an outline of some of the things that militate against marriage in modern Western society, but especially Britain, which - interestingly enough - also has the highest proportion of delinquent children in Europe.

In my experience, one of the benefits of being married in Church (and most couples who do so do not have a strong, fully worked-out religious faith, but rather a sense that marriage is 'something bigger than both of them') is that at least some attempt is made at preparation for marriage, within a environment of pastoral care and concern, including helping the couple find strategies for coping/dealing with the tensions, struggles and difficulties that inevitably arise from time to time.

Apart from the registrar's / officiant's pep talk at the ceremony itself, this kind of life preparation is generally not to be found in civil ceremonies (in the UK anyway). I have never come across Registrar's Marriage Preparation classes!

James

We got married because I didn't want to do the long living together thing again, which is what I had just come out of. My wife agreed to it because she said that everything before having children was easily reversible, and I guess she was right. I also was interested to try marriage because I didn't know anyone else that was at the time.
Probably not the right approach, but it was certainly nothing I was scared of, or took very seriously to be honest. We were married in a registry office, drove down in my old Beetle and had a party afterwards where everyone brought their own booze. Cost us a total of £120 all in. My wife used her grandmothers ring and I got mine from the market at Covent Garden for £5.
I personally think that one of the reasons people avoid marriage is the wedding.
I see people getting all worked up about the wedding (the napkins have to match the bridesmaids dresses or the mother-in-law will never be able to show her face in public ever again) and the hideous expense that would be better spent on a deposit for a house. It is utter madness!!
If the wedding could be less of a pantomime I'm sure more people would get married.
I can't understand why one day can be more important than the life that follows, and probably the reason I'm still married after all these years and 3 children is that neither of us think that way.
So, maybe my approach wasn't the right one, but I'm sure it was a hell of a lot better than those that just want to play prince and princesses for a day!

Pass a law that no relatives will be invited and that'll sort it out. People think "let's get married", cost out the wedding and find they can't afford it, so they don't do it at all. THAT is the problem.

I don't think separation works if she gets the pre-amp and you get the power-amp then there is no music for either party. Best to stay together as systems work better that way.

i think rasher is right, the ceremony is made into a big thing, and there is a lot of social baggage. my personal opinion is that couples should be able to have whatever kind of relationship they want, formalize it in the manner they wish, and have it recognized as appropriate for society. of course the family law courts need to get involved when there are kids and/or joint property. sorry to be a little vague but i don't want to turn this into a giant essay. interestingly (or not), the "common law" thing varies from state to state in the states. in california, for example, there is no "common law" factor, so you can live together, have kids, and then grandkids, and you're never married until a justice of the peace says you are. something to do w/ this state's legal history based on spanish law.

Reason 1 - Why marriage is in decline

Reason 2 - Why people don't have £25k to spend on one day

Reason 3 - Why reason 1 has to be £25k

I got married after being plied with drink.

I am not particularly bashing over the head with a 'Church wedding' point! But simply to observe that the increase in scale/cost of weddings has increased to ridiculous levels since the introduction of the one-stop-shop solution of weddings and receptions in stately piles / posh hotels, (combined with the assumption that the Honeymoon can only take place in the Maldives).

Because there is not the de facto tradition that comes with the Church wedding liturgy, it has to be invented and injected into the proceedings to create some 'atmosphere' into what is otherwise a fairly bland legal ceremony. And it all comes at a price!! A big one!!

Church wedding fees are set by statute each year. In addition, there are what are technically called 'Extras' simply because they have to be determined locally - organist, bell ringers, choir, etc. But even with the full shebang, organist, 8 bells and choir, the total Church fees are likely to be between £350-£500.

And if people do want the simplest of Services with no flummery at all, it will cost about £270 (the same, I think, as a Registry Office).

And some of the best receptions I have ever been to have been in the village hall with homemade food.

Total cost all-in, including bride's and bridesmaids' dresses, perhaps £2,000, or less. (The amount some people spend on a cartridge!)

James

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Reason 1 - Why marriage is in decline

Reason 2 - Why people don't have £25k to spend on one day

Reason 3 - Why reason 1 has to be £25k

Exactly.

James. You are telling this to a bunch of blokes who mostly would be happy to go for a church wedding at a reasonable cost, and I applaud those that go for a modest bash in the village hall. That's the sort of woman I'd want to marry!! But...
How many "Brides" do you really know that are not under the cosh of their mothers interference? Well...you can't invite just the immediate family because Auntie Emily would be very hurt, and I know that if Emily is coming you can't leave out Aunt Jenny or they'll never speak to each other again, and we don't want a repeat of last Christmas, do we! We'll have to put them up in a hotel of course. They won't eat your vegetarian food either .......

Come on James; what starts out as a good idea very quickly turns into something else when family gets involved. You know that. We all know that. If it was down to us blokes we'd get the bus to the church and retire to the pub, but it isn't, is it!

The brides that have their reception at the local village hall are the most attractive brides of all. Beauty and brains!

I think what Rasher says just about sums it up. If you want to get married, it needn't be a huge affair costing the earth (I've just been to a friend's wedding costing over 25k - ouch!) and you don't need to invite the warring factions known as family. However, marriage is a legally binding contract. If people don't want to enter into it or cannot show the commitment for getting married then fine, but they should not then expect the same rights as a married couple.
The obstuctions for getting married are minimal, the only reason I can see for not getting married is if you don't see yourself being with the same partner in the long term or are too selfish to want to share all that you have with someone else.

People are expecting to get something for nothing, handed to them on a plate from the state....

IMO I don't think the commitment thing is the problem. I don't think people are as afraid of that and it isn't uncool to get married now like it was in the 70's, 80's & early 90's. I know it sounds trivial, but when people like Kate Moss & Pete thingumy get married it does make the difference to those that are easily influenced. No, I'm convinced that it's just too much trouble and causes too many parental conflicts with wedding arrangements, which is a shame.

Maybe it is too much trouble and causes too many problems (I am married myself and know the problems that arise ), but a registry office with just parents and siblings is not too much trouble, as long as the marrying couple are strong enough to put their foot down on this! After all it is the ceremony that is the important thing....
Similarly getting maried in church when you are not religious just for the "big white wedding" is equally wrong imho of course

<serious comment>I think most people seem to think that the rights already apply and many get a shock when they find out that they don't</serious comment>

<normal seagull mode>We wed in church - CofE despite both being brought up as Cataholics and not being very religious (Mrs S) and atheist (me).

We are both from large-ish families (I'm one of 6, Mrs S one of 4). We drew the line at grand parent/Uncle/Aunts/nephews and nieces for the relations as Mrs S has 6 aunts/uncles on one side and 8 (eight!) on the other. So no cousins or anyone further removed as we wanted to have some room for our friends.

That was fine until my unmarried boss turned up for the evening reception with one of Mrs S's second cousins on his arm. This caused much muttering amongst the blue-rinsed cauliflower-heads.

We had a good bash though and broke the bar takings record for a single session at the social club (which was the club house for several football and rugby teams) so it was no mean feat! The record still stands today as the club was demolished soon after to make way for a trading estate and there is a McDonalds where my mother lead a conga around the playing field...(these events are in no way connected)

Over 20 years later we were thinking of having a 25th anniversary party and invite as many of our original guests as we could find. Those that are still alive that is, some could (t)urn up in jars though. But looking through the wedding pics, there is only one couple amongst our friends who are still together - could be an interesting do. Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance.

Heh heh, my wedding cost £2k all-in. The wedding cake scenario - now I remember going to a cake shop in Piccadilly asking for a we-birthday cake (fortunately the Happy Birthday bit was on a removable bit). I entirely sympathise with the guy!

Wedding dress was fantastic and from China

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Wedding dress was fantastic and from China

Tesco's?

The first time I got married (1988)my father in law paid for everything - church, flying numerous members of his family to the UK together with their hotel accommodation, he paid for the reception and honeymoon. The reception for 400 guests was the at the Brighton Grand Hotel and my father in law paid the entire bar bill plus dinners and entertainment etc. The bar bill alone was more money than you can shake a stick at with many people drinking champagne all night (estimates start at £10,000). It was not the happiest day of my life. I felt that if I had not turned up on the day no one would even have noticed!)

The second time I got married (June of this year)was in a tiny court house in the Philippines having paid a corrupt judge £40 to waive the rule prohibiting marriage within ten days of receiving the marriage license. The reception for 25 people cost me £100 and took place in beautiful restaurant garden and there was so much food much of it was distributed to poor locals.

Our wedding rings were made by a local craftsman from my deceased father's wedding ring and the wedding ring of my wife's deceased father with some extra gold from a necklace which was the last gift given to my wife by her father before he died. We watched them being made from the melting of the old rings to the polishing and engraving of the new rings and we took photos of each stage of the process. It cost about £30.

The wedding day was one of the happiest of my life.

I must also point out that due to an emergency beyond my control the trip to the Philippines to get married was nearly cancelled and was only made possible by the incredible generosity of a fellow member of this ere forum to whom my wife and I are forever grateful.