Should long-term unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples?

[EverymanJustice]

I was reading that the government is looking at giving more legal rights to unmarried couples who live together for years or have children together.
Do you think that's a good idea?
If a couple have lived together for 10 or 20 years and built a life together, should they have similar rights to a married couple if they separate?
Or should marriage remain different?

absolutely not. It removes agency and the right to actually choose from people (imo).

Some people decide to get married.

Some people decide to not get married.

Both groups probably (hopefully!) have good reasons…

and if they don’t? Well, we all have to take responsibility for our actions at some point… some people will regret getting married, some people will regret not getting married 🤷‍♀️

I do not think that this is designed for flatmates. But people in a loving relationship together.

How would it be proved you were in the relationship and not just flat share/house mates?

could one person apply and not tell the other?

What would happen if i never divorced my dh but we lived seperately and I bought my own house. Then my new parter moves in and lives with me for 10 years+ but doesnt own the house with me...would the existing marriage override the new cohabitation? Just a musing...

Ultimately I dont agree unmarried couples should get the same rights as marriage. People make their choices in line with the laws available

No!

That's what civil partnerships are for - it shouldn't happen "by default".

Obviously, if there are children there should be financial provision, but that's already covered.

I’m sure it isn’t intended for flatmates but could unintentionally be used by unscrupulous individuals if not very carefully drafted. Exactly HOW do you prove you are not in a relationship with a flatmate if they insist you are?

There are still far too many people who believe that there is such a thing as a common law marriage and that cohabiting with their partner for long enough will give them the same rights as being married or in a civil partnership. MPs and lawyers will have experience of women (and it is mainly women) who have been left with nothing due to acting on this belief. However, I don't think that giving all unmarried couples the same rights as married couples is the way to fix this. If you want to get married or enter a civil partnership, fine. If you want to protect your assets in marriage/civil partnership with a pre-nup or post-nup, and set up property ownership and your will to ensure that your children inherit, fine. But if you really don't want to get married or enter a civil partnership, that's fine too regardless of your reasons, and it is not the state's job to interfere in that decision, however ill-advised it may be.

No. Getting married is a choice and this takes away the freedom of choice.

No
Perhaps your partner has children from a different marriage and you don’t want them to have a claim
perhaps you like having completely separate finances

The common law marriage point is interesting. I wonder if better public information would fix a lot of this, or whether some people would still be left in a really unfair position even if they technically knew the law

It was one piece of paper that covered all the bases for a total of less than £150 (£40 odd each to give notice and about £50 for the "ceremony") I don't think we would have got a solicitor to arrange power of attorney and a will for anything like £150. It seemed the easiest and cheapest option. I do kind of wish we had gone for a civil partnership but it doesnt really make any difference as far as I can tell.

I don't think forcing those rights on people is right either obviously. I just think there should be a more simple, less archaic system for people who want it. I mostly object to marriage on feminist grounds.

No. If people had wanted to get married they would have done so.

But they have these rights. Marriage is a handy shortcut, but anyone can make a will, appoint next of kin, give legal power of attorney.

At the moment, all those things are possible but require affirmative action.

No way! It’s infantilising women.

I have responded to the consultation. I just think this is a really odd thing to do. If you are divorced with children, for example, and you start another relationship, then you would really need to raise the ‘opting out’ thing as soon as you lived together. Otherwise you drift into giving a co-habitee rights to your money. Yes, perhaps one group of people (women who have children but do not marry) stand to gain, but plenty of others stand to lose. I think the proposal to give co-habitees rights on death is particularly worrying.

A civil partnership (in the UK) is essentially the same as marriage (in the UK). Just with a different label and less international recognition.
So why is one more or less archaic than the other?

I personally champion marriage because I am a feminist 🤷‍♀️

Affirmative action is the problem here isn't it. People often want these rights, but not enough to bother to do anything about it. In my opinion that is their own fault!
But an alternate possibility would be an opt out system, where if you either have children together or live together romantically for at least X years (evidenced by witnesses and messages etc) then assets are deemed joint in some way unless you opt out.
I can't see how this is different to the opt out system we have for organ donation (in Scotland anyway).
I don't personally agree with mothering people to that extent, but it possibly fits better with the mothering ethos of our society in general. People blame someone else if they fall in a pit, rather than look where they're going!

No.

i would however make drastic changes to maintenance to reflect the actual costs of raising a child.

They can, but many don’t get to do it. The Government is doing this exercise I think because they recognise that so many people end up in a mess financially because whilst they may intend to do a, b or c, for some a separation, illness or death comes first, and unexpectedly.
And they end up having to leave their home in order to sell it, not able to inherit from accounts etc.
Given many are together longer than some married couples are I think this has been something long overdue.

Presumably your cohabited would be of sufficient length together that you are happy that they are. This is a consultation so length of time will matter. And once or if you are no longer cohabiting then nobody would have any rights whatsoever.
In terms of rights to money, each person in the long term and existing cohabiting relationship will secure rights to money. Whoever died first would inherit from the other. A woman would inherit from the man as much as a man would inherit from the woman. Bearing in mind women live longer than men generally speaking the former is more likely.

No, I agree with the pp. Contracts must be entered willingly and actively. The state cannot, or at least it should not, allow people to mindlessly slip into one through nothing more substantial than maintaining a status quo.

This government wants to control every aspect of people's lives. Adults can make their own decision whether to marry or not FFS.

No I dont agree at all. Im middle aged and divorced and I wouldn't marry again just so as to protect my assets for my children. And I.won't be the only divorced woman who has done this on purpose to avoid any claim to.my assets. It's ridiculous, the cocklodgers and hobosexuals will be rubbing their grimy hands together now. Its a huge infringement from the government and it should not be allowed

Yes, shall we get children's support and deadbeat absent fathers sorted out first, before we start taking the roof from over their and their mothers' heads to give to another bloke because he's hung around for a few years?

Women aren't stupid. They know how to organise a register office certificate if needed.

Exactly. Civil partnerships are an easy option without whatever it is that people object to about marriage. Why should people be forced into inheritance positions they didn’t want ? Or next of kin commitments they didn’t want?