The Cohabitation Bill Returns

[Foxy Moron]

I like this bit...

But the law needs to catch up so that cohabitants are not left in a vulnerable position. Some choose not to marry; others cannot, because of an unwilling partner

back to the main point:
I can see the point of this law if you have children, otherwise the current poisition is you are entitled to get back what you put in. What was wrong with that?

[dang65]

I think what you are saying is that it encourages golddiggers

This is why I reckon it should be a legal document you complete - similar to marriage - not an automatic legal right. So, if you had this kind of situation, where one person was completely financially responsible and the other person contributed nothing tangible to their joint lifestyle (they didn't look after the couple's children full-time or whatever) then no agreement would exist.

So it would effectively be "marriage", but could be used by people who didn't have a romantic or physical relationship, or are just uncomfortable with "marriage" - like long-term house sharers or those elderly brothers and sisters one reads about.

If someone was being classed as a freeloader by the other person in the relationship and they didn't agree with that then they could walk out, presumably?? I know someone's going to say it's not as easy as that, but those must be fairly unusual cases?

Hmm, dunno. I just think there should be a legal alternative to marriage/civil partnership which could be used by pretty much anyone. Everyone should be able to choose who they match up with for inheritance tax purposes.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

'kin lawyers. Hanging's too good for 'em.

[BrowneIssue]

Maybe there should be a simple legal equivalent of getting married which isn't called "marriage". I know that sounds bizarre, as marriage already is a legal partnership, but some people - quite a lot of people, it seems - don't want to be "married", but do want legal rights.

The two things should be separated, so you could have a religious ceremony - or any other kind of ceremony - if you wanted to, but you would deal with the legal documents completely separately and without ceremony of any kind, like at your solicitor's office or through the post if you wanted.

This would allow brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters, business partners - whatever - to chose one other person with whom they could share the equivalent rights of a married couple or civil partnership couple.

It's just an extension/re-organisation of the existing system. Don't see what the big deal is. Plenty of people currently get married for financial or immigration reasons, for example. Why not just remove that hypocrisy?

It pisses off Her Ladyship & I that we cannot do business in each other's name. For example, I cannot order her a new cheque book. She cannot get agents to accept her answers to my work situation are valid. And so on. When your partner dies it takes months to clear up the mess because they are not here to answer questions and nobody else is allowed to.

It would be nice if there were some way of being able to say - as marriage used to - that "I trust this person to act as my representative in all matters as if they were me, even if I am dead or dying". There are so many siblings living together, or lifelong friends, or trusted carers that would have easier lives if this could be done.

[BrilloPad]

Its hard to tell what the implications will be until full details known. But I suspect that alot of men will get a shoeing. Quite rightly too.....