Easier just to get narried.

married!

I'm not sure the link worked. Its about an unmarried mother who has just been awarded widows pension rights.

I thought that too, but there are people, who for various reasons don't want to marry.l
If it is the case I'm thinking of ( link doesn't work), , it's about financial support for the children in the relationship, not the widow

It is about the children getting access to financial support.

Yes its about Widowed Parents Allowance. I just think generally it would be easier to marry.. I know someone who had a lot of hassle claiming her partners pension rights for herself. I just think it would make life easier if people got married. I wonder why some people are so against it.

Marriage is a legally binding agreement, so there are rules about the upkeep of children, the distribution of property, the distribution of property and wealth in a will, the responsibility for children – basically all sorts of stuff that you have no control over if you are not a married partner.

Why should people be forced to marry in order to legalise what is a life long commitment to each other. In the case referred to by the OP, I read the couple didn't marry because he'd made a promise to his first wife, when she was dying, that he'd never re-marry. He and his 2nd life partner, the woman who took this case to the Courts, were together for 25 years before he died, they had 4 children together.

The law needs to change to catch up with the 21st century. Many couples prefer not to marry for various reasons, one of which may be they don't like the traditional view of a woman being given by one man, her father, to another, her husband. The legal situations in those relationships when a couple make what is a life long commitment to each other needs to be secured by changes in the law, that ensure so called 'common law wives' have the protection given in law to married women.

He promised his first wife he would not remarry
Why be allowed to bend the rules, if you want to take care of your family then you must follow procedure.

You can actually go into the office at the registry and just sign the papers. no one is given to anyone or promising to obey etc. Makes it easier for everyone to know who is entitled to what. Its only a piece of paper but it makes things simpler.

Its also protecion in some cases when couples divorce.

That’s the point I was making. Why should women have to marry if they’re making a life long commitment?

I think it is important to marry if you have children or buy a house together as it gives everyone legal protection in case of divorce or death. There's no need for a big wedding or any religious involvement. I really do not understand why people are against it.
I think heterosexual couples should be allowed to have a civil partnership, like gay couples, who now have the choice of both. Many anti marriage people would be willing to be civil partners.

I agree with your last point GrandmaMoira.

Also, the government wants it both ways. DH has two children by her exhusband and isn't entitled to claim tax credits despite having been eligible before she moved in with her new partner. Should he die, she would be in the same position as the woman who won the case. I suppose the upside is that she would then be entitled to tax credits again.

iam64 because it doesnt always last a lifetime.
Regarding last two points I have thought for a while that everyone should be able to have a civil partnership.

Iam The legal situations in those relationships when a couple make what is a life long commitment to each other needs to be secured by changes in the law, that ensure so called 'common law wives' have the protection given in law to married women.

I suppose the problem is defining what is a common-law wife.
Someone who has lived with a partner for 3 years? 3 months? 3 days?
Continuously, or does it count if they live separately for 9 months of the year because of work commitments, or maintain separate dwellings?
What record of commitment would be needed? There's that hackneyed saying 'a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on'.
Unless some legal document is signed, the definition has to be applied retrospectively.

I can understand some people's objections to marriage but these could be overcome. as GrandmaMoira says, if heterosexual couples had the same rights as gay couples.

Good point Kittylester

I think this was about financial support for the children of the deceased man.

People are perhaps scared of marriage if they have divorced parents. When I married many years ago, no-body I knew of my age had divorced parents and people just assumed marriage was the way to go.

I am not necessarily saying this was right but it was how life operated in those days.

Things change. I admit that, if I met someone and wanted the situation to be permanent, I'd like to get married but I accept that not everyone feels like that and it is up to them. Perhaps I am old-fashioned or too conventional.

I don't object at all to people living together but I do think they need to sort out financial matters etc.

I agree with you annep. I think this couple should have thought about the implications long before. Presumably he had children by wife #1 who would inherit etc.
He should at least have made provision for these younger children
One of my DS has decided not to wed but it is quite complicated making sure about next of kin, legal rights, inheritance etc.
Until marriage is abolished, it's the best we have for protecting the children.

I do not see how a law would work for not marrieds , as has already been said how long would you live together before it kicked in.
There are already bogus marriages for passports how would that work, just move in and then be entitled to the legal entitlements that married couples have.

Hadn't actually thought of that Grammaretto. Yes if you don't want to marry you really need to think it through carefully.

If you have had a difficult and unhappy marriage and an even more difficult and expensive divorce, trust me, once you become free you have absolutely no desire to be tied to anyone else again. Well, that's true for me anyway. Once bitten, twice shy.

I fear I may have put my children off marriage.

I do not want to take another's name nor wear his ring. I am very happy now in a long term relationship. We bought a house together and immediately made a joint will to ensure our property and whatever is left when we pop our clogs is shared equally between our children. We also talked to our solicitor about housing and financial arrangements for the partner left after death and ring fenced certain monies, pensions and property until the remaining partner shuffles off the old mortal coil.

I shudder at the thought of being tied to anybody again. I am very happy now. A ring and a contract is not needed. Oh and should we marry we'd be worse off as partner would lose his late wife's substantial pension payments. Another consideration.

Surely a registry office ceremony is a legal declaration of a life long commitment. As already mentioned, it does not carry the promises made in religious ceremonies. The option to make it an "event" is purely personal choice.

Is it just the word "marriage" that people are wary of?
As far as I can see, there is already provision for a fuss free declaration of intent to remain together, which then legally recognises the partners position.

Of course I see your point Day6. My husband and I did the same thing for many years and had will etc sorted. But I feel there are times when that piece of paper is useful.

I'm not sure the link worked. Its about an unmarried mother who has just been awarded widows pension rights.
I think I posted about this on another thread.

Iam64 Mon 03-Sep-18 08:13:29
I heard that on the radio the other day and that is what I posted on another thread.

I'm glad she has won this chance for a judicial review and hope that it leads to a sensible change in the rules.