Cohabiting couples could get similar rights as those who are married

Reader views (17)

 Add your view

I put my savings of £50,000 plus my salary into our relationship, upkeep of the property including paying 'rent' and half the bills, everything a married couple do. Yet when we split I was left with nothing, because I trusted my partner. I had to move back in with my father at 42 years old. She refuses even now to acknowledge I made any contribution above that of a lodger.
A change in the law is overdue, it won't just be women who benefit.

- Pete, London

I believe this idea is barking up the wrong tree, if marriage has slipped out of vogue then perhaps we should simply move the goalposts for what is a marriage, that much I agree with.

However, the most important reason people marry should be because they intend to have children and start a family, so why not pass a law that says when two people have a child together a kind of marriage is created by definition. This leaves everyone else free to co-habit if they wish or to formally legalise their relationship in a marriage, but surely the only time we need to force a couple to be "married" is if they have a child?

A common sense approach is required that assists with child support, it seems quite clear to me that when a couple have a child together responsibilty should be forced upon them because they have entered into a marriage by default? Everyone else living together without children in common is really just playing house!

- Russ, Manchester

Oh look! Lots of lawyers making work for ... lots of other lawyers!

Surely the whole point of 'living together' in a 'long-term relationship' is because you don't expect it to last? When you do, you get married! that's why children who are raised in marriages are statistically more likely to be higher-achieving and have a more stable home.

Post-feminist over-redressing of the balance has already made the divorce laws in the UK stacked against men: this legislation will just go further in making them an easy milk-cow and reduce them to the status of long-distance cheque-book. We're not in the 70s now: it should be acknowledge that women are not feeble, victimised and discriminated against: they are empowered enough to earn their own money and have any kind of relationship they want - and to learn that greater freedom of choice means greater responsibility for themselves.

It's also time to stop talking about women who 'foresake their career' in order to have children - it demeans the extremely tricky full-time job of motherhood and perpetuates the myth that something better was given up for something inferior. When I choose to eat carrot cake instead of chocolate cake, I don't expect to be compensated for not getting the latter as well!

- Roz, Chamonix, France

Oh great. So now if I let a bloke move in then on top of all the cooking, cleaning and football, I have to worry about him taking my only asset, my home, with him when he goes. You know what? Forget it. I'll stay single thanks.

- Thalia, London

Here in the States it's referred to as "common law" marriage. After a certain, specified amount of time of shacking up (depending where you live), you are "technically" married.

- Babs, USA

I wonder if rather than undermining marriage it might promote it - if the legal framework means that deciding to live together is going to require the same kind of thought and commitment as getting married, then you may as well get married. Alternatively, let's just call living together 'marriage' if it confers the same legal rights - after all, marriage is what society deems it to be as different models and forms of marriage around the globe show us.

- Claire, London

What's the point of getting married in the UK any more? The Labour government consistently undermines the institution of marriage, every chance it gets. Is there any wonder that the problems with none-paying fathers has grown astronomically? People aren't committed to anything any more.

- Phil Jones, London UK

Having been in a long term relationship and now (happily) in a long term marriage, I know that the relationship where we lived together was because we knew it would not last for ever. If you feel that you are as commited as married couples, then it is not a problem to go to a register office and get married in private. If you cannot be bothered to legalise the relationship, why should the law protect it?

- Graham, Reading, England

This sounds completely unecessary. I am in a gay relationship and the law now means I am now able to commit to a "marriage" if I so desire, however my partner and I have chosen not to take this route as we are not ready for the committment and do not wish to combine assets, is this legislation now going to mean committment is forced upon us and potentially cause legal battles if we were to split?

- Mark B, London

So what about groups of friends who go in on mortgages together. Will they have to split assets after 5 years or so of sharing?

- L, London

Why give people the benefits of marriage without them getting married? If you are not married but in a relationship, you are saying you are not committed to the relationship and are single for all business and personal matters, end of story. This is another example of PC nonsense, an obsession of this Labour government.

- Brandon Thomas, London, UK

I do think we should have the rights as married couples as we are essentially 'married' in terms of commitment, mortgages, children, finance etc. I have been in a relationship for 14 years. I have 2 houses, 2 cars & run a business with my boyfriend. We would lose a lot if we broke up & it costs a lot to fight for your rights when you just 'co-habit'. We are not breaking up anytime soon but it's good to know I will have a right if it all went wrong. I welcome the new rules.

- Cj, London, UK

So now we'll need signed co-habitation agreements before living together? Or will the courts feel as free to ignore these as they do with pre-nuptial ones?

It'll be a gold-diggers' charter and a nightmare for everyone else.

- Nigel, London

We've said this before- if we want to get married, we will. Some of us have deliberately chosen not to be. This sort of idea just encourages us to live alone - at a time of increasing house shortages.

- Suzanne, London

This has been on the cards for years. It follows the 'path of least resistance' as the only people liable to be the losers of such legislation will be men.

The main gainers will be solicitors who will very quickly, and wrongly, tell hopeful female clients that they can take their ex-cohabitee to the cleaners.

I hold out little hope for the future of families in this country (married or unmarried), now that the legislators (who never think through the consequences of their legislation) want to interfere.

- Brian, Telford

Does this government actually realise how much more bitter a split will be once this law is brought in? Break-ups are bad enough without having the fear of being taken to court and having your assets divided. What stupid bunch of lefty idiots make up these laws?

- Dan, Manchester

Yet more interference in people's live from our useless, interfering government. They can't do anything useful, but they can interfere like crazy in the minutiae of people's lives. If people wanted this kind of legal backing to their personal relationships, they could (and should) get married - there's no need for yet more legislation.

What is the government trying to do? Put people off relationships altogether?

Just leave people ALONE to make their own relationship arrangements.

- Gb, London, UK

Add your comment