Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

De facto relationships

86 replies

Puddinger · 16/01/2021 20:00

In Australia, if you've been living with your partner for 2 years, you have the same legal status as if you were married (de facto marriage), but it sounds like in the UK you can live with someone for 20 years and it means nothing!

I feel bad because there are all these threads from mothers who are living in a partnership with kids and everyone is saying oh no you are financially vulnerable. Why should they be? Why shouldn't they get compensation for liss of income, for example, if the relationship ends or access to their partner's pension? Do people not see this as a feminist issue?

OP posts:
Original poster
Puddinger · 16/01/2021 20:36

I certainly don't want some bloke having a claim on the equity simply because I've been shagging him for the requisite amount of time

Sure, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's more when one person gives up work, or even just misses opportunities for overtime etc when there are kids, they should be compensated for income difference when the partnership ends, married or not.

you talk about UK ,but the law in Scotland is different than in England

I didn't know! Thanks.

OP posts:
CaraDuneRedux · 16/01/2021 20:34

The child support system does need a massive overhaul.

For starters, where the man is on PAYE, child support payments should be deducted at the same time as tax.

And we need proper education about marriage in school PHSE lessons stressing that its primary purpose is as a legal contract to protect the financial interests of the two parties and their children in the event of divorce, and the surviving spouse and children in the event of death.

user1487194234 · 16/01/2021 20:34

See Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006
Not the complete solution but a start
Old marriage by fact and deed largely irrelevant

bourbonne · 16/01/2021 20:29

I don't think the Scottish law is really any different these days. I think there was some custom of "habit and repute" but that's no longer the case.

MrsTerryPratchett · 16/01/2021 20:28

Well maybe child support needs more work.

The common law thing seems to work well in Australia, Canada etc. though. Not sure it's a bad thing in and of itself.

user1487194234 · 16/01/2021 20:26

If people want the protection of marriage they should get married
It could be unfair to have the legal consequences of marriage foisted for n people who had not signed up for them
One thing,you talk about UK ,but the law in Scotland is different than in England

CaraDuneRedux · 16/01/2021 20:22

I don't think there should be such a thing as a de facto relationship. The legal obligations (as well as rights) marriage confers should be, and remain, opt in.

I'm in my 50s. After years of working bloody hard, I own my own house. I want, eventually, to leave it to my son. I certainly don't want some bloke having a claim on the equity simply because I've been shagging him for the requisite amount of time (and I presume were the circumstances reversed, he'd feel the same about me).

The pooling of assets marriage allows for protects the child-rearing member of a young couple (almost always the woman) against the career and income hit child rearing inflicts. It's therefore a good thing that the option to get married is there.

But it makes no sense for couples in late middle age, and I wouldn't want it thrust upon me.

Original poster
Puddinger · 16/01/2021 20:21

Yes, all in favour of more education. However, given that women seem to regularly be stuck in these positions - and that men seem to be making these vague promises all the time or that the promises are implied all the time - to me it doesn't seem enough to say they should have been better educated about the law. They weren't! And anyway, the financial burden of children falls unevwnly on the population, why should that only be addressed through marriage law?

OP posts:
bourbonne · 16/01/2021 20:20

I agree that everyone should consent to marriage, but I've recently become aware that the children of separated unmarried couples often get less support from their father than they would if their parents had been married. That seems quite unfair, if true. I suppose it's hard to separate out support for the children from support for the resident parent. I'd say it's a feminist issue but also a children's welfare issue.

VikingVolva · 16/01/2021 20:15

Yes it is a feminist issue.

Everyone should consent to marriage, not find themselves in a legal contract to which they had not consented, and people should be free to live together without a legal ties.

What is needed is a considerably better component in the (existing) SRE curriculum covering the legal differences between marriage, CP and cohabitation; done in a way which empowers young people to decide what it is that they want and not settle forna faked future.

MrsTerryPratchett · 16/01/2021 20:06

It is a feminist issue.

Lack of legal knowledge is also an issue in other areas. I think law should be taught early and practically. Concepts like reasonableness, contracts, consent, duress, culpability and so on are useful in so many areas.