Home Politics & Debate
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.

Cohabitee rights

1356711

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know the risks attached to that decision, so why are you griping about it?
    Because the current situation is wrong, unjust and discriminatory, and it must be changed.

    Why does it matter to so many married people anyway? Jeaolousy? Fears that a change might "undermind the institution of marriage"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Why does it matter to so many married people anyway? Jeaolousy? Fears that a change might "undermind the institution of marriage"?

    Well marriage quite obviously is undermined if you allow other people to have the same rights as a married couple but call it something else. If there is some kind of dual route to getting the recognition marriage brings the status of marriage itself is devalued.

    I support same sex partnerships and I do not believe they undermine marriage in any way, since the definition of marriage excludes same sex couples – and without same sex partnerships same sex couples could not receive the rights a heterosexual couple can achieve through marriage, same sex partnerships end the previous inequality. But there's no need to extend that to heterosexual couples unless you want to remove the status of marriage altogether.

    Marriage can be in a civil context as well as through the church, synagogue, mosque, etc. A secularist rejecting marriage and demanding something else with the same name because of the religious connotations of marriage is pretty much equivalent to some idiot demanding the renaming of Christmas because of the religious background of Christmas. (The annual spectacle of dozy left wing councillors trying to rebrand Christmas as Winterfest, ban Christmas trees and secularise Nativity plays and the subsequent tabloid outrage is mildly entertaining however).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    The thing I still don't get is why you are trying to force your idea of the good way to live onto people like me and Aladdin who don't want to get married.

    I'm not. I'm not holding a gun to your head saying that you have to get married.

    All marriage is is the signing of a legal document conveying certain inheritance tax rights and next of kin rights to your spouse. If you make it more then that's your choice- I did- but when it boils down to it the legal status of my marriage is nothing more than a slip of green paper saying that GWST is my spouse and I want her to have rights on my property.

    What do co-habitees want? The right to sign a bit of green paper saying that their spouse has next of kin rights, and has right to their property should they split? They already have that opportunity.

    There should be no default assumption of rights in this matter. If I do not want my girlfriend to be my next of kin I should not have to opt out of her being so. If I do not want my girlfriend to have rights on my house I should not be forced to give her them. If I don't want her to have my pension why should I have to go out of my way to make sure she doesn't get it?

    If you want to keep your spouse protected you either sign a document giving her those legal rights, or you don't. You either draw up a will or sign a bit of green paper to give her those rights.

    I'm not preventing anyone from doing that.

    Oh, and by the way, to get married you don't need to change your name or wear a ring. Changing your name is an option should you wish to do so, but you can carry on with your maiden name if you want. You don't even need to tell anyone you're married if you don't want to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Because the current situation is wrong, unjust and discriminatory, and it must be changed.

    How is it "unjust and discriminatory", when it is your choice?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    The thing I still don't get is why you are trying to force your idea of the good way to live onto people like me and Aladdin who don't want to get married.

    I'm not. You can get married or not, it really depends on your personal choice.

    When making that choice, like with any choice, you have to weigh up the pros and cons. The pro is, well I'm not sure what benefit there is in not getting married to your partner, the con is that you don't have automatic next of kin rights. It's you choice, feel free to make it.
    What's it to you if I am granted the same legal protections as you are in marriage, but I get to do it without changing my name or having the ring on my finger?

    1. You want the same rights, the declare a legal connection. It's what confirms those rights on your partner.

    2. Who said you must wear a ring and change your name?

    Just out of interest, what is so wrong with marriage anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is it "unjust and discriminatory", when it is your choice?
    Because I shouldn't have to make that choice.

    My partner and I and countless others should have the same rights the rest enjoys, and we should not have to get married to do so.

    Simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what you're saying is that everyone should automatically be able to tell that you and your partner want to spend your lives together without you having to declare it in any way to the state (from whom you would receive the financial benefits) or your family (who would otherwise be the beneficiaries of your estate).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Because I shouldn't have to make that choice.

    Yes you should because you are removing the rights of your parents to be next of kin, legally. Therefore you should legally declare that someone else has those rights.
    My partner and I and countless others should have the same rights the rest enjoys, and we should not have to get married to do so.

    But I wasn't born with those rights, I made a legal declaration.

    You might as well complain that you aren't allowed to drive because you haven't passed a test, or that you don't have a degree because you haven't done the course, or that you cannot vote in the US because you aren't a citizen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok, but if you choose not to make a legal declaration about a relationship then you can't really whinge about not getting the benefits that go with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    I've said already how I feel about marriage, but I'll say it again and prepare to be flamed. I think it's an outdated, patriarchal institution that dates back to a time when women were property, and although it has changed hugely in the last forty or so years, I still feel I'd rather not enter into it. Besides, all any of us can do is draw on our own experiences when making decisinos about our lives, and my experiences of the marriages of those close to me have not been positive, which has put me off the idea.

    You don't have to agree with me on any of that, you just have to accept my right to feel that way about it, perhaps try to understand why someone might feel differently from you about it and yet still want the same rights as married people have. For the most part I don't think the state should tell us how to live, or promote certain ideas about the good way to live over others, which it is doing if it favours marriage over other kinds of relationships.
    What about those who want to live together, but don't want to be financially dependent?

    Personal experiences and historical conjecture aside, what is wrong with making an official declaration of your relationship in return for the rights you are demanding?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    I think it's an outdated, patriarchal institution that dates back to a time when women were property, and although it has changed hugely in the last forty or so years, I still feel I'd rather not enter into it.

    I can see where you started from and you are right, the sentiment behind marriage has changed hugely and rightly, which is why I am surprised about that last comment.

    But it is your choice, and as I have said there are pros and cons to that choice.
    my experiences of the marriages of those close to me have not been positive, which has put me off the idea.

    Question you might want to ask yourself. Was it the legal attributes of marriage which cause the problem, or the relationship bewteen individuals?

    If it was the legal aspect, then how would that change if those people had the same rights, without the "marriage" part?
    You don't have to agree with me on any of that, you just have to accept my right to feel that way about it

    Oh, I do, hence the question.

    But you have to accept that you are making a choice.
    For the most part I don't think the state should tell us how to live, or promote certain ideas about the good way to live over others, which it is doing if it favours marriage over other kinds of relationships.

    But they aren't. What they are saying is that you can chose to bestow rights on your partner. It seems to me that the problem here is a word, it's because it's called "marriage", rather than "partnership", which is in fact all it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes you should because you are removing the rights of your parents to be next of kin, legally. Therefore you should legally declare that someone else has those rights.
    No. I'd rather the law changed to address the current injustice and recognised that cohabitating couples in a loving relationship should have exactly the same rights as those who chose to get married.

    By getting married I'd be doing something I don't want to do and don't believe in. The law must change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh my word, Aladdin are you deliberatly ignoring the obvious flaw? If you do not legally declare that you are a loving cohabiting couple then no-one knows and you can't have the rights anyway. What you're asking for is essentially what a secular marriage is anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, if you do not declare in a document that they are your next of kin, then the Government can not just assume they are. After all, What about when couples do just live together for a couple of years, but do not have a strong relationship, one could die and the other get all their deceased partner has because they "Cohabit" even though the deceased in question would rather it all go to their family, but as they have no will and its is just a given in this scenario that the person they cohabit with is their next of kin, this would happen.

    All it needs is a simple declaration to be registered to prove it is so and then all parties are happy. why be intentionally difficult and refuse to, just because you dont like marriage or the idea of signing something? It isnt even to do with marriage, it would just be a document for records.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    So what you're saying is that everyone should automatically be able to tell that you and your partner want to spend your lives together without you having to declare it in any way to the state (from whom you would receive the financial benefits) or your family (who would otherwise be the beneficiaries of your estate).
    Not exactly that. I'm saying that if something happened to me tomorrow the state should recognise my partner as the main beneficiary and for her to enjoy the same rights married couples do on account of us having cohabitated in a relationship for a good number of years now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should the state? Have you told the state? Why should the state make assumptions about your relationship because you're too... what? proud? lazy? afraid? to tell them you love your good lady?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Er... that's the thing isn't it? No one should have to tell anyone that they love their spouse by getting married.

    As an example of the disparity of the current situation someone could get married and not live a single day of their lives under the same roof, with the husband living with someone else but coming round every weekend to beat up his wife for a laugh for 30 years, and at the end when one dies the other inherits anything.

    And next door to the wife lives a devoted couple who have loved and looked after each other for 3 decades, and yet when one partner dies the other is left in the gutter.

    What justice is in that?

    The more I think of it, the more I see marriage as the easy way out. One easy "committment" (namely losing one day of your life attending a ceremony and saying a few vows) and you are set up for life even if you don't see your spouse ever again or if you treat them like shit.

    Some "responsibility" that is. Actually marriage doesn't sound such a bad idea after all :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're coming up with the same reasons as sophia, and both of you are either deliberatly ignore or honestly blind to the fact that marriage, the legal contract has nothing to do with the actual relationship. You can't possibly be foolish enough to genuinely believe that getting married, making the legal declaration of your feelings can make any change to the relationship that isn't already entirely down to the way the two people feel about each other.

    And more to the point you're completely ignoring the actual dilema of the LEGAL NECESSITY for said loving 3 decade couple to declare their feelings. No-one can prove love, what you can prove in a court of law is the validity of a legal document.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I'd rather the law changed to address the current injustice

    There is no injustice here. If you are "penalised" then it is through your own actions and choices.
    end when one dies the other inherits anything.

    Erm... this is what wills are for. You can will all of your posessions to anyone. Without a will then next of kin becomes an issue.
    Not exactly that. I'm saying that if something happened to me tomorrow the state should recognise my partner as the main beneficiary and for her to enjoy the same rights married couples do on account of us having cohabitated in a relationship for a good number of years now.

    As I asked earlier, how many years is enough?

    At what point should that legal distinction be made? Day One, after a month, a year? At what point should the state assume something? Why shouldn't you take responsibility for your future and that of your partner and tell them what you want?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is no injustice here. If you are "penalised" then it is through your own actions and choices.
    Of course there is an injustice. Why should millions of people who don't believe in a certain instutition have to enter it to ensure they receive the most basic of rights- rights that should be theirs regardless???????

    It is our house, our pension, our (potential) children, and nobody else's. And if one of us dies, it should go entirely and fully to the other one without argument or delay.

    And no, we shouldn't have to enter the instution of marriage to receive such basic fundamental human rights.

    I thought you were an advocate of freedom and rights... but frankly on this issue you seem closer to 1984 and Big Brother.

    As I asked earlier, how many years is enough?
    Well the proposed legislation is suggesting two. I think that's a bit too long, but it's certainly better than nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What basic rights? Why two years, that seems entirely arbitrary? And you STILL have to make a legal commitment, what's the difference anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Of course there is an injustice.

    No, an injustice would be if you had made a legal declaration and still not been given those rights.
    It is our house, our pension

    Joint names means no problem. If it's your pension that you would like her to get then make a will or marry her. Otherwise it goes to your next of kin because that is the parental right until you decide otherwise and declaree so in a legal format.
    our (potential) children

    Not an issue. Surviving parent has certain rights...
    And no, we shouldn't have to enter the instution of marriage to receive such basic fundamental human rights.

    Seriously, this is why I cannot understand your concerns about marriage. You want legal right, which is what the legal ceremony gives you. I cannot understand, because it's never been explained, exactly why it is considered an "institution".

    It's legal protection. Which you want.
    I thought you were an advocate of freedom and rights... but frankly on this issue you seem closer to 1984 and Big Brother.

    I do believe in rights. Which is why I am protecting your parents rights ;)
    Well the proposed legislation is suggesting two. I think that's a bit too long, but it's certainly better than nothing.

    Purely subjective though, isn't it? I mean, you can get married after a few weeks...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, an injustice would be if you had made a legal declaration and still not been given those rights.
    That would be one type of injustice. Another one is millions of loving couples not being given the recognition they deserve.



    Seriously, this is why I cannot understand your concerns about marriage. You want legal right, which is what the legal ceremony gives you. I cannot understand, because it's never been explained, exactly why it is considered an "institution".

    It's legal protection. Which you want.
    Well who said romance was dead? :D


    Purely subjective though, isn't it? I mean, you can get married after a few weeks...
    Everything in life is subjective. Common sense can be applied though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've had farts that lasted longer than 2 years. God forbid some of my previous ex's claiming for this that and the other. They were the antithesis of a serious relationship.
    Yeah well I've seen very large amount of marriages that don't even made it a fraction of two years.
    Want a legal document that gives you all the rights you are demanding? Then go sign the legal document already availalbe to you and stop whinging. Jesus. Talk about bloody semantics. I used to work next to the registrars at the civic centre and a full blown ceremony with all the trimmings was over and done with in 25 mins. If you want it to be dry and boring then it would probably take you 10.
    What if I don't want to get married?

    Why should I have to get married to for me and my partner to enjoy rights that should be rightfully ours anyway?

    The current situation is wrong and breathtakingly unjust.
    What exactly do you think a marriage is?
    I thought I knew very well what it was but apparently it turns out to be little more than a quick tax-saving legal formality.

    What I'm most surprised about is that I've learnt this from people who are actually married.

    Whatever happened to "the most important day in one's life"? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well exactly. Cohabiting has an even lower success rate.
    Only we can't generalise can we? We ought to judge each case individually.
    Why should it rightfully be yours?

    You are choosing deliberately not to grant your partner the protection she would require in the event of something happening to you. That is you making that decision. You can either draw up a decent will, which is one legal document, or you can sign a marriage certificate, which is another legal document.
    Unfortunately wills don't cover everything do they? You cannot, for instance, decree parternity rights on a will. In some cases for instance, if a man gets together with a single mother and the man raises the child as a loving parent for years and the woman then dies, the woman's mother would probably have a better legal claim to custody of the child than the man.

    Or if a couple cohabitate for many years and then they split up, one partner can find themselves on the street, with no job, no house and no mainteneance whatsoever.

    What do you propose to do about them???
    That's the wedding. Marriage is a legal contract, simple as.
    How pitiful.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Only we can't generalise can we? We ought to judge each case individually

    Except we can't, which is why it is necessary to go through a legal proceeding (at it's most cold) or a full blown marriage and wedding ceremony (at it's most beautiful) to make it abundantly clear what your intentions are.

    What exactly is your problem? Because right now, you're talking an awful lot of complete garbage.
Sign In or Register to comment.