Labour and common law marriage pledge

[SlamPunked]

I heard about this today, and I'm keen to know what non-married childfree people think of it? Especially how it applies to childfree people.

It's essentially a pledge from Labour to give cohabiting couples similar rights on separation to married couples. The pledge lacks details, but there are models in other countries that could be followed.

Obviously I understand the benefits for many individuals (people with children, people who are victims of abuse). However, I (40W) have purposefully decided not to marry my partner (55M) to protect my assets (been together over 10 years).

We both came to the relationship with nothing apart from debt. But now I have a really well-paid job that has allowed us both to pay off our debts and buy a house (get a mortgage) as equal owners.

But I earn a lot more than him (4x his salary) and save a lot of money in my pension. He tends to waste his money on clothes and hobbies, and has no pension to speak of. Day-to-day I cover bills, holidays etc, he pays for food and trips to the pub. If we break up (you never know what the future holds), I don't want him to have a claim on my pension too when I've already been bankrolling him for many years.

It isn't clear what a reform would do exactly, but it also feels a bit unfair in my case. If I wanted him to have a claim on my savings, I would have married him.

I would love others' perspectives, especially for how it applies to childfree people. Maybe I'm just being an arse, but when I read about the pledge I automatically thought "oh no". The pledge is pitched as something to help women who have sacrificed their career for children. But what about career women who have climbed the ladder, and have a lower earning partner? I'm not saying I want the former to suffer for my sake, instead I'm asking for nuance in how it's applied.

Theoretically, this is exactly the same kind of 'law of unintended consequences' that people could feel led to: a government scheme of forced commitment by default that makes people deliberately harm whatever commitment there may be there, which they might not have otherwise chosen to do.

A little bit like the fact that prison exists to force bad wrongdoers to live in the non-luxurious building that the authorities dictate instead of their own place, which to most people would be abhorrent - but to a homeless person freezing in a shop doorway overnight, that could provide the temptation to understand that you need to commit a crime that you don't really want to commit in order to 'earn' yourself a good few years in free, warm accommodation with inclusive meals.

This would give cohabitees increased rights to accessing financial support on the breakdown of their relationship and bring cohabiting couples types of protection similar to that enjoyed by married couples.

As opposed to them just getting married to have the protection of existing legislation and saving all the hassle of new and badly thought out, drafted and implemented legislation, you mean?

This all reminds me of that idiot who heads up the Met asking for increased powers to deal with pro Hamas demos in London (police asking for more powers, quelle surprise) when powers already exist. In the case of cohabiting couples who want the same rights as the married, those rights exist. It takes just one tiny step to have their protection.

Talk about re-inventing the wheel...

This proposal is misogynist. It assumes that women are too stupid to understand that they have no property rights when cohabiting and don't have the agency to tell a guy to put a ring on it or get lost.

That many women don't recognise this or do recognise this but are too desperate to deliver the marriage-or-split ultimatum is a problem to be resolved through better relationships education at schools.

I'm overjoyed to think of all the money I'm going to save on my car insurance once the new legislation comes in and I no longer need to pay hundreds of pounds for it every year anymore.

I mean, I'll obviously still be driving on the public roads, and I'll be just as much at risk of being involved in an accident as I (and anybody) always have been; but I'm so glad that the government are going to end the disgusting discrimination whereby only people who have arranged car insurance will get the benefits of car insurance.

Thankfully, they realise that it's an important protection that all drivers need, and if I'm out there driving my car, what further proof does anybody need that I deserve and should be legally entitled to be considered to be fully insured - especially as there's no way at all to obtain the valuable protection of being insured without spending at least 10 minutes sitting on the sofa on my phone or laptop.

Yup. This would simply lead to financially literate people having to make the hard decision of not living together. A punishment for others not being able to plan and think about their actions properly

It's so interesting to read how vehement the disagreement is with it. As others have said, here in Australia, this has been in place for decades (it's called a defacto marital relationship) and is very non controversial. The issues raised here as "what ifs" rarely come up when people in defacto relationships separate- though of course, they could, particularly as a system is newly introduced.

I also think that the reality is that most defacto partners without children tend to separate without any sort of court involvement or claim on shared asset unless there are substantial assets unevenly acquired in the marriage, despite these laws.

On the flip side the benefit to genuinely vulnerable women, such as those who were compelled to leave the workforce to "raise the kids" while the partner dicked around, are enormous.

Not to take away from the real concern and irritation at state overreach, especially from a cohort of (mostly) women who have thought their choices through carefully and don't appreciate the state meddling, however!

How do most not claim? But the benefits to women are enormous?

How can it if people aren’t really claiming?

I don’t want to rely on the fact that most don’t claim. I want my rights assured and clear.

and also I don’t want to be in a marriage or any sort. You, yourself call it a marriage. Any marriage should be entered consciously and willingly. I shouldn’t have the right to not be in any sort of marriage.

Most (childfree, independently wealthy, educated) women don't claim.

The benefits to vulnerable women (who left the workforce or worked for low income to raise children/ in long term domestic violence partnerships with no other assets/ who contributed significantly to the mortgage or other assets but isn't on title) is enormous. Data shows women still earn considerably less than men so this policy goes some way to reducing the financial risk to women leaving long term relationships, or being left.

I understand and sympathise with your point that you don't want to have to opt out of something that wouldn't serve you. That's very valid, of course. But it would be wrong to pretend it doesn't serve anyone.

I was wrong to call it a de facto marriage; I checked the legal terminology and it's actually called "de facto relationship". Though of course this is a technical point really when it creates the same rights and obligations as a marriage.

In Australia you become de facto after living together for a certain period. Without children it seems crazy- I don’t want to be entitled to half of my partners money when we met at 40+!
When there are children I think it’s excellent

Um what? Mumsnet is full of women who don’t realise this or have been harmed by not marrying

I'd never heard of this until this thread. So I've been and had a look.

The disadvantages are the exact same as we have all posted here.
And the advantages to some women are the same as labour say.

The main problem I see is state interference. I don't want to have to give up my house (my only real wealth) just because I want to live with someone. If I wanted my partner to have any part of my wealth, I'd marry him and/or leave him it in my will.

You say lots dont bother with court involvement if childless.
That doesn't mean they cant use the system, just up to now not enough have had a wealth disparity to make it worth it.

Hows about we make marriage sacred<<<wrong word but cant think of right one>>>
Again, and if you want to be in a committed relationship, you go and commit?

As usual with these sorts of laws, there will be winners and losers, it just seems like the labour party in this instance cannot see the pitfalls. And if they can, they dont care.

Most (childfree, independently wealthy, educated) women don't claim.

do the men not claim off these women?

I think you misunderstand.

It’s not about well educated women not claiming. A woman isn’t going to make a claim from me as I am a straight woman. And I don’t want to rely on ‘most educated men don’t claim‘.

I am actually not well educated (I also have kids) but am financially independent.

The point about women leaving the workforce has already been discussed. That would be about education. Educating women about what that means. Not removing choice from other people.

Many men are happy to live a woman in, have kids with her then split up and keep the house. Because they know their rights. Do you think all these men are well educated?

We need to look at why so many women don’t seem to understand their rights, don’t seem interested in finding out about them rather than removing valid choices from other people so they don’t need to take responsibility for themselves and their choices.

Why would it be good to remove choice from one group rather than look at education if the group that needs it?

As I said, I don’t wish to in a relationship that’s a marriage or a marriage like relationship. You can choose to be in a marriage. The option is there.

You're talking about not wanting to have your choice removed in order to protect others, and that's perfectly reasonable.

Would you be happy to have this introduced if there was a simple opt out process which you could choose.

Why do we need an opt out process?

We already have an opt in process?

Why arent we talking about educating people? If there’s a problem with people not understand their rights, why change the law? Why not do more to educate them?

Do you understand the implications to women by working on the basis they can’t be educated about their own rights?

Fair enough. I do think that it's feeble that the education option has never even been tried - you'd think the Tories would have had a stab at it at some point in the last 50 years, but all they've done is a small, poorly advertised tax bribe for spouses of SAHPs.

But if you still object with an opt out it's no longer "I'm having my rights removed, I'm having my freedom of choice removed, I now can't risk cohabiting with anyone".

It's "I don't want to fill in a form (and possibly spend X pounds) and I shouldn't have to".

My position on this is that we should not introduce a law but focus on financial literacy and relationship education. We really do need to raise girls, as well as boys, who aspire to financial independence. The norm should not be that men are breadwinners - this is bad for men, women and equality.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise key sex based differences in child bearing and early years child care, they just need considering objectively - so women aren't financially disadvantaged.

Ideas that love (transmitted through fiction on TV, books, songs etc) typically involves women being swept off their feet and not having to worry about money and safety again are significant. What fascinates me is why this doesn't appeal to men. Why would they not want this for themselves? My guess is that they would, if it didn't involve a corresponding loss of status and power. However, whilst women may not mind (or be socialised to mind) the lack of status and power, what they also tend to overlook is the dependency and lack of autonomy aspects.

Tropes such as 'love is blind' and 'love will conquer all' lead many to commit to relationships despite there being significant issues. Some are very reticent to 'sully' their love by discussing practical/ functional issues, despite being aware of them. It is with this in mind that I recognise 'education' in this area also involves deconstructing powerful and widespread cultural ideas about love

I don’t get your point?

The Tories, no matter how much I dislike them, haven’t been in power for the last 50 years. And they aren’t the ones that are suggesting this. Your comment makes me think that this is more about ‘Labour can up with it so I have to believe it’s the right thing’.

It’s not simply about not wanting to film a form out. And reducing it to that, just shows you don’t understand people’s objections.

If we believe women can’t be educated on their rights and/or trusted to make their own decisions when it comes to relationships, then how can they be trusted in all other areas.

and besides which, how will this impact people in social housing? If you have an agreement with the HA/council and move someone do they get joint tenancy automatically? It could be argued you are more likely to be vulnerable if you live in this sort of housing.

and I don’t think that is coincidence that the rules have been deemed ok for years. But just as it’s becoming more common for women to be the one with the assets, it’s been changed. And if it’s all about protecting the children why isn’t it being linked to whether there’s shared children or not?

It's "I don't want to fill in a form (and possibly spend X pounds) and I shouldn't have to".

Is this the whole basis for this law. People have the choice to fill in a form, pay some money and have the legal protection of marriage or civil partnerships. And don’t want to.

So how does it make sense to say ‘well ok, you don’t want to do that. So the solution is to make other people do it so you don’t have to’

I think that a widespread education campaign on the status of unmarried cohabitees would have been a good thing whoever did it. Back in the day when the TV soaps were culturally dominant I was an advocate for a storyline on Eastenders.

I specified that I'm surprised that the Tories didn't do it during any of their periods in office, because the virtues of marriage have frequently been a core message for them. I'm not surprised that Labour didn't do it (even though I'm generally pro-Labour) because a campaign that would be seen to "push" marriage would never be on-brand for them. I'm not blaming the Tories specifically, it's just that if anyone was going to do it I'd have expected it to be them.

I agree with this.

There needs to be more protection for women who have children with partners who refuse to marry them. But in general it should be possible to opt out.

And if it’s all about protecting the children why isn’t it being linked to whether there’s shared children or not?

Agreed, I think this needs to be the starting point.

Broadly educating people as to what marriage is legally would be a start but there will always be those thinking (or encouraged to think) "my partner would never leave me in the lurch so any legal agreement is for those who base relationships on money! "

Fine to gamble one's one life on this but unfair on kids that are brought into it.

It would be shift in the status quo from one default position to another. At the moment the law assumes separate finances and people who don't want that jump through hoops to achieve the non-default status.

It is proposed, (without much detail at the moment), that the default assumption would change to some level of blended finances and people who don't want that would jump through hoops to achieve separated finances.

The problem is that the current process has so much cultural baggage tied up with the financial stuff, so people who might want blended finances but don't want to "get married", or who don't want blended finances but do want to "be married" are stuffed.

If we were to switch the default assumption around then I'd hope the opt out process would be simpler: it would certainly not be mixed up with white frocks and crying mothers.

The other big issue is with post-child SAHMs. The law will step in to some extent to protect children, but women who've stayed at home/gone part time to raise now-adult children can be literally put out on the street.