If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Cohabitee rights
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5032196.stm
There are proposals to increase the rights of cohabitees with regards to inheritance and claiming benefits etc.
Do you agree with such a move.
Personally it seems completely pointless. The point of getting married is to enshrine the relationship in law, so surely if you don't want to get married then you don't care abiout this other stuff, you don't want your relationship recognised in the law?
There are proposals to increase the rights of cohabitees with regards to inheritance and claiming benefits etc.
Do you agree with such a move.
Personally it seems completely pointless. The point of getting married is to enshrine the relationship in law, so surely if you don't want to get married then you don't care abiout this other stuff, you don't want your relationship recognised in the law?
0
Comments
I'm not so sure about this measure. Couples can equally be loving and equal and commited to each other without having to marry. I don't know.
It is an absolute disgrace that couples who have been devoted to each other and living together for many years have no rights whatsoever if one of them dies.
Well I don't really know what you mean, if you want to get legal recognition for your relationship then get married, that is the whole point of marriage surely?
getting some kind of contract that says you have legal rights etc is no different to getting married is it, so waht is the point of all this?
marriage has a lot of religious roots, perhaps thats why
perhaps they could go through a civil partnership, im sure in the law it doesnt specifically state same-sex given the wonders of lazy law writers :thumb:
It would change something in that you would get those legal rights which you want. What is the point of introducing another legal process when a perfectly acceptable one exists already.....
Now if you dont want to get married, you should be able to sign a legally binding contract saying you are in a perminant relations that grants the same things as marriage with out having to get married.
I personally can't see any problem with giving people who don't want to get married certain legal rights. I know people who live together who've been together longer and have stronger relationships than people who are married (and vice versa to be fair).
If Aladdin doesn't feel marriage is for him, but he wants to make sure his partner is protected if he has an accident etc I'm all for him. The committment's there, the only difference is that my wife spent a fortune on a dress (I hope) she's only going to wear once. The rest of the relationship is little different whether you're married or not.
Buy that man a beer!
technically you could both draw up a contract :thumb:
All should have the right to enter a secular state-operated building and, in exchange for an hour of their time and a small fee, be allowed to leave that building with various legal rights to do with property and inheritance.
Luckily they already do.
You don't have to become "Mr and Mrs" these days, if that is the objection.
Even without any form of marriage, presumably there would still need to be some legal declaration of the partnership so what's the problem?
Personally I'm more than happy to be married, but others, for whatever reason, don't. As them not getting married doesn't harm me in the slightest I can't see the harm in having legal arrangements which allow you to make sure that in case of something happening to you a long term partner has rights to your house and is considered your next of kin.
There should be little paperwork to be involved regarding rights for cohabitating couples. In many cases there should be none. My partner and I have a mortgage together, joint bank account, are registered as living together with our council and other institutions and bodies... there is no doubt whatsoever that we are cohabitating.
That should be all is needed in many cases. In others, a simple signed declaration sent by post should do.
ps Single people don't have the right to share their wealth with whomsoever they choose for tax purposes. What's the difference there?
pps Do you agree that cohabitees be required to live together for 2 years before these rights apply?
At the moment however a great many people argue that we should get married to enjoy such rights.
Probably not- it is far too long. There has to be some kind of theresold perhaps. Four months sounds perfectly adequate to me.
And do answer the question of why you aren't suggesting that single people be allowed to allocate money to another person of their choosing - a sibling or a child perhaps. Why is it too long?
Should the same apply to a marriage? If not why not?
Or are you trying to say the institution of marriage has about the same significance as opening a bank account?
They should as well naturally. And they can already. But this legislation covers a lot more than that, as you know.
Because you don't need to be in a relationship and living together with someone for 2 years to prove the worthiness of the relationship.
Marriages are a completely different affair naturally, seeing as they are a sort of contract valid from the second it is signed and where no previous cohabitation is required.
Why do cohabiting couples deserve the rights of a marriage?
I think devotion and committment should be judged on every day actions not on a single piece of paper signed decades ago, don't you agree?
There are many different reasons for why couple cohabit. There are some that do it because they are effectively married but don't believe in marriage (for whatever reason), there are those who do it mainly for financial (e.g. housing) reasons, there are those who just want to try out the relationship in that setting, and there are those who move in together but remain financially independent. Because there is so much variation in the nature of cohabiting relationships, I remain unconvinced that legislation should be applied to all such arrangements.
That's why I think there should be a formal arrangement agreed by both parties. You may as well call it marriage as anything else.
I don't have a problem with marriage so long as nobody tries to impose it on me or discriminates against me because I refuse to join the club.
It does however help a group of people who for whatever reason aren't married. It may be because they don't believe in marriage as institution, think its outmoded or based on an outdated patriachial model. personally I'd think they're wrong, but how people live their lives is frankly none of my business.
Given it hurts no-one and helps others could someone explain where the controversy is.