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.

And will there be mediation if the relationship breaks down? and who pays for all this? (actually, I think I know the answer to that one).

I don't consent to be faux married, if I wanted marriage, I'd damn well be married

Exactly. I've opted out by not being married and not living with anyone. Job done, thanks.

Do we really believe these same men who are so against marrying their SAHM partners will walk blindly into sharing assets by virtue of living together for a couple of years?

Maybe we should educate more women about having worth, not being unmarried SAHMS who passively hope their darling will eventually propose, rather than push women who are making active choices about their lives into basically marriage they don't want.

Mind me, I am married but absolutely appaled that people who chose for various valid reasons not to be, would end up basically married wealth wise.

How come men seem to understand what works for their rights, but women don't? Our brains are not stupider!

And there are plenty harmed by marrying.

Marriage should be an opt-in state.

Did you miss where I said:? 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.

@Itsonlymashadow has it right: Do you understand the implications to women by working on the basis they can’t be educated about their own rights?

There are plenty of misogynist men in the manosphere who think that women are stupid and childlike. Basing public policy on that belief is harmful to all women, married or not and mothers or not. If I am deemed in law too stupid to recognise that having kids outside of wedlock is dangerous for me, how can I argue that I'm not too stupid to have a job, control my own money, or make my own medical decisions?

Let’s not forget, if this came into force my dp would have to opt out or move out. What’s to stop him saying that I coerced him into signing? By saying sign or move out?

Would that also be abuse? Coercive control?

and what about people who are abused and forced to sign the opt out?

I 100% agree, education would be far better. I have no idea why it is often women that get caught by it. I assume it is people that trust what their partner/friends/family is telling them rather than looking into things for themselves

If you have to go down the route of legislation to protect the people that stick their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la' rather than understanding the impact of their decisions, connect it to having a child rather than just living together

In the Australian article about the woman in the de facto relationship above, the description of the Australian law jumped out at me: "Couples who have lived together in a genuine domestic relationship for two years are in a de facto relationship." The Romans also had a form of marriage by cohabitation, and couples wishing to avoid marriage (or, women wishing to avoid coming under the authority of the man they lived with rather than their own family) would separate for three nights. In Australia, this seems more difficult - would such a cohabitant have to fully move out?

Still, plus ça change! So many centuries since the Roman Empire fell in the West.

Although in that article, the couple had bought a house together, so were always going to have costs around the time of splitting, at the very least on solicitors' fees for one to buy the other out.

Looks like in Australia it’s hard to avoid being in this de facto relationship. Here’s an article listing court precedents. There’s one Martens & Bocca (2022) FamCA 1044, where they were together for 13 years while maintaining separate homes and only spending a few nights together every week . The court ruled they were still in this de facto relationship……

https://fortefamilylawyers.com.au/de-facto-property-settlement-claim/

I lived with my ex, but he earned well and owned the house, along with having savings etc. We never married, so it would have been bonkers for me to want a penny from him.
I could see this put people off of living together. If you want your finances etc to be so embedded with each other, you get married (or make legal arrangements for the specifics).

Is spousal maintenance still a thing? Would this also be a thing if this common law marriage pledge actually happened?

That's concerning, and I can easily imagine this happening here, whether through the drafting process and great big gaping holes in any legal instrument;- see the equality act, or via court actions after the new law has come into force to clarify.

Welp I cant vote labour while this is an option they have put on the table. Doesnt matter if its in the manifesto or not, I cant take the chance.

Totally agree with below post. Far too risky for me.

Looks like in Australia it’s hard to avoid being in this de facto relationship

So the law can treat you as if you're in a legal quasi-marital relationship that you might not see in the same way purely by default. Fine for those women who want to be married and whose OH won't commit. What about the ones who don't but suddenly find they're being treated as if they are with all that that implies?*

*same for men obvs.

Another point is, when the law came in, would it have an immediate retrospective application? If it did, imagine the rush of people trying to separate before the date it became legal; when it's difficult enough as it is for people to find rental properties. It would cause chaos.

It seems from the Australian example that the current situation just gets turned on its head - from 'we won't treat you as married unless you are' to 'we're going to treat you as married unless you actively opt not to be.' I don't see that as an improvement.

I'd rather the state didn't poke its nose into my private life to that extent, and it's a retrograde step that treats marriage as something that should be the default for all couples because presumably some people can't think for themselves and look at what sort of relationship they're getting into.

Hope you don't mind me posting as I'm not child-free. I just wanted to add to this. I was in an extremely abusive relationship and the fact that we weren't married saved me. The house was in my name (family asset).

I'm a low-earner and the fact that my ex partner had no claim on the house gave me my freedom. Had he had rights to it, I would still be stuck in the relationship or be waiting until I had saved enough money to rent a new place. I was in no position mentally to find a higher paying job. I was in bits and barely getting through each day. Focusing on my work (my only place of haven) was difficult. My confidence was (still is) shot with the constant put downs and berating.

This policy wouldn't have helped me one jot. Of course, I can only speak for myself and there may be other situations where it could benefit victims of abuse.

They could always draft a law that takes these things into account. They wont, but they could.

You know who not to vote for at least.

Btw I'm not child free but they are adults. I'd like to leave them my house, which I potentially could not do if this was law and me and the fella spilt up. Or it was eaten up by care fees or if I give it all to a Nigerian prince, etc.

But if this wasnt on the table, I only have to stay in my home and ignore all Nigerian princes

They really will fucking do anything ANYTHING rather than just get the absent fathers to just pay the fucking Child Support

I can only say be careful what you wish (vote) for

I can see the issue that they're trying to fix, but it risks scooping up people who don't want to be in that situation.

I've got a decent amount of assets these days, nothing earth-shattering but a good pension and equity in my house. Like hell would I risk anyone else getting a share of that!

I just read about this in the FT and I’m horrified. The Cocklodgers will become cockowner/occupiers

It's funny isn't it, just as many women are he earning well, forging ahead, have their own properties etc a government want to level things up. Many people now don't get married because they want to protect their assets. I hope they'll be an opt out.

"cockowner-occupiers" 😂 You win the thread for coining that term.

It's a horrifying prospect.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/good-housekeeping-uk/20240901/284236650682386