Full Version: Extending the "protections" of divorce to cohabitators
Cohabiting partners who split up are to get similar rights to divorcing couples under plans to be outlined next month, The Times has learnt.
Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.
Questions for debate:
1) Does this seem like a good idea? Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.
Questions for debate:
1) Does this seem like a good idea? Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 12 2007, 06:44 PM) 
Cohabiting partners who split up are to get similar rights to divorcing couples under plans to be outlined next month, The Times has learnt.
Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.
Questions for debate:
1) Does this seem like a good idea? Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.
Questions for debate:
1) Does this seem like a good idea? Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
I think this is a terrible idea, but I suspect that it is for a different reason than you do. It's not that it renders marriage meaningless, it's that it renders cohabitation meaningless. If two people choose to live together without endangering their assets and without the potential for an expensive divorce battle, this idiocy basically takes that right away from them. The government forces the people into a contract they never signed.
If anything, the bible thumpers among us should be extatic about a law like this. It is government mandated marriage in all but name.
1) Does this seem like a good idea? Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
No, it is a terrible idea. Onerous divorce laws are the primary reason people are avoiding marriage to begin with. This was just create incentives to not even cohabitate. Why not just declare all relationships illegal and be done with it?
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
They don't help. It is already far too easy to get divorced...now you don't even have to be married to have it happen!
These rights are explicitly laid out in the marriage vows (but never applied). "for better and for worse, in sickness, and in health, until death do us part" If cohabitating couples indeed want these rights applied to them, then by all means. I would suspect that they'd rather make sure, via a wedding ceremony, that indeed they signed up for that. The problem is not applying divorce rights to cohabitating couples, it is applying marriage vows to those legally wed.
No, it is a terrible idea. Onerous divorce laws are the primary reason people are avoiding marriage to begin with. This was just create incentives to not even cohabitate. Why not just declare all relationships illegal and be done with it?
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
They don't help. It is already far too easy to get divorced...now you don't even have to be married to have it happen!
QUOTE
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 12 2007, 06:44 PM)
Cohabiting partners who split up are to get similar rights to divorcing couples...
Cohabiting partners who split up are to get similar rights to divorcing couples...
These rights are explicitly laid out in the marriage vows (but never applied). "for better and for worse, in sickness, and in health, until death do us part" If cohabitating couples indeed want these rights applied to them, then by all means. I would suspect that they'd rather make sure, via a wedding ceremony, that indeed they signed up for that. The problem is not applying divorce rights to cohabitating couples, it is applying marriage vows to those legally wed.
One thing we should notice here is that this case has come about because British law (contrary to the beliefs of many of its citizens) does not recognize "common law" marriage in any way.
Link
Thus, when unmarried couples break up, and there are financial disputes, the British courts have very limited options. The result is a large number of unpleasant, expensive court cases. The simple solution, of course, is for people who enter into unmarried relationships and who own property together to clearly spell out, in legal documents, exactly how the property rights are to be split up between the two. People being what they are, however, not everybody will do this. Thus, when couples break up, and they have legal disputes, the court is forced to make some kind of decision. This case seems to say that, under most circumstances, property owned together by an unmarried couple is to be split up 50:50. This seems a reasonable decision.
Please note that the court is not saying "You are married." It is simply saying "We will decide the property dispute in this manner." The effect on marriage itself would seem to be minimal, if any.
1) Does this seem like a good idea?
As said above, it seems like a reasonable solution to legal disputes of this kind.
Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
Well, many places in the USA already have "common law" marriage, which goes much further than this particular decision.
Link
So, American law, in many states, is already much stronger than this new British decision. (Note also the fact that even states which do not have "common law" marriage legally recognize such marriages which have been contracted in other states.)
So, I would say that this kind of legal decision is quite a bit weaker than what already exists in American law. The American law says "You ARE married." The British decision doesn't say this.
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
Not at all, as far as I can see. If anything, it grants some legal rights to unmarried couples. It takes nothing at all away from married couples.
It may even strengthen marriage, as this editorial suggests.
Link
This British decision, and the many legal decisions that no doubt will follow it, is saying "We will not force you to marry; but we will force you to accept certain legal obligations when you share property with your significant other, and, much more importantly, when you have children together."
Link
QUOTE
The term "common law marriage" is frequently used in England and Wales, however such a "marriage" is not recognised in law, and it does not confer any rights or obligations on the parties. . . .Genuine (that is, legal) common-law marriage was for practical purposes abolished under the Marriage Act, 1753. . . ."Common law marriage" survives in England and Wales only in a few highly exceptional circumstances, where people who want to marry but are unable to do so any other way can simply declare that they are taking each other as husband and wife in front of witnesses.
Thus, when unmarried couples break up, and there are financial disputes, the British courts have very limited options. The result is a large number of unpleasant, expensive court cases. The simple solution, of course, is for people who enter into unmarried relationships and who own property together to clearly spell out, in legal documents, exactly how the property rights are to be split up between the two. People being what they are, however, not everybody will do this. Thus, when couples break up, and they have legal disputes, the court is forced to make some kind of decision. This case seems to say that, under most circumstances, property owned together by an unmarried couple is to be split up 50:50. This seems a reasonable decision.
Please note that the court is not saying "You are married." It is simply saying "We will decide the property dispute in this manner." The effect on marriage itself would seem to be minimal, if any.
1) Does this seem like a good idea?
As said above, it seems like a reasonable solution to legal disputes of this kind.
Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
Well, many places in the USA already have "common law" marriage, which goes much further than this particular decision.
Link
QUOTE
Common-law marriage can still be contracted in the following jurisdictions: Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (posthumously), Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Note there is no such thing as "common-law divorce" (with the partial exception of Texas) — that is, you can't get out of a common-law marriage as easily as you can get into one. Only the contract of the marriage is irregular; everything else about the marriage is perfectly regular. People who marry per the old common law tradition must petition the appropriate court in their state for a dissolution of marriage.
So, American law, in many states, is already much stronger than this new British decision. (Note also the fact that even states which do not have "common law" marriage legally recognize such marriages which have been contracted in other states.)
So, I would say that this kind of legal decision is quite a bit weaker than what already exists in American law. The American law says "You ARE married." The British decision doesn't say this.
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
Not at all, as far as I can see. If anything, it grants some legal rights to unmarried couples. It takes nothing at all away from married couples.
It may even strengthen marriage, as this editorial suggests.
Link
QUOTE
. . . when cohabiting couples split up there are few enforceable rights for either party.
Pressure to change the law has been growing, especially since the passage of the Civil Partnerships Act which offers legal rights to homosexual couples. This measure rightly acknowledged that gay couples were entitled to underpin their relationship with the same rights of inheritance, tax benefits and next-of-kin recognition as married couples. When the law was passed, however, such rights were denied to cohabiting heterosexuals on the grounds that they could, at any time, get married. That answer may have been logical, but it failed to still a sense of unfairness. Many couples think that the term “common law spouse” gives them rights. It does not.
. . .
. . . sensibly applied . . . the new law may strengthen, not weaken, marriage. Those hoping to shirk responsibility by not formalising a relationship will find themselves just as liable when that relationship ends. So why not marry? What the new law should do is to make them think harder about marriage before having children. More importantly, it should protect those children who are born to the unmarried. They are always the victims of separation.
Pressure to change the law has been growing, especially since the passage of the Civil Partnerships Act which offers legal rights to homosexual couples. This measure rightly acknowledged that gay couples were entitled to underpin their relationship with the same rights of inheritance, tax benefits and next-of-kin recognition as married couples. When the law was passed, however, such rights were denied to cohabiting heterosexuals on the grounds that they could, at any time, get married. That answer may have been logical, but it failed to still a sense of unfairness. Many couples think that the term “common law spouse” gives them rights. It does not.
. . .
. . . sensibly applied . . . the new law may strengthen, not weaken, marriage. Those hoping to shirk responsibility by not formalising a relationship will find themselves just as liable when that relationship ends. So why not marry? What the new law should do is to make them think harder about marriage before having children. More importantly, it should protect those children who are born to the unmarried. They are always the victims of separation.
This British decision, and the many legal decisions that no doubt will follow it, is saying "We will not force you to marry; but we will force you to accept certain legal obligations when you share property with your significant other, and, much more importantly, when you have children together."
1) Does this seem like a good idea? Would you like to see it implemented in your country?
I think it is a good idea, in a way. I'll explain why. I've never understood the 60s-inspired, free-love idea that people shouldn't bother to get married because "it's only a piece of paper".
If it's only a piece of paper, then surely it matters just as little if you have it as if you don't?
Presumably, the logic is that "it's only a piece of paper, but one that weighs you down with a costly ceremony, and onerous penalties and obligations should the relationship break down, for no benefit?"
Well, a wedding need only cost whatevever the civil authorities charge for the certification - there is no law requiring the bride to look like a meringue and the groom to look like a penguin, with an expensive lunch laid on at a hired venue. That's just tradition, not law. So the ceremony need not be costly.
And, even with this proposed law, married couples still get a bigger tax allowance that two single people cohabiting, even if there are children. So there is still a benefit, even if it has been marginalised, relatively speaking.
Which only leaves the "penalties and obligations should the relationship break down" part. Without this new law, this is effectively code for "I don't trust enough to give you any claim over my possessions". Not my cup of tea, but if people go into a relationship with their eyes open (sometimes a big 'if', eh, Britney?) it's their look-out.
When kids are involved, however, I don't think caveat emptor is a good enough principle, so I can see that a law like this will maybe deter the sort of vaguely feckless people who can't go into any situation without knowing there's a back door and who are the most prone to chant "it's only a piece of paper" (they're mostly, but not exclusively, men) from getting into any long term relationships, or producing any progeny, at all. And I'm not sure we wouldn't all be better off if that were the case.
Since I live in the UK, my views on it's implementation are moot, so I can't really answer the second question!
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
Not remotely, for the reasons I've outlined. In fact, it undermines the perceived "advantages" of not getting married, and so evens the playing field in marriage's favour
I think it is a good idea, in a way. I'll explain why. I've never understood the 60s-inspired, free-love idea that people shouldn't bother to get married because "it's only a piece of paper".
If it's only a piece of paper, then surely it matters just as little if you have it as if you don't?
Presumably, the logic is that "it's only a piece of paper, but one that weighs you down with a costly ceremony, and onerous penalties and obligations should the relationship break down, for no benefit?"
Well, a wedding need only cost whatevever the civil authorities charge for the certification - there is no law requiring the bride to look like a meringue and the groom to look like a penguin, with an expensive lunch laid on at a hired venue. That's just tradition, not law. So the ceremony need not be costly.
And, even with this proposed law, married couples still get a bigger tax allowance that two single people cohabiting, even if there are children. So there is still a benefit, even if it has been marginalised, relatively speaking.
Which only leaves the "penalties and obligations should the relationship break down" part. Without this new law, this is effectively code for "I don't trust enough to give you any claim over my possessions". Not my cup of tea, but if people go into a relationship with their eyes open (sometimes a big 'if', eh, Britney?) it's their look-out.
When kids are involved, however, I don't think caveat emptor is a good enough principle, so I can see that a law like this will maybe deter the sort of vaguely feckless people who can't go into any situation without knowing there's a back door and who are the most prone to chant "it's only a piece of paper" (they're mostly, but not exclusively, men) from getting into any long term relationships, or producing any progeny, at all. And I'm not sure we wouldn't all be better off if that were the case.
Since I live in the UK, my views on it's implementation are moot, so I can't really answer the second question!
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
Not remotely, for the reasons I've outlined. In fact, it undermines the perceived "advantages" of not getting married, and so evens the playing field in marriage's favour
The country is too diverse to implement one model for cohabitation rights, and even within a state I sometimes think there is sufficient difference to derail a single set of rules. Given the sweeping changes in basic American culture when it comes to wage earning over the last 30 years, for example, there are now more 2 income couples (unwed as well as wed I think) than single income couples, and these 2 income couples are essentially egalitarian both in household and workplace roles. In those cases, cohabitation "divorce" rights should be very unobtrusive, rendering to each individual only those things that individual brought into and accumulated during the cohabitation. Typically these would be mostly urban couples who used their combined incomes to bid up housing prices in the area they live. Split joint ownerships by proportion of contribution. Very simple, just like a business in common.
To insure same-sex couples don't get upset about lax partnership rights, you would then have to legalize same sex marriage. Good luck
(Having different flavors of partnership rules then allows people to pick and choose their legal involvement with one another in a more fine-grained manner, and it allows them several default choices, mostly with little planning or fuss.)
To insure same-sex couples don't get upset about lax partnership rights, you would then have to legalize same sex marriage. Good luck
(Having different flavors of partnership rules then allows people to pick and choose their legal involvement with one another in a more fine-grained manner, and it allows them several default choices, mostly with little planning or fuss.)
QUOTE
2) Do laws like this render marriage legally meaningless?
What has been left out of this topic is the fact that the number of cohabitating couples in Great Britain has increased dramatically. These provisions are in response to an obvious need by a significant number of people. It will settle issues such as whether or not property can pass on to the other person, whether or not agreements can be made regarding the raising of children upon death or some other circumstance, as well as how property can be distributed lawfully upon a party making a claim. As things stand now, these are areas that have some abiguity, which is not a good thing.
These laws are wanted not to change society in some radical way, but rather, due to the legal predicaments and increase in the number of people who cohabitate. it has arisen out of the need to address those issues, not due to social experimentation, which the question implies. I've been married for what will be going on eight years in december. I would be for this kind of provision as I would not want children in a cohabitation home to become wards of the state, as opposed to staying with a long term cohabitating partner. I am also for property rights and notions of rightful compensation when it is due to people.
Ugh- even more big brother deciding who does what for how many cookies- lord gawd- is there any place goverment CAN leave thier freakin' noses out of it, and allow adults to take the lumps that are dealt them? 
Poeple that "shack up" specifically have determined NOT to be married in this day and age- they, as Julian pointed out- DON'T want the piece of paper, or the responsibility of marriage- should not be forced into it by goverment.
It's a horrible idea, one that needs to be terminated with predjudice.
Poeple that "shack up" specifically have determined NOT to be married in this day and age- they, as Julian pointed out- DON'T want the piece of paper, or the responsibility of marriage- should not be forced into it by goverment.
It's a horrible idea, one that needs to be terminated with predjudice.
QUOTE
Ugh- even more big brother deciding who does what for how many cookies- lord gawd- is there any place goverment CAN leave thier freakin' noses out of it, and allow adults to take the lumps that are dealt them?
Not exactly, government is only intervening in response to the vague nature of this problem that occurs when people file suit against one another after cohabitating or wanting property when their fellow cohabitator dies. Are legislators not to attempt to help those who want some legal remedy regarding property and due process when it comes to dividing up goods?
QUOTE
Poeple that "shack up" specifically have determined NOT to be married in this day and age- they, as Julian pointed out- DON'T want the piece of paper, or the responsibility of marriage- should not be forced into it by goverment.
People don't cease to own their individaul or group purchased property upon not being married, yet living in the same home. If you are cohabitating and you make payments on a car with someone and they die, why shouldn't you get it? Or at least, be able to make the claim that you should get it over your "partner's" family who may fight you for it.
Get on the same way homosexuals have to do it now- simply make sure your legal entanglements are un-entanglable. 
You buy a house- both your names are on it. You make a will. You make power of attorney if need be.
But it really comes up, I believe, when co-habiting couples "divorce" or move out on one another.
Once again- didn't take the precautions, too damn bad for them- that is the nature of the arrangement.
You buy a house- both your names are on it. You make a will. You make power of attorney if need be.
But it really comes up, I believe, when co-habiting couples "divorce" or move out on one another.
Once again- didn't take the precautions, too damn bad for them- that is the nature of the arrangement.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.