Should unmarried couples have more rights?

[Niceguy2]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12354670

What do MN'ers think? Should unmarried couples get more rights to claim from each other like married couples?

Or if they wanted that then they should get married?

What do you suggest should be done?

er what they're proposing really!

what does it bother you so much that we want rights as you do?

I wanted to add the marriage has its disadvantages as well. A friend of mine is not married but in a legally sown up relationship in that both partners wills are drawn up, life insurance etc. But if she/he wanted to change all that they could very easily do so and make sure the other partner didn't inherit etc. I'm married I couldn't to that easily, if at all, without taking much longer to divorce.

But if you want those rights, southeastastra, GET MARRIED!! As others have said, you don't need to have a wedding - just go to the registry office and do it in your lunch hour.

What do you think will happen to you if you get married? What will change? Why are you so anti-marriage?

Not having a go at you, just very curious.

If you get married, nothing changes unless you want it to. Well, OK, something does change - your bond with your partner deepens and strengthens. Is that what you're afraid of?

I bet Paul McCartney wishes he had just lived together.

To those who are saying: "I want the rights but I don't want to get married"

Would you be willing to enter into a civil partnership? or go through some sort of other official ceremony, or sign a contract?

I'm trying to figure out what it is about marriage you object to.

Would you object to signing anything? Or do you think courts should just have to guess what your intentions are?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't give a crap It doesn't affect me in any way if other people are or are not married.

I am certainly not saying I care, I am just saying that I don't understand. As per my post above.

If someone wants the same rights as a married person but they don't want to be married, what they want is - marriage. It's the same thing.

I honestly don't see what the difference is. There doesn't seem to be one.

package A - marriage. Gives you right X, Y & Z

package B - co-habitation legislation. Gives you right X, Y and Z

they are the exact same thing. If you have the same rights then what is the difference? And if there is no difference, then why bother having the two things doing the same thing in the first place?

Just so someone can be Not Married?

I don't get it.

I don't care but I don't understand.

I think it might be a good idea if the government did introduce package B call it- Cohabitant Agreement But Definitely Not Marriage, with all the legal protections and obligations that marriage has, but people have to make a positive choice to take it up. They have to sign something agreeing to this not just loss all rights over their own property by default.

People who say why should I have to get married to get the same legal rights as married people?

May as well be saying: why should I enter into a legal contract in order to enter into a legal contract?

at "Cohabitant Agreement But Definitely Not Marriage"

Think that's what my (now) DH and I had when we moved in together. He was most concerned that just because he was moving in, didn't mean we'd necessarily be getting married.

If this law came into place I suspect he'd never have moved in. And I would never marry someone without living with them first. So we'd never have got married...

I don't agree that civil partnership should be available to heterosexual couples, they have a means of entering into a legally recognised partnership its called marriage. Although personally i'd have just extended marriage to include same sex couples and not created civil partnerships.

I don't understand peoples hang ups about getting married and don't think co-habiting couples should have the same rights as married couples.

but kendodd - why not just call a spade a spade? why should the government create legislation just because some doesn't like the word marriage?

Well because the word marriage seems to upset so many people.

I hope somebody will come on soon and say if they would be happy with this or if they object to signing anything at all.

'your bond with your partner deepens and strengthens. Is that what you're afraid of?'

after 33 years? if it ain't broke and all that

Do you object to signing anything at all though to recognise your relationship?

but surely marriage by another name is still just marriage, to quote shakespeare 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet' surely if you have a problem with marriage you would have an issue with 'Cohabitant Agreement But Definitely Not Marriage'.

Nope don't get it - if you want the legal protection offers then get married.

usual it seems hard for people to see our point of view, btw on the phone in as i said lots did!

south - i'd say the reason i can't see your point of view is because i don't understand why you have such a big problem with being married. What are your objections to it? I can under people not wanting a wedding however i can't see why anyone would object to being married.

Nobody has answered about objections to signing any sort of agreement though. Ok I was taking the piss a bit with 'Cohabitant Agreement But Definitely Not Marriage' but if it was called something sensible?

Wow, been away for a few hours. Didn't expect to see so many replies.

Personally I think a better thing to do is to make "living together agreements" binding in law.

Whilst I can see that many people (mainly women) may lose out because they mistakenly assume living together gives them rights, ignorance should not be a valid excuse.

The problem is that by giving unmarried couples more rights, you are further undermining the value of marriage.

In addition, where do you draw the line? Do you say "After living together for x years" I can imagine the papers full of stories of gold digging OH's who finish the relationship x years + 1 day and go for the house.

I think in the modern world there definitely should be some way of living together where either of you can walk away without loads of legal aggro.

Southeast, so you want to remove the right of couples to choose to co-habit but not register their relationship?

And you think it's fair to reduce everyone's choices because of your squeamishnes?

Currently couples have a choice about how the conduct their relationship and whether they formalise it legally or not. That choice should remain. The state should not be the arbiter of the state of a couple relationship.

marriage is an outdated instituion in my eyes.

'undermining the value of marriage' fgs i think the divorce rates reflect that more than co-habiting couples.

But a living together agreement is a marriage fgs.

So what you are saying is that we should get rid of marriage and replace it with something that gives you all the rights and protection under the law that marriage gave you?

what would be different?

What bits of marriage would be missing?

I just want to understand the difference. I might like it

I must say though, I am not keen on anything that gives you (general you, not you you) the same rights as you would have had you entered into a marriage agreement without you having entered into an agreement. I think that any such contract should be entered into by both parties, not applied to them retrospectively, iyswim.