The Cohabitation Bill Returns

[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.....

[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.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

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

[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.

[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?

[wurzel]

But isnt that what marriage is - a commitment to someone for the rest of your life.

the sex thing I think is only alluded to in Religous marriage ceremonies - they are plenty of happy married swingers

What we seem to be saying is that if you fancy being an item for a few years then it should be recognised in a legal manner in the case of a breakup so there is no arguing over money and no one is left on the street.

So okay lets look at this lets say I am a single succesful bloke and I pick up some bird who happens to have a rugrat - we get on well and cos I am a nice guy I let her move into my house along with said rugrat.

She does not bring anything in to the relationship in terms of monetary wealth and there fore she is living scott free under my roof.

If she then gets a bit flabby and lazy and lets her rug rat run riot and generally takes the piss and I kick her out suddenly she is going to get half of my wealth for a few blow jobs and for ironing my shirts - which I could do myself quite happily. (ironing my shirts that is).

Not convinced

I think what you are saying is that it encourages golddiggers

[original PM]

Yes, I realise that, but you still come out of the registry office "married", which a lot of people don't want. They associate it with being shackled to someone, to having to be sexually faithful to them, to being religious (even if it technically isn't).

But isnt that what marriage is - a commitment to someone for the rest of your life.

the sex thing I think is only alluded to in Religous marriage ceremonies - they are plenty of happy married swingers

What we seem to be saying is that if you fancy being an item for a few years then it should be recognised in a legal manner in the case of a breakup so there is no arguing over money and no one is left on the street.

So okay lets look at this lets say I am a single succesful bloke and I pick up some bird who happens to have a rugrat - we get on well and cos I am a nice guy I let her move into my house along with said rugrat.

She does not bring anything in to the relationship in terms of monetary wealth and there fore she is living scott free under my roof.

If she then gets a bit flabby and lazy and lets her rug rat run riot and generally takes the piss and I kick her out suddenly she is going to get half of my wealth for a few blow jobs and for ironing my shirts - which I could do myself quite happily. (ironing my shirts that is).

Not convinced

[dang65]

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.

That is what a registry office is for, the ones I've been to treat it like a conveyor belt.

Yes, I realise that, but you still come out of the registry office "married", which a lot of people don't want. They associate it with being shackled to someone, to having to be sexually faithful to them, to being religious (even if it technically isn't). Also, marriage and civil ceremonies do not cover, say, an elderly brother and sister living together for many years (or two sisters in a recent court case about inheritance tax).

This kind of legal tie should be completely unrelated to marriage (forgive the pun ), though it could be done around the same time if people were getting married in a public ceremony like a white wedding or whatever.

[wurzel]

Cohabiting people hardly get a raw deal. If one works and the other looks after two kids they can be up to 10 grand a year better off than a married couple after working tax credit etc.

I meant a raw deal in the event of a break up - e.g. if one party had become financially dependent on the other & suddenly found themselves out on the street with no money. Some sort of protection needs to be there for these circumstances but NOT getting 50% of everything just because you've been shacked up with somebody for 2 years.

[Cyberman]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5882240.ece

I seem to remember this doing the rounds before & it was shelved because the govt didn't think it would go down that well with the electorate.



I've got mixed views on this and I know that some people at present get a raw deal but ultimately if you want the same rights as a married couple you should get married or enter a civil partnership. Of course, if there are children involved or if one partner has become dependent to a degree on the other then some provision should be made (and I think it presently is, certainly where children are involved). To be put in a situation though where you are potentially going to have to give up half of everything you own / earn to somebody you've been co habiting with for a couple of years seems completely iniquitous. Looks like another sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.

Cohabiting people hardly get a raw deal. If one works and the other looks after two kids they can be up to 10 grand a year better off than a married couple after working tax credit etc.

[Smurficus]

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.


That is what a registry office is for, the ones I've been to treat it like a conveyor belt.

[NotAllThere]

Marriage certificate is just a piece of paper, so why bother?

[dang65]

I've got mixed views on this and I know that some people at present get a raw deal but ultimately if you want the same rights as a married couple you should get married or enter a civil partnership.

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?

[Mich the Tester]

Looks like another sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.

There are a few nuts around here that I'd like to crack with a sledgehammer. Most of them have the word 'manager' in their job titles.

[wurzel]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5882240.ece

I seem to remember this doing the rounds before & it was shelved because the govt didn't think it would go down that well with the electorate.



I've got mixed views on this and I know that some people at present get a raw deal but ultimately if you want the same rights as a married couple you should get married or enter a civil partnership. Of course, if there are children involved or if one partner has become dependent to a degree on the other then some provision should be made (and I think it presently is, certainly where children are involved). To be put in a situation though where you are potentially going to have to give up half of everything you own / earn to somebody you've been co habiting with for a couple of years seems completely iniquitous. Looks like another sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.