Explain why my missus is fighting with me.

Glass fused light

iamtony wrote: »

The problem is, as far as the state concerned, they do recognise the relationship when it suits them. They use expressions like common law wife but won't recognise that when it comes to things like a widows pension.

The State has a constitutional obligation to recognise marriage.

It has been and can still be argued that by recognising the relationship and affording it the same rights and benefits is unconstitutional.

ARTICLE 41 3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

iamtony

Glass fused light wrote: »

The State has a constitutional obligation to recognise marriage.

It has been and can still be argued that by recognising the relationship and affording it the same rights and benefits is unconstitutional.

ARTICLE 41 3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Except when it suits them. I'm not saying your wrong in what your saying. I'm saying the system is wrong. If me and the missus split tomorrow, as my common law wife she would be entitled to half of the house etc. But if I died she wouldn't get anything. Do you see what I'm saying?

wexie

They're giving away a trip to Vegas on today FM this week.

Just need to text them and tell them why you think you're deserving of it

https://www.todayfm.com/Win/Win-A-Luxury-All-Expenses-Paid-Trip-To-Vegas-With-Fergal

RobAMerc

Nick Park wrote: »

Your question is nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with how a marriage works.

Marriage is about two people learning to respect one another, knowing when to let the other person have their own way, and deciding which issues are worth standing up for.

For what it's worth, I don't believe a ceremony of baptism has the slightest bearing whatsoever on whether a child goes to heaven or not. However, if your wife thinks it does, then that makes it very important to her.

If you don't believe in God, then letting your child get baptised is a meaningless ceremony. It won't harm your child, nor will it help them. So it's essentially no different from heaps of other meaningless stuff we do. So the cost to you of letting your wife have her way is minimal.

However, if your wife strongly believes that baptising the child is important, then letting you have your way is, in her mind, harmful to the child. So the cost to her of letting you have your way is (from her perspective) huge.

So your question should not be 'why is the missus fighting with me?' but rather 'why on earth am I fighting with my missus over something that doesn't really matter to me?'.

Why not let her have her way on this one, and save the fighting for something that really matters to you?

You see this is where I have an issue. I dont believe either. I took the "ah sure its my duty as a husband to accept my wifes beliefs".
I was taken aback by the inclusiveness of those in religon, and thought yea they are right, its just a little ceremony, what harm.
Then I went to my son's holy communion This is not a harmless little ceremony. I witnessed what I can only describe as a mass brainwashing. Little girls are dressed as the bride of God, we thanked God for the lovely day. (We notably forgot to thanks him for the mass murderers, evil dictators and horrible plagues being beset on people all over the world.) We pledged to keep with the faith and go to Mass regularly ( to pay our dies no doubt ).

I've come to realise, its the moderates that are more dangerous than the bible bashers. The "ah sure its no harm" gang that are trotted out whenever someone displays some hesitation to participate. I am pretty sure my local drug dealer uses a similar tactic to get kids using "just a joint" before he sells them crack !

Glass fused light

iamtony wrote: »

Except when it suits them. I'm not saying your wrong in what your saying. I'm saying the system is wrong. If me and the missus split tomorrow, as my common law wife she would be entitled to half of the house etc. But if I died she wouldn't get anything. Do you see what I'm saying?

There is no recognition of common law partners in this country. There never was. You were either married or not. This country has recognised civil partnerships, and qualified cohabitant.

As for the house, currently, if your partners name is not the deed (either by Joint tenancy or Tenancy in common) she is not entitled anything, so you can sell the house free and clear or head to Vegas, without her, and bet it on a horse race. If she became aware of what you were planning, she may apply to the courts as a qualified cohabitant and explain how she made a financial contribution or is financial dependent and if the courts agree get redress. (Same with any other assets held only in your name). If you marry legally the Family Home act applies.

In principal, I don't agree with the idea that qualified cohabitant is the rule not the exception. I think that if an adult is deemed capable of making financial and sexual reproduction decision they should be deemed capable of either officially registering their relationship with the State or failing that putting a cohabitant agreement in place. I understand it protects against abuse and coercive control in a relationship, but IMO if two people choose that cohabiting as an option the State should not legislate against their choice. But then I think that this should be covered in schools under relationships and having babies and our rights and obligations to or from the State.

Peregrinus

iamtony wrote: »

The problem is, as far as the state concerned, they do recognise the relationship when it suits them. They use expressions like common law wife but won't recognise that when it comes to things like a widows pension.

Yup. Where their interests are at stake, they will recognise the relationship if that is advantageous. Why wouldn’t they? But as regards protecting your interests, they defer to your decision. If you opt not to seek recognition for you relationship, they won’t force recognition on you purely because they think your decision is not in your own best interests.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

you want the world at large to recognise you relationship because your kids’ interests may be adversely affected if it doesn’t.

Not really. Firstly, taking a pragmatic course of action out of necessity has little to do with desire. Its a bit like saying you want to go to the dentist because you've a sore tooth. Secondly, the offices and records of the state and the world at large are rather different things.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Firstly, taking a pragmatic course of action out of necessity has little to do with desire. Its a bit like saying you want to go to the dentist because you've a sore tooth. Secondly, the offices and records of the state and the world at large are rather different things.

They are not different things. The records of the state are a subset of the world at large. Or did you think the state was a supernatural entity?

As for "taking a pragmatic course out of necessity", what you needed, presumably, was some kind of recognition for your relationship, since not having it would be disadvantageous, if not to you then to your children. To suggest that you needed that but you didn't want it is splitting hairs. I need to eat; does that mean I don't want to?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are not different things. The records of the state are a subset of the world at large. Or did you think the state was a supernatural entity?

As for "taking a pragmatic course out of necessity", what you needed, presumably, was some kind of recognition for your relationship, since not having it would be disadvantageous, if not to you then to your children. To suggest that you needed that but you didn't want it is splitting hairs. I need to eat; does that mean I don't want to?

Since when was a subset the same as the set it belongs to? Bit like saying one number such as 333 is the same as the set of integers, or that integers are the same as rational numbers. Registering your marriage is not the same as broadcasting the event.

Getting married in order to protect the best interests of your children, where you would rather be afforded the same protections without getting married, is actually coercion. I think for the reasons that Glass fused light has stated, it makes pragmatic sense for the OP in this case, even if it is something he and his partner would rather not do. Marriage is an institution, not all of us want to be institutionalised. Those are hairs a blind man could split with an axe

sbsquarepants

I'm in much the same boat - only difference is my missus isn't a believer but she still wants the kids baptised "just cos".

I couldn't care less if they are baptised or not so I couldn't be arsed picking a row with her over it - baptise away if that's what you like dear. Makes no odds to me if she wants to call the kids catholics, protestants, hindus or satanists - as far as I'm concerned we are a pastafarian family:D

Sometimes you have to just pick your battles - baptism, communion, confirmation, are just not an important issues for me so I couldn't be arsed wasting my time fighting over them. I've been through all 3 and I'm not brainwashed!

It's what goes on in the home after that that's important - I wasn't dragged to mass or threatened with hell (except in school) my parents aren't religious and they left me / encouraged me to think for myself, so that's what I done. That's what my kids will do and yours too if you let them!

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Since when was a subset the same as the set it belongs to?

I'm not saying that a subset is the same as the set, but I am saying that it's not completely different from the set; it's part of the set, and therefore not separate from it.

In this context, legal recognition of a relationship is one form of social recogntion. Law is a social phenomenon, after all.

smacl wrote: »

Getting married in order to protect the best interests of your children, where you would rather be afforded the same protections without getting married, is actually coercion. I think for the reasons that Glass fused light has stated, it makes pragmatic sense for the OP in this case, even if it is something he and his partner would rather not do. Marriage is an institution, not all of us want to be institutionalised. Those are hairs a blind man could split with an axe

I dunno. Is getting a driving licence, so that the state recognises your ability to drive and treats you in the way appropriate to someone capable of driving, a "form of coercion"?

Essentially, by treating people as married based on whether they go through a ceremony of marriage rather than based on whether they cohabit, the state is saying "if you want to secure recognition of your relationship and the associated legal, administrative, etc, treatment, you can; it's your choice". The alternative is to treat cohabitants as married based simply on the fact of their cohabitation, regardless of their wishes in the matter and regardless of any choice they have made to secure recognition; treating them as married even if actively do not want that treatment, have made the decision to avoid engaging it, and loudly protest against it. Which looks more coercive to you?

Glass fused light

smacl wrote: »

Since when was a subset the same as the set it belongs to? Bit like saying one number such as 333 is the same as the set of integers, or that integers are the same as rational numbers. Registering your marriage is not the same as broadcasting the event.

Getting married in order to protect the best interests of your children, where you would rather be afforded the same protections without getting married, is actually coercion. I think for the reasons that Glass fused light has stated, it makes pragmatic sense for the OP in this case, even if it is something he and his partner would rather not do. Marriage is an institution, not all of us want to be institutionalised. Those are hairs a blind man could split with an axe

Getting married protects the best interest of you and your partner, it offers you (both) protection for your rights, particularly in matters of children. As a 'parent' both parties still have the same obligations. But far as I am aware as of 1987 and the Status Of Children Act, the only benefit marriage offered a child is the automatic presumption that the male sperm donor was the spouse of the female (not sure how this works now). I would be interested to know where the interest of the children differ (generic examples only)

It's not coercion to offer a choice, I think if people are committing to cohabit in order to co-parent why would we not as a society have a system in place which recognises and even rewards that.

smacl

Glass fused light wrote: »

It's not coercion to offer a choice, I think if people are committing to cohabit in order to co-parent why would we not as a society have a system in place which recognises and even rewards that.

If taking the choice is the only choice available that does not place your children at a disadvantage, its Hobson's choice and amounts to coercion. Similarly, as raised in a previous post in this thread, if the OP feels that not getting the child baptised will reduce their likelihood of getting into the local school, this is also coercion. Whether its a carrot or stick being used, you're still the donkey.

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm in much the same boat - only difference is my missus isn't a believer but she still wants the kids baptised "just cos".

I couldn't care less if they are baptised or not so I couldn't be arsed picking a row with her over it - baptise away if that's what you like dear. Makes no odds to me if she wants to call the kids catholics, protestants, hindus or satanists - as far as I'm concerned we are a pastafarian family:D

Personally, I'd want a better reason than 'just cos'. In this case you're publicly announcing to friends and family that you're going to raise your kids as Christian when you've no intention of doing so. Its a rather cynical treatment for all concerned, and while that cynicism might be open, its still something I'd be loathe to engage in.

sbsquarepants

Each to their own Smacl - I have enough actual problems to deal with, to negate the need to fight with my missus over her frankly bizarre desire to publicly pledge her (self admittedly dishonest) allegiance to some imaginary friend or other.

As I've said - makes no difference to me if it's done or not, or which creed or cult it's done with so "just cos" is reason enough. Bitches be crazy and I'm all about the quite life!

If she wanted to start dragging them off to mass every sunday or sending them to sunday school or something like that, I'd have a problem with that. But if she just want's to put on a nice dress and tell satan to bugger off in front of a bunch of people - that I can live with.

Every issue doesn't have to be some absolute line in the sand, and this one just isn't for me. Do it, don't do - I just don't care either way.

smacl

Fair enough. I think it is common for some people to do it in deference to their own parents, where the parents are very keen. Given that as grandparents they may well be helping out a fair bit with the likes of babysitting, its reasonable enough. My wife's mum, a fantastic woman who is quite religious, did a whack of babysitting for us at a time when we were both working, but never put any pressure on us in this regard. That said, I wouldn't be surprised or bothered if there was a kitchen sink blessing at some point on the sly. Each to their own, and as you say, there's more important things to be concerned about.

sbsquarepants

Her parents are ultra religious, not at all preachy or anything but both very devout - on the second kid her mother actually pulled her aside and didn't quite ask her not to baptise, but suggested that maybe it wasn't necessary seeing as we clearly weren't catholics and weren't going to abide by the promises we were making to god( ie it was a cynical exercise as you rightly suggested!)

I think she was concerned that maybe they were the reason she was doing it - but no, turns out it was "just cos". Logic and my missus are at best nodding aquaintances. In fact they're outright enemies at times:D

When someone has no actual reason for doing something, but is insistent on doing it nonetheless, it is practically impossible to reason them out of it - so I just couldn't be bothered even trying. Even if I managed to talk her out of it, it would only prove a pyrrhic victory as the "prize" means nothing whatsoever to me.

Glass fused light

smacl wrote: »

If taking the choice is the only choice available that does not place your children at a disadvantage, its Hobson's choice and amounts to coercion.

How are children of an unmarried couple at a disadvantage to children of a married couple?

smacl

Glass fused light wrote: »

How are children of an unmarried couple at a disadvantage to children of a married couple?

In your own words;

Glass fused light wrote: »

Pre jan 2017 even with your name on the birth cert, the State could have taken your childern into care on her death as you were not recognised as their guardian.

IMO you both should think about the consequences of not being married with shared and separate assets and your children not your partner being your legal next of kin.

sbsquarepants

Glass fused light wrote: »

How are children of an unmarried couple at a disadvantage to children of a married couple?

Inheritance rights for a start.

Peregrinus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Inheritance rights for a start.

Children's inheritance rights are unaffected by whether their parents are married.

(In Ireland, at any rate. If you own property in another country then you might want to check the position under the inheritance laws of that country.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Children's inheritance rights are unaffected by whether their parents are married.

(In Ireland, at any rate. If you own property in another country then you might want to check the position under the inheritance laws of that country.)

Are you sure? The advice we got was that unmarried, if one of us died before the other, in the absence of a will the children would inherit and if they were underage the monies would be managed by next of kin. Alternatively, if the money was willed to the other partner it would be subject to CGT and hence represent a loss to the surviving family members. As a married couple, the other spouse inherits not subject to CGT. It was actually our solicitor that persuaded us to get married for these reasons.

sbsquarepants

That's what I was getting at.

I actually thought there were different tax implications for the kids themselves also - but that seems to not be the case.

Glass fused light

smacl wrote: »

Are you sure? The advice we got was that unmarried, if one of us died before the other, in the absence of a will the children would inherit and if they were underage the monies would be managed by next of kin. Alternatively, if the money was willed to the other partner it would be subject to CGT and hence represent a loss to the surviving family members. As a married couple, the other spouse inherits not subject to CGT. It was actually our solicitor that persuaded us to get married for these reasons.

If you are not married the children from your current relationship (and any others) are next of kin to you but your partner is not next of kin of you. You decide ths by not getting offical recognition. She is however next of kin to her children (ditto re other children). She as their guardian (not next of kin) had the right make decisions on their behalf including to manage the monies.

Without a will they are entitled to 100% of your estate. If you marry your partner, its reduced by her %.
With a will they are only entitled to what you leave them or what the court decides is fair. As your wife she gets a minimum, as your partner she needs to go to court.
If you will money to your partner, insted of your children, its hers they have no automatic right to inherit.
CGT\CAT differentiates between a spouse and a child too.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Law is a social phenomenon, after all.

Law is a social phenomenon but is not society.

I dunno. Is getting a driving licence, so that the state recognises your ability to drive and treats you in the way appropriate to someone capable of driving, a "form of coercion"?

Weak analogy again. Driving without a license puts other members of society at risk. Cohabiting without being married does not.

The alternative is to treat cohabitants as married based simply on the fact of their cohabitation, regardless of their wishes in the matter and regardless of any choice they have made to secure recognition; treating them as married even if actively do not want that treatment, have made the decision to avoid engaging it, and loudly protest against it. Which looks more coercive to you?

That's one alternative of your own making, but there are plenty of others, such as simply being allowed to assign a partner for purposes of inheritance and guardianship without getting married. Its hardly rocket science.

smacl

Glass fused light wrote: »

She is however next of kin to her children (ditto re other children). She as their guardian (not next of kin) had the right make decisions on their behalf including to manage the monies.

But from my understanding at the time, if she died and we weren't married, I'm not necessarily my children's next of kin. From memory, there were similar issues around inheritance driving the gay marriage debate at the time.

Glass fused light

smacl wrote: »

In your own words;

Originally Posted by Glass fused light
Pre jan 2017 even with your name on the birth cert, the State could have taken your childern into care on her death as you were not recognised as their guardian.

A child has a right to a parent but the parent does not always have the right to a child (< we voted on this).

a unmarried woman has automatic right of guardianship from birth, the father does not. To can be obtained by applying to court or post '16 living with the mother for 1 year including 3 months post birth.

A guardian has rights to make welfare decisions (Housing schooling medical and even religeous choices). A parent without guardianship does not, that parent has to apply to the courts before they can argue 50\50.

Article 42A

1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

2 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

^^ highlights by me^^

If a father, not (1)cohabiting, has not gone to court and obtained the (2)right of guardianship the State has a right to inquirer why these 2 things have occurred. The child has a right to the parent but if the State assumes guardianship, social services only look out for the child's rights.

your children not your partner being your legal next of kin.

This mainly because it moves additional obligations to children.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Are you sure? The advice we got was that unmarried, if one of us died before the other, in the absence of a will the children would inherit and if they were underage the monies would be managed by next of kin.

If you die unmarried and without a will, leaving children, your children are your next of kin, and they will inherit your property That's hardly a disadvantage to them, though; it looks more like a disadvantage to the partner who would have inherited a share of your estate, had you been married.

If the kids are underage, yes, their inheritance will be managed by their next-of-kin/guardian, who will be your partner (assuming your partner is the other parent of your children).

smacl wrote: »

Alternatively, if the money was willed to the other partner it would be subject to CGT and hence represent a loss to the surviving family members.

Yes, but the loss to other family members doesn't result from the fact that the partner is liable to CAT (nitpick: not CGT); it results from the fact that you have willed the property away from them. Because of the terms of your will, they get nothing, regardless of whether you partner does nor does not suffer CAT.

smacl wrote: »

As a married couple, the other spouse inherits not subject to CGT. It was actually our solicitor that persuaded us to get married for these reasons.

And that was good advice. But it's your partner's position you are trying to protect there, not your children's. Married or not, you can leave your property to your children and the CAT treatment will be unaffected by whether or not you were married to their other parent.

smacl wrote: »

But from my understanding at the time, if she died and we weren't married, I'm not necessarily my children's next of kin. From memory, there were similar issues around inheritance driving the gay marriage debate at the time.

Assuming you're named on the birth cert as their father, yes, you're their next of kin. This doesn't depend on whether you're married or not.

Obviously in the case of same-sex couples there are different issues, since (a) [at least] one of the couple is necessarily not a biological parent of the children, and (b) the children necessarily have [at least] one biological parent who is not one of the couple. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't make this issue go away, since it arises out of the biological facts, rather than any legal status that the couple have. What you need here is appropriate laws addressing adoption, surrogacy, etc. These can be neutral with respect to marital status. (And, SFAIK, in Ireland they are.)

smacl wrote: »

That's one alternative of your own making, but there are plenty of others, such as simply being allowed to assign a partner for purposes of inheritance and guardianship without getting married. Its hardly rocket science.

You are allowed to assign a partner for the purposes of inheritance and guardianship without getting married. You do this by making a will.

Delirium

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Each to their own Smacl - I have enough actual problems to deal with, to negate the need to fight with my missus over her frankly bizarre desire to publicly pledge her (self admittedly dishonest) allegiance to some imaginary friend or other.

As I've said - makes no difference to me if it's done or not, or which creed or cult it's done with so "just cos" is reason enough. Bitches be crazy and I'm all about the quite life!

If she wanted to start dragging them off to mass every sunday or sending them to sunday school or something like that, I'd have a problem with that. But if she just want's to put on a nice dress and tell satan to bugger off in front of a bunch of people - that I can live with.

Every issue doesn't have to be some absolute line in the sand, and this one just isn't for me. Do it, don't do - I just don't care either way.

MOD NOTE

I would remind you that you are posting in the Christianity and referring to God in such a way is not appropriate in this forum.

Thanks for your attention.

Nick Park

RobAMerc wrote: »

Then I went to my son's holy communion This is not a harmless little ceremony. I witnessed what I can only describe as a mass brainwashing. Little girls are dressed as the bride of God, we thanked God for the lovely day.

Thanking God for a lovely day is harmful mass brainwashing?

Methinks Boards.ie needs a Drama Queen Forum. :pac: