Marriage & Civil unions

I searched the whole forum but didn’t find any topic relating to marriage

For millennia marriage has been seen as the primary, religious and socially accepted channel to raise a family- but a lot has changed in recent times.
However we have seen the challenges and fallout around everything from forced /arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, loveless marriages and abusive marriages to name but a few-so certainly not a perfect institution but when a marriage is stable and working it’s arguably better than most alternative arrangements to raise a family.

But say, from the outset, neither of you intend on having children- is getting married something you’d still consider? Or if you are married and no children given the chance would you get married again or just live together?

Marriage and civil unions have their financial benefits but also some financial implications that may not be favourable to both parties.

Maybe marriage needs a rethink. I know of a couple who lived together, then brought a house, then had one child, then a second, then got engaged and now the relationship has broken down due to infidelity- they never got married.

I don’t know why they didn’t get married first but I also don’t understand why they continued to have kids. (Maybe I’m old fashioned but it just felt like a very unstable way to live and it wouldn’t have been for me)

Maybe marriage in the future will become the preserve of couples in long term relationships or those who have had a child, and now wish to show their child or each other a long term commitment to each other through the act of marriage and most others will have short term relationship lease agreements- the human equivalent of a car PCP arrangement, and overseen by Revenue for tax purposes :P

R.D. aka MR.D

I think it gets offensive very quickly if you start into the whole 'marraige' is to raise a family. It completely disregards the feelings of those who cannot have children.

I got married so that my husband was considered in the eyes of the world as the most important person in my life, especially if something terrible were to happen me.

In my opinion the association with children and marraige is old fashioned.

Faith

I got married because I wanted to formally declare my intention to spend the rest of my life with my husband, I suppose. But I've also heard absolute horror stories about consequences of not being married - like if you don't have a will and die unexpectedly, your spouse is entitled to nothing, and your parents retain the position of next of kin. The worst of those stories was that horrific one a few years ago about the pregnant women, who already had several kids with her partner, and she suffered a fatal brain injury. Her father, not her partner, had the final say over what happened in terms of medical spare, even in relation to the foetus.

If you own a house together and one partner dies, the other can be subject to a massive tax bill on the house, is another huge pitfall.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't particularly understand why some people are so opposed to marriage, but I guess it's to do with how difficult divorces are to obtain and how it can completely change the financial landscape upon divorce. Perhaps there needs to be a more flexible arrangement, like a declaration to Revenue or another State body that two people are linked, but one that can be changed with much less fuss than the divorce process?

karlitob

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

I think it gets offensive very quickly if you start into the whole 'marraige' is to raise a family. It completely disregards the feelings of those who cannot have children.

I got married so that my husband was considered in the eyes of the world as the most important person in my life, especially if something terrible were to happen me.

In my opinion the association with children and marraige is old fashioned.

Great. First post in a debate forum quotes the word ‘offensive’ - the modern day mood killer.

Who cares whether you’re offended or not? Perhaps you can create a list of all things we’re not allowed say in case you get offended. Or - just don’t read the post or comment on it.

On another note. Thanks for sharing your opinion, I understand how you got to the point and I disagree with it because it’s my opinion that there’s nothing new under the sun. Marriage, and the reasons for marriage, and the associations with marriage have always been on a wide spectrum, different in different countries and at different times.

I read an excerpt from a very interesting book recently published called “marriage in ireland - 1800s to 1850” or something like that. We’re not so different from our antecedents as we like to think.

Faith

karlitob wrote: »

Great. First post in a debate forum quotes the word ‘offensive’ - the modern day mood killer.

Who cares whether you’re offended or not? Perhaps you can create a list of all things we’re not allowed say in case you get offended. Or - just don’t read the post or comment on it.
.

I think you need to take a second pass at reading RD's post because they weren't suggesting they were offended, they were making the point that it can be offensive if someone's view is so limited that "marriage automatically equals children". If someone were to state such a view, it could be very offensive and hurtful to a wide range of people, which is in fitting with the discussion topic.

karlitob

Faith wrote: »

But I've also heard absolute horror stories about consequences of not being married - like if you don't have a will and die unexpectedly, your spouse is entitled to nothing, and your parents retain the position of next of kin. The worst of those stories was that horrific one a few years ago about the pregnant women, who already had several kids with her partner, and she suffered a fatal brain injury. Her father, not her partner, had the final say over what happened in terms of medical spare, even in relation to the foetus.

Good point on the consequences. And to be fair to the law, the point of these is for some straight forward way to deal with complex fallouts. The courts and the law is not a place of solace nor is it meant to be.

But let’s not get carried away on inaccuracies. NOONE and I mean NOONE (with exception of a court) has the “final say” over another persons medical care. This is an utter fallacy and urban myth. A next of kin has absolutely no authority in law or otherwise to determine the course of another persons care. Only a doctor (or any healthcare professional) and the patient themselves, can decide on the care of a patient. If a patient lacks capacity, then the doctor can decide the patients care, in the absence of consent. This must be somewhat urgent care - an unconscious patient in a car accident can’t give consent, their wife can’t tell the doc in the ED to pull the plug. Consensus with family members is of course sought. Children under-16 can’t consent and parents can make healthcare decisions for their child. But again, if there is a risk to life the doctor will take over. But ultimately - in any situation above - be in Jehovah’s refusing blood for their child or a patient with dementia who is on a vent AND where the family disagree - then the courts decide.


Now of course that point differs depending on your view of abortion.

karlitob

Faith wrote: »

I think you need to take a second pass at reading RD's post because they weren't suggesting they were offended, they were making the point that it can be offensive if someone's view is so limited that "marriage automatically equals children". If someone were to state such a view, it could be very offensive and hurtful to a wide range of people, which is in fitting with the discussion topic.

No thanks. I understood exactly what they were saying though I don’t appreciate your patronising post. I mean, someone could be offended - not me of course but someone. And this is very fitting with the discussion topic.

Faith

I certainly didn't mean to be patronising, apologies if it came across that way. I think there's something I'm misunderstanding or missing about your perspective so I'll leave it there.

magicbastarder

karlitob wrote: »

Who cares whether you’re offended or not? Perhaps you can create a list of all things we’re not allowed say in case you get offended. Or - just don’t read the post or comment on it.

if it's a sensitive subject for someone because they can't have kids, of course they're not going to appreciate comments about marriage being about children.
personally, i don't take offence at someone suggesting to me my marriage is not whole because we don't have kids, but i'm not everyone.

you mentioned the reasons for marriage are legion and don't necessarily include kids. there are plenty of people out there who disagree, and i suspect it's those we're talking about.

R.D. aka MR.D

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

I think it gets offensive very quickly if you start into the whole 'marraige' is to raise a family. It completely disregards the feelings of those who cannot have children.

I got married so that my husband was considered in the eyes of the world as the most important person in my life, especially if something terrible were to happen me.

In my opinion the association with children and marraige is old fashioned.

I would expect most people do get married primarily because they love each other and are willing to stay together for life regardless of what life throws at them- as per their wedding vows. And indeed they want to make a public commitment as a result.

but the origins of marriage are most likely primarily based on and driven by,a societal and practical need to stabilise the upbringing of children and not because two people have the hots for each other 24/7.

As a result I don’t necessarily believe that marriage, as an institution is necessarily the best solution these days for people who wish to profess long term love and commitment but who don’t wish to have a family-but there’s no real alternative.

I don”t subscribe to the viewpoint of people who say “what’s the point in getting married if you don’t want children” -and now that same sex marriage is in place that line of thinking is even less relevant- but equally I can understand why they may think this given the history of the institution to date.

Societal norms are still quite strong in this area but it can and does lead to a lot of failed marriages as a result- I just think we need to look at options other than the very constrained institution that we currently know as “marriage”-

some people do get married , yes because they love each other but also because primarily it’s their only way to future protect their financial arrangements- but again is marriage the right option here or should we be looking for more and better laws governing the relationship of 2 people, that can better meet their requirements, especially their financial requirements?

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

but the origins of marriage are most likely primarily based on and driven by,a societal and practical need to stabilise the upbringing of children and not because two people have the hots for each other 24/7.

we are a recently post-catholic country, so the attitude that marriage is for children is quite widespread, albeit increasingly confined to older generations.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

I
I don’t know why they didn’t get married first but I also don’t understand why they continued to have kids. (Maybe I’m old fashioned but it just felt like a very unstable way to live and it wouldn’t have been for me)

We have a child and plan to get married this year. To be honest, it just wasn't important to us because apart from a shared child, we had no major assets, both of us work and always have done so there was no protections needed for say, a stay at home parent. That's changed for us recently, as we now own a house hence us doing the legal thing in a few months and we'll do wills as well. Us being unmarried or married had no differences regarding the child or arrangements should we split until we had assets.

In lots of ways, a child could be considered more binding morally. If the OH and I split childless, we have the luxury of never having to see each other again but with a child, the parents still have to communicate with each other until their children reach independence, but often beyond - the kids' life events like weddings, big birthday events, illnesses their own children all mean you'd have be civil with your ex spouse regardless of how you might want to rip their heads off. :P.

But a lot of people are under the impression that cohabiting is a common law spouse arrangement and that it gives them some protections in law but it really doesn't. The co-habitation legislation is also incorrectly interpreted by a lot of people who think that they have a claim on their partner's soley owned house if they live together for 5 years or 3 if you have a child. No. You have the entitlement to apply a claim to the property, there's no automatic entitlement to a share. I imagine you'd have to demonstrate to a court why you feel you are owed a chunk of the house and they decide if you are or not.

If you have assets, or if you as a couple agree to live off one income while the other stays at home then it is folly to not get legally married.

^^^congrats and hope you all have a great day.

In my example they had a house a mortgage and 2 kids- It felt like they were just drifting along without thinking through the long term consequences- while they got engaged that was about 5 years ago and they’re separated over a year.

Saying that I know another couple who got married after nearly 30 years and a few kids together - I suppose they gave themselves the option of parting after their family were reared but they did say the marriage was to avoid all the inheritance , asserts etc challenges that could accrue later in life for if they didn’t marry.

I’m reminded of this programme from last year
-let the rest of the world go by- where two male friends get married to avoid inheritance tax-I really think there should be better supports and options for people in long term co-habitation - either with people whom they are in a relationship or not- who don’t necessarily want marriage but do want the financial protections or certainties that marriage brings.

Sisters and brothers often lived together in the past- probably not as common now but they too need better financial protections and of course marriage isn’t legally open to them as an option

These two fellas may well have chosen an alternative if it were open to them

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.rte.ie/amp/1187822/

karlitob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’m reminded of this programme from last year
-let the rest of the world go by- where two male friends get married to avoid inheritance tax-I really think there should be better supports and options for people in long term co-habitation - either with people whom they are in a relationship or not- who don’t necessarily want marriage but do want the financial protections or certainties that marriage brings.

Sisters and brothers often lived together in the past- probably not as common now but they too need better financial protections and of course marriage isn’t legally open to them as an option

These two fellas may well have chosen an alternative if it were open to them

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.rte.ie/amp/1187822/

I definitely don’t think marriage should be used as a tax avoidance measure. It makes a mockery of marriage and our tax laws.

Let’s not forget that we only see one side of this story. One of those men appears to have been married previously - he may have had children also. But he has a financial responsibility - both moral and legal - to his dependents if he has them. We know little of the other mans background bar what he’s may have told the camera.

Either way, just cos they’re friends now and want to give gifts to each other; doesn’t mean that they don’t have prior responsibilities that may need to meet. Either way, that’s what the law is there for. There’s plenty of sad stories out there but none of them allow citizens to avoid tax they must pay as members of this society.

I still fail to see how they were allowed marry but I don’t know the whole story and the state has investigated it.


And siblings already have special allowances with respect to inheritance tax. Do you want these allowances to be altered for siblings so that they are the same as parents to children, or do you want a special civil partnership law to be enacted for siblings who live together - but presumably you mean adult siblings who’s parents are both dead.

I’m sure you’ll say something along the lines of ‘financial protections’ - whatever that is - rather than inheritance tax, you’ll be aware that any person can make a will, which as long as it’s lawful, can leave persons with whatever financial means as the dead person wishes - after tax.

karlitob

karlitob wrote: »

I definitely don’t think marriage should be used as a tax avoidance measure. It makes a mockery of marriage and our tax laws.

Let’s not forget that we only see one side of this story. One of those men appears to have been married previously - he may have had children also. But he has a financial responsibility - both moral and legal - to his dependents if he has them. We know little of the other mans background bar what he’s may have told the camera.

Either way, just cos they’re friends now and want to give gifts to each other; doesn’t mean that they don’t have prior responsibilities that may need to meet. Either way, that’s what the law is there for. There’s plenty of sad stories out there but none of them allow citizens to avoid tax they must pay as members of this society.

I still fail to see how they were allowed marry but I don’t know the whole story and the state has investigated it.


And siblings already have special allowances with respect to inheritance tax. Do you want these allowances to be altered for siblings so that they are the same as parents to children, or do you want a special civil partnership law to be enacted for siblings who live together - but presumably you mean adult siblings who’s parents are both dead.

I’m sure you’ll say something along the lines of ‘financial protections’ - whatever that is - rather than inheritance tax, you’ll be aware that any person can make a will, which as long as it’s lawful, can leave persons with whatever financial means as the dead person wishes - after tax.

They married because they were allowed to under law- love is not a prerequisite for marriage under the law and as they were two consenting adults with no bar for either of them to prevent the marriage taking place it happened. Not sure what you’re on about “prior responsibilities”- These men agreed to designate the other as their sole heir- being married avoided any inheritance tax

karlitob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They married because they were allowed to under law- love is not a prerequisite for marriage under the law and as they were two consenting adults with no bar for either of them to prevent the marriage taking place it happened. Not sure what you’re on about “prior responsibilities”- These men agreed to designate the other as their sole heir- being married avoided any inheritance tax

They did not marry because they were allowed to - as you say; they were not barred from being married when they wanted to marry for tax purposes. Which is a world of difference.

How wonderful it would be if love was a prerequisite for marriage - or any relationship.

The registrar can decline marriages on the basis of convenience but this only applies to immigration, and is the only barrier. I don’t agree that people should be allowed marry for tax purposes solely, or that friends should be allowed marry for financial advantage. It’s a marriage of convenience no different than what’s currently in the law. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a4a0c2-impediments-to-marriage-in-ireland/#marriage-of-convenience
But my opinion on the law doesn’t matter, these people don’t care about my opinion on what they will do with their lives; and the law is the law.


My reference to previous responsibilities I thought was clear. It relates to all people rather than this specific example. But in this example - which I’m using for illustrative purposes - One man had two previous relationships/marriages that failed. He may have had children. We know little about the other man but he may also have had previous relationships and dependents from that relationship.

On his death, he may have financial responsibilities to those dependents. “Designating someone as sole heir” must be done in accordance with law - the succession act. So while a person might want to designate their new buddy as heir to inherit all their money without the state receiving their due, he may have dependents who now will not be entitled to the same level of financial security. The state protects dependents more than new friends by providing greater tax allowances for children. Marriage is not the means to avoid those responsibilities. In other words, if there are dependents, and they wish to sue - the law will dictate, tax will be paid and banal comments about ‘isn’t it awful they have to get married for financial security” are all very well but we don’t have the full facts.


I note you didn’t comment on your desire to change the inheritance tax allowances from sibling to sibling.

pinkypinky

I don't think the law insists on providing for adult children in a parent's will, though they can challenge a will if it does not.

karlitob

pinkypinky wrote: »

I don't think the law insists on providing for adult children in a parent's will, though they can challenge a will if it does not.

I didn’t say they did. I said that if a parent omits a child from the will then the child can take a challenge to that will. Therefore a will has to be consistent with the succession act and any financial windfall is subject to the inheritance tax.

Another poster referenced an absence of ‘financial protection’ and intimated that these men had no other choice but to be married purely as a tax avoidance scheme. I understand it’s lawful, I don’t agree with it - no different than the current law on marriages of convenience, though I know my opinion matters naught. I made the point that financial security, through marriage - on the absence of alternatives to marriage - is a banal point as there may be other exigencies that we know not of. If someone thinks the state is going to give up income from inheritance tax just cos two lads are BFF then that’s just naive - if that means they marry then so be it. But the rules on inheritance tax relate to spouse, parent to sibling and between siblings. The other poster has declined to offer what terms that siblings should have to allow more ‘financial security’ than they currently have ..... what with them being unable to access the tax avoidance scheme that is marriage.

karlitob

karlitob wrote: »

They did not marry because they were allowed to - as you say; they were not barred from being married when they wanted to marry for tax purposes. Which is a world of difference.

.

They were allowed to marry and they married-the reason they married is neither unlawful nor all that uncommon- people go their whole lives living with a partner without marrying and then it dawns on them around inheritance, tax, their rights to property under law, their rights to have a say in the other persons well being etc- and they get married- not because they’re really into marriage- they’re not- but because only through marriage will they gain certain rights- its was no different in this case of two friends- it just so happens they weren’t in a relationship - it was a mutually beneficial arrangement- one got companionship in his old age and care and one who was homeless got a roof over his head.

karlitob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were allowed to marry and they married-the reason they married is neither unlawful nor all that uncommon- people go their whole lives living with a partner without marrying and then it dawns on them around inheritance, tax, their rights to property under law, their rights to have a say in the other persons well being etc- and they get married- not because they’re really into marriage- they’re not- but because only through marriage will they gain certain rights- its was no different in this case of two friends- it just so happens they weren’t in a relationship - it was a mutually beneficial arrangement- one got companionship in his old age and care and one who was homeless got a roof over his head.

You said ‘they married because they were allowed to’. The extension of this logic is that all people who are allowed to marry must marry. They didn’t. They weren’t restricted from marrying. Which of course is different.

As for the rest of your post - I know that. That’s what I said two or three times above.


The point was - while already acknowledging that my opinion counts for nothing to people who wish to do it - is that I don’t think it correct for people who appear to solely use marriage as a means of tax avoidance . It is only a little bit different to a marriage of convenience. People who are not in a relationship use marriage to gain advantage over our immigration laws.

Those advantages that you say that got had nothing to do with marriage and all to do with tax avoidance. Marriage wasn’t needed for them to do what they did. They wanted to avoid a larger payout to the state. I understand it, it’s lawful but I don’t agree with it.

karlitob

karlitob wrote: »

You said ‘they married because they were allowed to’. The extension of this logic is that all people who are allowed to marry must marry.

Eh, no it’s not- and I can see I won’t have any meaningful discussion with you using that logic.

karlitob

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Eh, no it’s not- and I can see I won’t have any meaningful discussion with you using that logic.

Right back at you.

Still waiting to hear your view on what financial protections are absent for siblings in the absence of marriage, or what changes to the succession act and inheritance tax laws you would recommend.

But people often attack the person rather than the ball.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sisters and brothers often lived together in the past- probably not as common now but they too need better financial protections and of course marriage isn’t legally open to them as an option