Why Not Just Get Married?

[dave50]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45348176/bereavement-allowance-widowed-mum-on-why-her-kids-are-penalised
When they knew that he was ill, surely they would have known the consequences of not being married so why not just pop down to the registry office and get married? How long would have taken, twenty minutes, half an hour? What is it about these people who refuse point blank to get married no matter what, what are they trying to prove? I do not understand the mentality, so against marriage but yet will be together for years and have children. Can someone please explain?

[jim360]

As it happens, this particular couple chose not to marry because the man had promised his (presumably also now-dead) first wife that he would never remarry.

As reasons for not marrying someone go, it's not one I'd ever support myself, but he can hardly be criticised for wanting to stick to a promise and for choosing to keep his word.

[tamborine]

Supposing the father Lived with partner as he was separated from wife, they could both claim BA? As an unwed couple they could reap more welfare benefits than a married couple.

[Rockrose]

No you cannot tambo.
You cannot claim 'double' benefits - this is all investigated before going into payment.

[New Judge]

"I would have thought third marriages were a pretty strong nail in the coffin of marriage myself"

What do you mean, jno?

If, as is suggested, the benefit must be paid to all couples to ensure the welfare of children of unmarried couples are not disadvantaged, the simplest way to deal with the alleged discrimination against unmarried couples would be to simply dispense with the benefit entirely. But of course this would be couples with dependent children (whether married or not) would have to make their own arrangements to cope with tragedy - such as buying life insurance.

[tamborine]

My neice lives a 'disabled' (to dodge csa) married man of 2kids while neice has 4kids by partner - all on welfare. If he died both mothers could now claim BA.

[tamborine]

^lives with

[Rockrose]

No it would go to the partner that relied on him for support

[jim360]

As has been stressed, no, they couldn't -- Bereavement Allowance remains only available to married couples.

Further, I think even now the statement is that only the current partner would be able to make the claim: the state still doesn't recognise polygamous relationships, so by definition only one person can be somebody else's "partner".

[SparklyKid]

Ist left for another, no kids, 2nd died. Now on last one. lol.

[hereIam]

They don't want to get married, but expect all the perks of marriage when things go awry. Just get married then !!

[Peter Pedant]

I saw this prog
where the supporter was asked why they hadnt got married
and she said - varry difficult - they decided not to....

and the interviewer did NOT follow up with 'then surely they bear the economic consquences of their decision?'

[kvalidir]

I think it's fine for anyone to say don't pay people who aren't married as long as they don't mind taxing those people less so they don't have to pay the enhancements and benefits of people who ARE married, otherwise it's a discriminatory tactic. Clearly if you are a committed couple residing together with children then you ought to be entitled to the same benefits as those who are married.

[SparklyKid]

Worth being married if only for the transferable tax allowance, marriage is the bedrock of a civilised society.

[dave50]

I'm sorry to keep on at this but those have been together years and have a family but still say they don't want to get married is why? What are the reasons behind it? Are they nervous of the fact that their commitment would then be in writing? It strikes me that whatever they say they are not quite as 100% committed as they like to make out.

[Mamyalynne]

Jim mentioned at the top of this page what this couple's reason was.

Regarding your comment, when your long term partner has a stroke, I doubt the first thought is to whisk them off to the registry office.

[SparklyKid]

Regarding your comment, when your long term partner has a stroke, I doubt the first thought is to whisk them off to the registry office.

16:43 Thu 30th Aug 2018


I have known a few couples who have done this to protect their rights in law

[kvalidir]

Marriage is many faceted and I used not to see the point in it at all. On one hand you can view it as simply conforming to a society's expectations in which case you might not want to do that however committed you are. On another you might view it as your moment to let your partner know how much you love them and that you have chosen them above all others on the planet to be your mate, and marriage would be a public affirmation of that, your chance to publicly state that to the world.
Either way I think marrying simply to keep your benefits safe is bloody cynical and not the bedrock of anything.

[SparklyKid]

Either way I think marrying simply to keep your benefits safe is bloody cynical and not the bedrock of anything.


Being married avoids complications when one spouse dies, nothing to do with any benefits. Just makes things easier and simpler. I do not understand why some are against it.

[jim360]

I'm not sure how committed I am to the idea of marrying -- depends on finding the right person, and on their wanting the same thing, I suppose -- but I don't have a problem with the idea of encouraging marriage. The key difference in this case is that there are children involved who are also adversely affected by denying the financial benefit. As

[SparklyKid]

I have known instances where a death occurs within an unmarried couple. Some long lost relative turns up out of the blue and the remaining partner loses everything after 40 odd years. Being married bring a lot of security.