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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If it does, why are they drafting a new bill to cover such eventuality?
I really don't understand why - and indeed I don't think that you have been able to explain it here. As I am not the only one who thinks that, I can only conclude that you haven't explained it well enough.
As I am not the only one who thinks that, seeing as it is good enough for the government as well as the millions of cohabitees affected, perhaps it is you guys who are unreasonably demanding explanations when no explanation is needed. Other than a very few religious leaders there hasn't exactly been a rush of people denouncing the proposals...
So, it's down to you, I don't, we don't, see the point in this new legislation, so be our guest and explain why it's necessary when legally it's all already covered.
If someone said that as a reason to back a policy that you didn't agree with you would be all over them........ :rolleyes:
You are right, you don't.
The law doesn't have to be changed either.
At least, not without good reason, and I've yet to see a good reason.
See, this is the rub. Affected through their own choices.
My wife doesn't have a driving licence, she's never wanted one and she had her own reasons for that - in her case because she's scared and trust me, we should all be thankful for that
The principle is exactly the same.
I have never said marriage doesn't have significance.
I am saying that that significance is only what the partners make of it.
You don't need it to be religious, you don't need rings, you don't need to change your name.
Legally speaking, marriage is nought but a sheet of nice green paper saying that you and your legal spouse have certain legal rights and responsibilities. If you choose to impart more into it than that- and most people do- then that is something for you alone. Marriage does not have any greater legal identity because of what people put into it morally.
I agree, they should be opt-in. If you want something that changes your legal status so drastically, you should have to specifically state that you want this to happen.
I don't especially care what this opt-in agreement is called, its all about semantics. Call it a civil partnership, call it a co-habitees agreement, call it what you will. The point remains that you should have to specifically state that you want the legal status of you and your partner not to change- something as important as that should not be left to legal assumption.
There is a reason why every single document that changes your legal status needs to be signed and witnessed, and that is to prevent fraud and disagreement. If it's in black-and-white, there can be no argument about intent. There can still be argument about how the stuff gets carved up, for instance, but you can't deny you intended to get married if you signed the green paper.
My biggest concern about any opt-out system is that it will be almost impossible to enforce. Either you have a rigid definition of a co-habiting relationship- in which case everyone will argue that they don't meet this defintion- or there will be a hazy and vague defintion of it- in which case everyone will argue that they don't meet this definition. The only people who will benefit from an opt-out system will be family lawyers- something which I suspect is the LSC's motive.
It's something which sounds great as a theory- nobody wants to see a woman get booted out of her house after 20 years- but it simply will not work in practice. When a person is faced with losing half their house because they shared it with their partner (a partner they now hate) they will use every trick in the book to save it. That's bad enough in divorce proceedings, but at least in divorce proceedings you can't deny you intended for it to happen.
Nobody has to explain why they don't want to get married. But they do need to explain why a fully functioning system needs to be replaced with a chaotic one in order to accomodate their wishes. Especially when thousands of other people will have their rights removed in order to accomodate it.
Any change to an opt-out system will result in the courts being clogged up with arguments about what a relationship is, when it started, when it started being co-habiting, and it will be an utter disaster. And if an opt-out system was to override exisiting legal instruments such as wills, then it will be completely unjust.
Because for one reason or another millions of people cohabitate in a loving relationship for years, and it is unjust and wrong that if one partner dies or separates the other can find themselves with no support or mainteneance.
It couldn't be simpler. Really.
Clearly millions of people are left exposed and vulnerable if their partner dies or leaves them. That you wish they would get married is a moot point. Some of them choose not to get married, some encounter a tragedy before they had a chance to get married.
The government is right to introduce a law that will give greater protection to millions of people across the country- especially considering it doesn't affect anyone else negatively.
And anyone who oppose such move must do so for their own, bizarre motives because sure as hell there isn't any rational reason to do so.
Except, they could get married, it's not as if they're prevented from doing so, unless they're under the age of 16, and that would solve the problem, as would in some cases changing their wills.
Marriage isn't a fully functioning system at the moment because it isn't being taken up be the people it could protect. Foe everyone to just keep repeating "they should get married" isn't very productive as that option has always been available and isn't being used...
Opt out sound like madness to me too.
Opt out is madness.
And, you are ignoring tradition and the accepted common use of the word marriage.
Adultery is grounds for divorce as well yes, i think most people no matter what the stage of their relationship would end it if their partner cheated (except paul on neighbours it seems) it has little to do with marriage except for the legal process now required to end the marriage.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that you won't marry someone because you can, if you want, divorce them for cheating on you?
ETA: and, if a legal partnership is based on two people being together, and one person is off with someone else, even from an entirely legal perspective the original contract has broken down.
Little bit of a contradiction
You and others who share your beliefs in this matter are effectively blackmailing people into getting married.
How refreshing and wonderful.
That is a fundamental choice some people feel strongly about, whether you understand that or not. It's not exactly like choosing between a red and a blue jumper. And that is why it is right that new legislation is introduced so everyone gets a set of fundamental rights as well as responsibilities regardless of whether they're married or not.
I really am at incredible pains to understand what the effing problem with this is. I really, really, really am...
Except... that's what you're doing
Join the club.
I can kind of understand both sides of the coin; it must be awful for couples who are planning to get married or who have lived together for a long time to have something happen to their partner and then find out that they have no rights whatsoever in these circumstances. However I do find it difficult to understand why if you are in a loving relationship and you both genuinely want to have a life-long commitment to your partner, you would not get married.
Marriage used to be an institution that had connotations of ownership of the woman, but it really isn't anymore and as Kermit said, marriage is what you make it. To maintain a view that marriage entails X, Y and Z (eg. demonstrating a commitment to your partner to the state/to God/the world, etc.) and that it *always* has to mean the same thing to every couple is, in my opinion, supporting the view of marriage as an institution. In the eyes of the law marriage is a legal contract, not an institution - whether or not it is perceived as an institution that has all these negative connotations is entirely up to you.
I've read the whole thread and although I understand what Aladdin means about not necessarily having to explain his reasons in a free and democratic society, I think people just find it difficult to grasp why a couple in a loving relationship, prepared to make every single legal commitment that marriage entails, would not just get married. Its the equivalent of if I got a new job and were given a contract to sign, me saying "well employment contracts are in my opinion an institution that have negative connotations to me of slave labour and exploitation, so I want to sign something else that is exactly the same as this employment contract, but isn't called an employment contract".
People are entitled to have their opinions respected, but such reasons are going to be very hard for the majority of people to accept/understand.