Should co-habitating partner have more legal rights...

[eleusis]

or should those rights be reserved for married partners?

Discuss

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6923373.stm

exactly, if people want to live together but not be married then why stop them? why should the rights of one person over-ride that of another.

Well the rights of one person will always over-ride the rights of another where the rights conflict, whatever the given situation. The argument is just which one overrides.

And generally speaking English law has usually come down on the side of the state not interfering unnecessarily with people's lives.

However, the argument here is that it's necessary because so many people a) live together and have children and b) falsely believe that there is a legal status of "common-law" which just doesn't exist. I have no idea why so many people have this idea of common-law, where did it come from?

The state could just do a big education campaign about common law being non-existent - that would be less drastic than making everyone living in the same house de facto married.

It's very infantilising isn't it.

agree with everyone who agrees with Dinosaur, expat, WWW and Bossykate.

If you want the legal rights as per being married, get married!

I've heard that in other countries, Australia is an example I think, cohabiting couples already have similar (if not exactly the same?) rights as married couples. This has apparently lead to an increase in couples getting married. The reason being, that there is no longer a disincentive to get married. Formerly, in some cases, if there was a large disparity in the capital or earnings/earning potential between the individuals in the couple, the one with the more capital or higher earning may have felt more reluctant to marry (only in some cases!)This sounds cynical because people should get married for the right reasons, because they love each other and are committed to staying together, but it is interesting that removing the disparity between the legal status of marriage and cohabitation has lead to an increase in marriages.

It is a bit 'nanny state', and call me a reactionary (a liberal one), but I really think this would be an interesting experiment in terms of making people more cautious about who they are spending (wasting?) their precious lives with. If cohabitation really were a commitment, people might put a bit more effort into their relationships instead of seeing them as possibly temporary and disposable. I agree that marriage is the correct option for a committed couple but cohabitation has been popular because it is cheaper than living alone, more convenient and you could always walk out if it went sour. This would change. People who don't yet feel committed could still stay over at each other's places whilst not actually cohabiting. People who don't want to commit will still have that option, it will just be more obvious (can only be a good thing!)

I think it would make people more aware of what they are doing and, perhaps, fewer people would waste their time with a partner whose actions are different to their words, who don't really feel any responsibility for the other person's welfare. Couples would still split up but there would hopefully be fewer children growing up in homes where the parents are not together. I am a single parent and believe that we can do a good job on our own but I still believe a happy two parent family is the best home environment for children.

agree with NAB3 unless there are kids in which case the kids should have the same rights as kids of a marriage. But partners, no. If you want protection, get married

I listened to someone on the radio today arguing in favour of this, saying that marriage was just a "piece of paper", and they shouldn't have to have said piece of paper to get the rights it grants. Yet if people want to co-habit without getting those rights by default, they would have to get a "piece of paper" to allow them to opt out. It seems topsy-turvy to me...

Message withdrawn

Agree with it seems everybody here, if you want the "protection" that marriage offers, then get married.

Skyatnight, in Australia, you're "de facto" if you live together unmarried. Interesting points you raised - I was listening to the radio yesterday about this and a few callers did say exactly what you said about it potentially increasing marriage rates.

mm22bys - I think changing the law would lead to an increase in marriages and a decrease in broken homes (people who had been cohabiting). It would effectively turn the clock back to a time when relationships were less disposable and when people were more careful and respectful. Women and children would benefit most from such a change in the law.

That's sort of a silly argument. I mean, a will is just a 'piece of paper', too, but die without one and your estate could be in serious trouble.

"The Law Commission suggests couples without children should have lived together for at least two years for them to be able to make a financial claim."

ridiculous - i think this is really a tax question...

it makes it easier for the government to keep track of any benefits.

this is why, a few people i know don't share a house with their partner, because otherwise the mother would get nought in benefits, and would have to rely to their partner.

which is sometimes not the best thing for the children.