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?

The best way is to hold your house as tenants in common and to leave each of your halves of the property to your children, with each other able to live in the property until death. Much as you don’t believe that either of you would remarry and accidentally disinherit your kids, you can’t know that for certain.

I really object to the underlying of idea of Lammy's that woman need saving from themselves by having their property taken away and given to men. Possibly given to men who have already walked away and set up home with someone else.

What if they were abusers and the woman was advised by social services to kick them out? And will women have to endure yet another 'rape clause' as per the two-child benefit, and prove unprovable things?

This is taking us back a hundred years, Lammy, you idiot. Or are women who have worked their backsides off for years going to be accused again by you of being 'rights hoarding dinosaurs'?

I will never vote Labour again while this government with this Cabinet doing these things to women is in charge.

But my house is owned by me. It's all I have in my name. I thought I might be able to keep it that way, irrespective of my private life, by choosing y'know NOT to get married (again).

My ExH got the pension, the one that I helped him build up by taking a career hit for the children that he barely bothers with.

Yes, this^^

I am married but if I had chosen not to be, I would not wish for the government to decide that my cohabiting partner and I wanted to combine our assets. If people want to do that, they have the option to get married or to get a civil partnership.

Nope, I will not remarry and risk my children's inheritance so wouldn't want that choice to be taken away (unless I met a billionaire)

Obviously your point about longevity is correct, but another relevant data point here would be the proportion of widowed men who enter new relationships vs widowed women. Research shows (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8807029/)
that many more men do so than women (the study says 61% of men involved in a new relationship within 25 months of the death of a spouse vs 19% of women).

So the losers here are the children of relationships where the woman dies first.

All this law does is shift who gets money. So if someone gains, someone else loses. I just think it is much clearer as it is. Marriage = rights to money, unmarried = not.

There is virtually no barrier to getting married. My husband and I managed it on a series of two lunch breaks from work.

For the actual “wedding”
we were in a bit of a rush and picked up fast food on the way back. No fancy clothing. No celebration. Just some
paperwork. Efficient. Like applying for a building permit.

we also had a ceremony and party with family and friends. That really had nothing to do with the government. that is the anniversary we celebrate, but it isn’t the one that actually matters legally.

If they want the benefits/security of marriage then get married. Or they could have a civil partnership. What is difficult about either of those?

They make the choice not to marry so that's on them. I can't decide not to get car insurance and then when I have an accident bleat that I want the same protection as those that do have insurance

Your example about where children exist and a new person comes along in someone’s life will be no different for a couple who do decide to marry. Unless a Will is in place setting out financial wishes for any children then the new husband or wife inherits. There is no difference because they are married.

I think it would create more problems than it solves. People often ignore that marriage means losing some rights as well as acquiring them.

Or a lodger who is living in the huge home of an old lady.. he or she could claim they are lovers

I suspect you would have to be both agreeing that you are both in a relationship and have been for the required years. And with full capacity to say so.
In the same way people have to state they are marrying without undue influence.
This is a consultation. Such issues will be raised and they will have to be discussed and looked at.
The final thing certainly won’t allow a lodger to claim a relationship that doesn’t exist.

No. People should have the right to not be married. Even wanker exploitative boyfriends who bloody well ought to marry the mother of their children and take some responsibility shouldn't be forced into it against their will. Girls should receive more emphatic education about what is likely to happen if they believe their wanker boyfriend's guff about it being just a piece of paper. Case studies about what life is actually like when you have several children with absent fathers and no assets. Not in a sexist way but understanding that the rights they have were hard fought for by their foremothers. Not to railroad them into marriage with deadbeat men but to get them to think twice before surrendering their financial long term stability by becoming a SAHM without the protection of marriage.

No I vehemently don't agree OP. As I posted on another thread about this, just educate people as I do not want my partner having rights over the house I paid off shortly after he moved in out of my wages alone and which I continue to maintain financially without his input. This is the main reason I do not get married so don't take my choices away because others don't do their research.

If this is the case, it removes one of the main arguments in favour of the reform in the first place, because anyone who's exploiting their partner's ignorance can refuse to sign and try to manipulate them. Don't want the state involved in our love, that kind of thing.

If you're wrong about that, and there's some kind of contesting process available (which is what I think would happen sooner or later) that clearly opens the door to people lying to try and take advantage. And means there could be no such certainty.

Have you read the consultation? They suggest no agreement required for the default ‘3 years gives you rights’. Agreement is required for the opt out. After ‘full disclosure’ - presumably of one another’s financial circumstances!

No.
Marriage is a contract.
There is possibly an argument to that if you have child together (.ie both parents are on the birth certificate) you are in that contract.
Which means that subsequent relationships aren’t contracts unless you divorce the first person.

On the whole, I say no. With a caveat to those couples who are perhaps engaged and share children but one of the adults dies suddenly, before they are able to get married.

We shall see how it all pans out.
I dare say there are a quite a variety of ways of proving that you have been in a long term relationship with someone. And a bit more than a lodger.
From all sorts of paperwork, photos, medical records.

It doesn’t affect me by the way. But I think it would be a good thing. And long overdue. The ‘what about this scenario’ etc should not be reason not to do something. In developing law you will always have those. You have to resolve them.

Which is the whole point of a consultation. To get feedback. And to then make changes.

No.
If people want the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage or civil partnership, they have those options.
Maybe they dont want the rights and responsibilities and so they dont enter into the contract.

Now its what? Cohabitation serves as consent for contractual obligations?

I thought the civil partnership was for people who wanted legal protection if they didn't want to marry.

This strikes me as nannying. If people aren't capable of managing using either of the existing options the state shouldn't babysit them. It's really irritating how feckless people can be.

There are, which is one reason why I don't think your suspicion that both parties would have to agree they'd been in the relationship for the set period of time is realistic. Much more likely is that people who for whatever reason didn't both sign will acquire the right to make claims in some way.

It doesn't affect me either. But the 'what about this scenario' actually very much can be a superb reason not to change a law. We shouldn't be doing it unless we can reasonably presume it's going to have an overall benefit, which isn't a case that has currently been made. Problems don't have to be resolved when you can avoid creating them in the first place.

No way. Protecting my assets for my children is one of the main reason I’ve never married.

I would absolutely hate it if that option wasn’t available to me DC

Absolute bloody nightmare. Imagine thinking you'd agreed to an opt-out and then the other party unilaterally withdrawing their consent to it.

This will turn relationship break-ups into divorces.

This also inteferes with my human right to a private life. It is state interference.