The Cohabitation Bill Returns

[wurzel]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5882240.ece

I seem to remember this doing the rounds before & it was shelved because the govt didn't think it would go down that well with the electorate.



I've got mixed views on this and I know that some people at present get a raw deal but ultimately if you want the same rights as a married couple you should get married or enter a civil partnership. Of course, if there are children involved or if one partner has become dependent to a degree on the other then some provision should be made (and I think it presently is, certainly where children are involved). To be put in a situation though where you are potentially going to have to give up half of everything you own / earn to somebody you've been co habiting with for a couple of years seems completely iniquitous. Looks like another sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.

[Mich the Tester]

Looks like another sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.

There are a few nuts around here that I'd like to crack with a sledgehammer. Most of them have the word 'manager' in their job titles.

[dang65]

I've got mixed views on this and I know that some people at present get a raw deal but ultimately if you want the same rights as a married couple you should get married or enter a civil partnership.

Maybe there should be a simple legal equivalent of getting married which isn't called "marriage". I know that sounds bizarre, as marriage already is a legal partnership, but some people - quite a lot of people, it seems - don't want to be "married", but do want legal rights.

The two things should be separated, so you could have a religious ceremony - or any other kind of ceremony - if you wanted to, but you would deal with the legal documents completely separately and without ceremony of any kind, like at your solicitor's office or through the post if you wanted.

This would allow brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters, business partners - whatever - to chose one other person with whom they could share the equivalent rights of a married couple or civil partnership couple.

It's just an extension/re-organisation of the existing system. Don't see what the big deal is. Plenty of people currently get married for financial or immigration reasons, for example. Why not just remove that hypocrisy?

[NotAllThere]

Marriage certificate is just a piece of paper, so why bother?

[Smurficus]

you would deal with the legal documents completely separately and without ceremony of any kind, like at your solicitor's office or through the post if you wanted.


That is what a registry office is for, the ones I've been to treat it like a conveyor belt.

[Cyberman]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5882240.ece

I seem to remember this doing the rounds before & it was shelved because the govt didn't think it would go down that well with the electorate.



I've got mixed views on this and I know that some people at present get a raw deal but ultimately if you want the same rights as a married couple you should get married or enter a civil partnership. Of course, if there are children involved or if one partner has become dependent to a degree on the other then some provision should be made (and I think it presently is, certainly where children are involved). To be put in a situation though where you are potentially going to have to give up half of everything you own / earn to somebody you've been co habiting with for a couple of years seems completely iniquitous. Looks like another sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.

Cohabiting people hardly get a raw deal. If one works and the other looks after two kids they can be up to 10 grand a year better off than a married couple after working tax credit etc.

[wurzel]

Cohabiting people hardly get a raw deal. If one works and the other looks after two kids they can be up to 10 grand a year better off than a married couple after working tax credit etc.

I meant a raw deal in the event of a break up - e.g. if one party had become financially dependent on the other & suddenly found themselves out on the street with no money. Some sort of protection needs to be there for these circumstances but NOT getting 50% of everything just because you've been shacked up with somebody for 2 years.

[dang65]

you would deal with the legal documents completely separately and without ceremony of any kind, like at your solicitor's office or through the post if you wanted.

That is what a registry office is for, the ones I've been to treat it like a conveyor belt.

Yes, I realise that, but you still come out of the registry office "married", which a lot of people don't want. They associate it with being shackled to someone, to having to be sexually faithful to them, to being religious (even if it technically isn't). Also, marriage and civil ceremonies do not cover, say, an elderly brother and sister living together for many years (or two sisters in a recent court case about inheritance tax).

This kind of legal tie should be completely unrelated to marriage (forgive the pun ), though it could be done around the same time if people were getting married in a public ceremony like a white wedding or whatever.

[original PM]

Yes, I realise that, but you still come out of the registry office "married", which a lot of people don't want. They associate it with being shackled to someone, to having to be sexually faithful to them, to being religious (even if it technically isn't).

But isnt that what marriage is - a commitment to someone for the rest of your life.

the sex thing I think is only alluded to in Religous marriage ceremonies - they are plenty of happy married swingers

What we seem to be saying is that if you fancy being an item for a few years then it should be recognised in a legal manner in the case of a breakup so there is no arguing over money and no one is left on the street.

So okay lets look at this lets say I am a single succesful bloke and I pick up some bird who happens to have a rugrat - we get on well and cos I am a nice guy I let her move into my house along with said rugrat.

She does not bring anything in to the relationship in terms of monetary wealth and there fore she is living scott free under my roof.

If she then gets a bit flabby and lazy and lets her rug rat run riot and generally takes the piss and I kick her out suddenly she is going to get half of my wealth for a few blow jobs and for ironing my shirts - which I could do myself quite happily. (ironing my shirts that is).

Not convinced

[wurzel]

But isnt that what marriage is - a commitment to someone for the rest of your life.

the sex thing I think is only alluded to in Religous marriage ceremonies - they are plenty of happy married swingers

What we seem to be saying is that if you fancy being an item for a few years then it should be recognised in a legal manner in the case of a breakup so there is no arguing over money and no one is left on the street.

So okay lets look at this lets say I am a single succesful bloke and I pick up some bird who happens to have a rugrat - we get on well and cos I am a nice guy I let her move into my house along with said rugrat.

She does not bring anything in to the relationship in terms of monetary wealth and there fore she is living scott free under my roof.

If she then gets a bit flabby and lazy and lets her rug rat run riot and generally takes the piss and I kick her out suddenly she is going to get half of my wealth for a few blow jobs and for ironing my shirts - which I could do myself quite happily. (ironing my shirts that is).

Not convinced

I think what you are saying is that it encourages golddiggers