If co-habitees were given the same rights as married couples, wouldn’t this be tantamount to denying them freedom of choice? Presumably, one of the reasons why people cohabit rather than marry is because they do not want to make the legal commitments to each other which are inherent in marriage. Why should they be denied that choice? I suppose it might be possible to frame legislation in a way which allowed unmarried couples to opt in to the legal rights and obligations of married couples. But wouldn’t that just be marriage under another name?
# 8 February 2011 at 2:34 pm
June said:
I think this completely undermines the institution of marriage. What’s more, there are enough issues with divorce proceedings and the division of assets between married couples – trying to do the same with cohabitees would throw up even more problems? What would stop ‘gold diggers’ moving in with a wealthy person – with absolutely no ‘real’ commitment – and then reaping the benefits. Yes, we now live in a modern society and the Law needs to reflect this. It is also true that many people cohabit and are hit hard when the relationship breaks down – but people do have a choice whether or not to enter into cohabitation. Melanie Phillips told the BBC ‘Historically the law has led the progressive dismemberment of marriage by stripping it progressively of meaning … The law is based on justice; justice requires that you don’t get something for nothing. You don’t claim rights if you don’t enter into obligations.’ – I couldn’t agree more.
# 8 February 2011 at 3:27 pm
HLE Administrator said:
In reports today Iain Duncan Smith suggests that young couples are being actively discouraged from marrying and ministers should start championing families rather than celebrity culture. He says: ‘We do a disservice to society if we ignore the evidence which shows that stable families tend to be associated with better outcomes for children … There are few more powerful tools for promoting stability than the institution of marriage,’ he continues, ‘Fashionably dismissed or taken for granted, the commitment of two people to put selfish interest to one side for the sake of each other and the children they raise is simply the very best of us as human beings. Furthermore, marriage is perhaps the best antidote to the celebrity, self-obsessed culture we live in, for it is about understanding that our true value is lastingly expressed through the lives of others we commit to.’ http://bit.ly/fiDevu
# 8 February 2011 at 3:55 pm
JD14 said:
Although you should not discount the committment of most cohabitees, I don’t think they should be automatically given the same rights as married couples. It woudl continue to erode the meaning of marriage.
Perhaps those cohabitees who don’t beleive in marriage but have chosen to dedicate their lives with their partner, who build a home and have children should be offered the right to enter into similar rights and obligations as married couples after, say, 8-10 years? I don’t think that gold diggers would really want to waste 10 years of their life in order to get their hands on some money! But who knows…
# 10 February 2011 at 10:32 am
Devon Makepeace said:
Is marriage really the answer to all of society’s ills? A relationship between two people can be committed and long-lasting without adding unnecessary pressure to the partnership. If people want to get married, they should, but they also shouldn’t be made to if they don’t. Is it not naive, nay patronising, for Mr Duncan-Smith to that only through a making lasting commitment can we understand our true value??? Pur-lease….
As for the comments about marriage, celebrity and stability – what does this really have to do with anything? Do celebrities not get married? Do only single or co-habiting people have an interest in celebrity? Do celebrities never get divorced? It is time to realise that sometimes not getting married is not about “selfish self-interest” and instead it is a positive choice. Perhaps instead of demanding legal rights, when a dispute occurs the courts should encourage (order) them to go through privately funded mediation to resolve financial issues.
This is a classic case of the law lagging behind social mores. It is an area that has been ripe for reform for some considerable time; the sooner this is reflected in legislation the better.
If co-habitees were given the same rights as married couples, wouldn’t this be tantamount to denying them freedom of choice? Presumably, one of the reasons why people cohabit rather than marry is because they do not want to make the legal commitments to each other which are inherent in marriage. Why should they be denied that choice? I suppose it might be possible to frame legislation in a way which allowed unmarried couples to opt in to the legal rights and obligations of married couples. But wouldn’t that just be marriage under another name?
I think this completely undermines the institution of marriage. What’s more, there are enough issues with divorce proceedings and the division of assets between married couples – trying to do the same with cohabitees would throw up even more problems? What would stop ‘gold diggers’ moving in with a wealthy person – with absolutely no ‘real’ commitment – and then reaping the benefits. Yes, we now live in a modern society and the Law needs to reflect this. It is also true that many people cohabit and are hit hard when the relationship breaks down – but people do have a choice whether or not to enter into cohabitation. Melanie Phillips told the BBC ‘Historically the law has led the progressive dismemberment of marriage by stripping it progressively of meaning … The law is based on justice; justice requires that you don’t get something for nothing. You don’t claim rights if you don’t enter into obligations.’ – I couldn’t agree more.
In reports today Iain Duncan Smith suggests that young couples are being actively discouraged from marrying and ministers should start championing families rather than celebrity culture. He says: ‘We do a disservice to society if we ignore the evidence which shows that stable families tend to be associated with better outcomes for children … There are few more powerful tools for promoting stability than the institution of marriage,’ he continues, ‘Fashionably dismissed or taken for granted, the commitment of two people to put selfish interest to one side for the sake of each other and the children they raise is simply the very best of us as human beings. Furthermore, marriage is perhaps the best antidote to the celebrity, self-obsessed culture we live in, for it is about understanding that our true value is lastingly expressed through the lives of others we commit to.’ http://bit.ly/fiDevu
Although you should not discount the committment of most cohabitees, I don’t think they should be automatically given the same rights as married couples. It woudl continue to erode the meaning of marriage.
Perhaps those cohabitees who don’t beleive in marriage but have chosen to dedicate their lives with their partner, who build a home and have children should be offered the right to enter into similar rights and obligations as married couples after, say, 8-10 years? I don’t think that gold diggers would really want to waste 10 years of their life in order to get their hands on some money! But who knows…
Is marriage really the answer to all of society’s ills? A relationship between two people can be committed and long-lasting without adding unnecessary pressure to the partnership. If people want to get married, they should, but they also shouldn’t be made to if they don’t. Is it not naive, nay patronising, for Mr Duncan-Smith to that only through a making lasting commitment can we understand our true value??? Pur-lease….
As for the comments about marriage, celebrity and stability – what does this really have to do with anything? Do celebrities not get married? Do only single or co-habiting people have an interest in celebrity? Do celebrities never get divorced? It is time to realise that sometimes not getting married is not about “selfish self-interest” and instead it is a positive choice. Perhaps instead of demanding legal rights, when a dispute occurs the courts should encourage (order) them to go through privately funded mediation to resolve financial issues.
Inceidentally, an excellent article can be found here by Afua Hirsch on how to get a divorce: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/09/how-to-get-perfect-divorce
This is a classic case of the law lagging behind social mores. It is an area that has been ripe for reform for some considerable time; the sooner this is reflected in legislation the better.