I think that unmarried couples should not have the same rights as married couples.
If a married couple split then its an expensive end to usually to the male partner yet if your unmarried then they can just walk away.
Yet they expect to be given all the same rights as someone who has committed him or herself to the relationship.
To me it seems a waste of time getting married if you can get the same rights without the commitment marriage entales.

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
I think that unmarried couples should not have the same rights as married couples.
If a married couple split then its an expensive end to usually to the male partner yet if your unmarried then they can just walk away.
Yet they expect to be given all the same rights as someone who has committed him or herself to the relationship.
To me it seems a waste of time getting married if you can get the same rights without the commitment marriage entales.

Spot on cycleracer,
I agree with you totally, if someone is not prepared to commit themselves in marriage, then they should not expect the full rights that one gets when one ties the knot.

What about children then?

If you are in a 'commonlaw' relationship with someone and you split up. One partner has money, the house and the other is left with the child and no financial security.

What happens in that situation?

good point that one

i think you can be totally committed to a person without marraige

I also think that these rights should not extend to unmarried couples, and therefore, should not extend to homosexuals either. Being married means that you are entirely committed to each other, being a couple means that the other person can walk away at any point. Legislating for unmarried couples would also be more difficult than for married couples.

So youre saying that a gay couple who have been together from years shouldnt have the same rights? They dont have a choice whether to get married. What if one of them died young without making a will but didnt have any immediate family - are you saying all the belongings of the deceased should go to a long lost auntie rather than their long term partner?

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
I think that unmarried couples should not have the same rights as married couples.
If a married couple split then its an expensive end to usually to the male partner yet if your unmarried then they can just walk away.
Yet they expect to be given all the same rights as someone who has committed him or herself to the relationship.
To me it seems a waste of time getting married if you can get the same rights without the commitment marriage entales.
Marriage entails no commitment whatsoever. Anyone can marry anyone else of the opposite sex without any diffciulty whatsoever (subject to a small number of provisos)

There aren't many rights conferred by marriage so much as priveleges.

What you are saying is that Marriage is a way of getting certain privileges, and that because of this, those priveleges would become meaningless if they were extended to unmarried couples. And that in turn would make marriage meaningless?

I though marriage was all about having, holding, richer, poorer, death do you part.

If you are married you can just walk away, just don't expect half of everything - same goes for unmarried couples.

I think you are denying the strong personal commitments made by unmarried couples to one another and their children. Granted by no means all unmarried couples deliberately set out to do this.

But when 45% or more marriages end in divorce can marriage be said to be more inherently stable and long lasting than an unformalized relationships?

Why does the state try to 'incentivise' marriage? Why are these reasons inapplicable to:
Heterosexual Couples?
Homosexual Couples?

I think all special financial benefits of marriage should be abolished, level the field as it were. If people want a special tax status then they should be able to justify it on need or merit, rather than by simply signing a piece of paper in some meaningless ceremony in some drab, anonymous office.

Well said Phanerothyme.

I can see both sides of the discussion here...

Unmarried couples can't have the same "rights" as married couples. It's as simple as that. Here's one reason:

What is a couple? Do you have to have been together for "x" years? Do you have to sleep in the same bed? Do you have to be living alone with only each other? Do you have to be opposite sexes? Do you have to have a joint account or mortgage together?

For example: I lived with a male friend at uni for 2 years. Can I claim half of what he owns? I think not...

It's far too easy for someone to say, "We were just friends, why should I give them anything?"

Marriage, on the other hand, is slightly more binding as it's a legal agreement to say you are a couple. I think anyone (including homosexuals and people who have changed sex) should be able to as least sign a legally binding document to say they are a couple (i.e. get married). That way, there's no question about being a couple and what you deserve...

(I've probably missed a few points out, but I'll come back and discuss those later. That's enough for now though.)

When my fiance died, because we were not yet married, but were only "a couple", I had no rights at all.

Although he was 45 years old, his parents were deemd to be his next of kin, they arranged his funeral, they decided he was to buried where I wanted him to be cremated, it was them that the hospital consulted, that the coroner communicated with etc. Without a will it was them that inherited his house and his money and all of his belongings.

I was a total nobody in the eyes of the law, because we had not yet got married.

So I for one am all for extending some rights to couples...

It is easy for people to be scornful about unmarried couples, but you dont always know why they are unmarried, perhaps one of them is married to someone who has been in a nursing home with brain damage for 20 years and who doesnt want to divorce them...or something like that.

Life is never as simple as people like to make it in these black and white ways.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Marriage entails no commitment whatsoever. Anyone can marry anyone else of the opposite sex without any diffciulty whatsoever (subject to a small number of provisos)

There aren't many rights conferred by marriage so much as priveleges.

What you are saying is that Marriage is a way of getting certain privileges, and that because of this, those priveleges would become meaningless if they were extended to unmarried couples. And that in turn would make marriage meaningless?

I though marriage was all about having, holding, richer, poorer, death do you part.

If you are married you can just walk away, just don't expect half of everything - same goes for unmarried couples.

I think you are denying the strong personal commitments made by unmarried couples to one another and their children. Granted by no means all unmarried couples deliberately set out to do this.

But when 45% or more marriages end in divorce can marriage be said to be more inherently stable and long lasting than an unformalized relationships?

Why does the state try to 'incentivise' marriage? Why are these reasons inapplicable to:
Heterosexual Couples?
Homosexual Couples?

I think all special financial benefits of marriage should be abolished, level the field as it were. If people want a special tax status then they should be able to justify it on need or merit, rather than by simply signing a piece of paper in some meaningless ceremony in some drab, anonymous office.
Marriage means commitment living together does not.
Rights for un married should not be the same as married.
Tax difference, well married couples no longer benefit from this unless you have kids, which also applys to un married.
Also the main point you missed is that if married couples seperate usually the husband finshes up with nothing unlike the unmarried partner who just walks away.
I suppose in that case it makes marriage meaningless, thats why unmarried couples should never be given the same rights.

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
Marriage means commitment living together does not.Not true.

I live with my girlfriend and I'm 100% committed to her.

I know people who are married and 0% committed to each other.

LouiseB - your situation is definitely one that shows unmarried couples need more rights - and maybe the same rights as married couples. As you say, nothing is black or white though. Each situation should be judged on its own merits - but that's not always possible. (Imagine the state of the Inland Revenue if that were the case!)

Maybe the constraints of being married add more pressure within the relationship. I for one, walked away from a relationship with kids financially unharmed, and although having very few legal rights where kids are concerned, still have full unlimited access to them. I feel lucky that the legal service was never involved, which would have been impossible had i have married. That said, I am not against the idea of it.

Originally posted by Tony Ruscoe
Not true.

I live with my girlfriend and I'm 100% committed to her.

I know people who are married and 0% committed to each other.

Sorry, its very true.
I don't mean committed in love i mean financially, whats yours is hers and that applys in all marriages exept when the father trys to have custody of his kids.
Both partys can be very ruthless in a breaking down marriage, were commonlaws just go and do as they wish.

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
Marriage means commitment living together does not.
Rights for un married should not be the same as married.

Sorry CR but must STRONGLY disagree with you here. I 'live' with my partner (albeit fiancee) and we ARE committed to each other 100% whether married or not.

I'm not bothered about the concept of marriage, for me it's just paper. But it means something to my better half, hence we are due to be married next year.

I feel that unmarried couples that are living together in a 'committed' relationship should have the same rights as married couples.

At the end of the day, this is a new generation and we must move with the times!

To all those who are advocating more rights to unmarried couples, I ask you one question:

Define at what point a couple should be entitled to these rights?
After the first date? After moving in together? What about plutonic relationships where friends live together? Or should it be after X amount of years of living together? How can we actually PROVE that 2 people live together? What about homosexuals? Theres got to be a defining point at which any old couple becomes recognised as being 'committed' for life. The easiest, and in my opinion, only plausible way of defining this point is through marriage. Those who disagree should state their definition of when a couple becomes a COUPLE, and how the government could legislate for this.

the law stipulates that after 6 months of living together that your partner can claim some financial rights to your house even if you bought the house on your own and they never put their name on the mortgage.

Originally posted by t020
To all those who are advocating more rights to unmarried couples, I ask you one question:

Define at what point a couple should be entitled to these rights?
After the first date? After moving in together? What about plutonic relationships where friends live together? Or should it be after X amount of years of living together? How can we actually PROVE that 2 people live together? What about homosexuals? Theres got to be a defining point at which any old couple becomes recognised as being 'committed' for life. The easiest, and in my opinion, only plausible way of defining this point is through marriage. Those who disagree should state their definition of when a couple becomes a COUPLE, and how the government could legislate for this.
Hmmm, when a couple becomes a couple. Is a couple defined by marriage? NO. After all what about a couple who have a whirlwind womance and marry after knowing each other for a few weeks. Move in together, then divorce when they realise they don't have that much in common after all.

Marriage is not the be all and end all. Becuase you sign that document stating you will love honour and cherish the other till death do you part, doesn't mean both parties are committed to each other.
Some women marry men for money and divorce as soon as they can. Some men do the same.

Some people marry for a british passport/citizenship, should these people be 'automatically' allowed the same rights as committed couples?

I'd say a couple is defined as a couple after 12 months of living together. Just as a married couple can get divorced after 12 months of being married.

Marriage... just a piece of paper!

Originally posted by t020
Define at what point a couple should be entitled to these rights?
After the first date? After moving in together? What about plutonic relationships where friends live together? Or should it be after X amount of years of living together? How can we actually PROVE that 2 people live together? What about homosexuals? Theres got to be a defining point at which any old couple becomes recognised as being 'committed' for life. The easiest, and in my opinion, only plausible way of defining this point is through marriage. Those who disagree should state their definition of when a couple becomes a COUPLE, and how the government could legislate for this.

Good point, well made - even though I did get a bit of deja vu... ;) since I said something similar eariler on:

Originally posted by Tony Ruscoe
What is a couple? Do you have to have been together for "x" years? Do you have to sleep in the same bed? Do you have to be living alone with only each other? Do you have to be opposite sexes? Do you have to have a joint account or mortgage together?

For example: I lived with a male friend at uni for 2 years. Can I claim half of what he owns? I think not...

Originally posted by tinajones
the law stipulates that after 6 months of living together that your partner can claim some financial rights to your house even if you bought the house on your own and they never put their name on the mortgage. I think that's only if they can prove that they pay towards the rent/mortgage and you don't have a rent book. (If you have a rent book and the mortgage is in your name, they can't do anything as they're merely renting the property from you.)

Surely they can't claim just because they live with you...?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I'd say a couple is defined as a couple after 12 months of living together. Just as a married couple can get divorced after 12 months of being married.And what other criteria? I lived with 3 people for 3 years at uni. Does that mean I could claim from them?

You can't restrict it sleeping in the same bed, because not all couples do (odd, I know - but it happens)! You also can't restrict it to being opposite sexes, because not all couples are...

Fair point Tony. I'm not sure what other criteria would have to be involved. But it doesn't take much for people to become married so that I feel should be a deciding factor.

Marriage is NOT the be all and end all. Some people marry for convenience after all. Should these people have the rights too. Just because they have the piece of paper that goes with marriage?

Obviously things need to be redifined, and looked into!

I think the important thing to take into account when differentiating between living together and sharing is when finances come into it. If you are sharing you do just that and split bills equitably (I hope). In a relationship there's a tendency to just mix everything in together irrespective of relative income. I know this as I was un-employed for a while and my partner made sure I didn't starve.

Once finances start blurring and you can't tell who owns what and what proportion of the house, or car, etc., belongs to whom it becomes more like a marriage. If one partner gives up work to look after the home, and possibly children, why should he or she be at a disadvantage if a separation occurs? Why should he or she have fewer rights than a married person in a similar situation?

This becomes even more important the longer the relationship, or marriage, goes on. This is why we now see pensions being taken into account during divorce proceedings.

What it boils down to is why should anyone be financially disadvantaged just because they haven't got a bit of paper which 47% (or thereabouts) of people who do get married don't considered worthwhile anyway?

As I understand it marriage is not just a peice of paper denoting your commitment, but also a more in depth financial commitment then may appear on the surface. Its okay to quote the number of marriage breakdows, but do we have the statistics of relationships where one of the partners involved walks away?

Although figures in the 40-50% range of marriage breakdows are discussed (and they are high) what can we compare them against to make the actual figure a comparison? Maybe somebody has some statistics on non-married couples that end their commitment (I think they might be hard to find!).

Is it incorrect of me to distinguish between a couple (ie those married under a legally binding contract) and those who are co-habiting (albeit under the said 100% emotional commitment.)

I have thought about this one a bit, and I think the reason marriage is a problem is because many people do not see theneed to sign a 'bit of paper' to show their 'commitment' - but thats not where it ends. Even if you don't question your partners emotinal ties to you, how about financially? How do you go about restricting one partner who is spending beyond your combined capability? Do they have to take responsibilty for you if you are unable to work, or out of work?

Anyway, break ups aside, lets say that you didn't want to get married, (fair enough) but wanted to leave financial security for your widow/er or family in the event of your death. How would you do it - probably by creating a will right? But that only applies if you die, so I would challenge those who don't want to get married but insist on 100% commitment to draw up a trust deed of sorts denoting that in any break up each partner has a right to X% of the market value of all property at the date of the agreement with a insertion made into the land registry so that no partner can sell without the others prior knowledge. Saving yourself around £6-10k on the wedding the £800 at the solicitors isn't so bad I suppose ;) (basing it on simple circumstances although I know not all are the same and have independant merit).

I have my flame suit on so grill me peeps!

1Man&HisBMW

an interesting link.
http://www.divorce.co.uk/hottopics/articles/cohabitants.htm

Fair comment 1Man, I may call you 1Man even though we've never been introduced, mayn't I?

However, I don't think we were using the % of breakdowns, or ups, as a comparison, merely pointing out that marriage as an institution it losing its role as an exemplar of commitment.

Secondly, a simple registry office marriage is not as high as a church wedding and would in any case be well below the £800 that you put forward as potential legal fees for drawing up a contract which is already laid down in law for married couples. Do you not think it unfair that one couple need only pay around £50 and the other 16 times as much to get the same legal and financial protection?

Originally posted by max
Fair comment 1Man, I may call you 1Man even though we've never been introduced, mayn't I?

However, I don't think we were using the % of breakdowns, or ups, as a comparison, merely pointing out that marriage as an institution it losing its role as an exemplar of commitment.

Secondly, a simple registry office marriage is not as high as a church wedding and would in any case be well below the £800 that you put forward as potential legal fees for drawing up a contract which is already laid down in law for married couples. Do you not think it unfair that one couple need only pay around £50 and the other 16 times as much to get the same legal and financial protection?

Hi Max - yep 1Man is fine :) we're all friends here :)

I understand your point with full weight with regard to the %'s but surely Max, the percentage is only really comparative, in this argument for example, if we have statistics from both sides. I understand it is losing its role on commitment, however it does provide a more surefooting for each party involved (ie: their rights are more clearly if not 100% defined)

On the point of weddings, it is true as you say that you could use the registry office and therefore pay less in terms of "legal" costs, but in either case they are both legally binding however whilst a marriage certificate is somewhat more straight forward (doesnt require valuations, solicitor meeting etc) I assume that could reason its lower cost. Bearing in mind the £800 I quoted would also include an independant valuation fif required to ascertain the value of the property (sorry I didn't make that clearer earlier). Essentially the costs you are paying without having the contract of marriage are what you would pay if you did (in the case of breakdown and subsequent valuation of estate for the purposes of sale etc), except surely both parties have more financial security. Also the contract for the unmarried couple (or co-habitees) does not have to mean a 50/50 split, as it can be varied according to their input into the original purchase, therefore its not as inflexible as say a marriage simple. Although, I notice in many higer profile wedding, pre-nup contracts are all the rage!

1Man&HisBMW

Originally posted by t020
To all those who are advocating more rights to unmarried couples, I ask you one question:

Define at what point a couple should be entitled to these rights?
After the first date? After moving in together? What about plutonic relationships where friends live together? Or should it be after X amount of years of living together? How can we actually PROVE that 2 people live together? What about homosexuals? Theres got to be a defining point at which any old couple becomes recognised as being 'committed' for life. The easiest, and in my opinion, only plausible way of defining this point is through marriage. Those who disagree should state their definition of when a couple becomes a COUPLE, and how the government could legislate for this.

Dare I suggest that a couple becomes a couple when that couple believes that it has...?

How much more difficult is it than that?

There was talk about a document that people could sign up to, stating their couple-ness.

It might be something that someone like DaB might do, in acknowledgement that he and his fiance are couple, but in advance of their wedding.

Or it might be something that a lebsian couple with kids might do who wont be getting married ever.

Or any combination thereof

I did not like having no rights when Michael died and would have been much happier if we had been able to register our relationship in some way prior to our anticipated wedding.

Originally posted by LouiseB
Dare I suggest that a couple becomes a couple when that couple believes that it has...?

How much more difficult is it than that?



Well that would make it really hard for 'couples' with no commitment at all to just fraudulently claim benefits and have rights that shouldn't apply to them wouldn't it? If we lived in a world where every person was 100% honest all of the time then maybe, but unfortunately we live in the real world.

Originally posted by t020
Well that would make it really hard for 'couples' with no commitment at all to just fraudulently claim benefits and have rights that shouldn't apply to them wouldn't it? If we lived in a world where every person was 100% honest all of the time then maybe, but unfortunately we live in the real world.

Just as a matter of interest, what exactly are these rights and benefits that people will be fraudulently claiming?

If it's state benefits you're on about then it's married couples who are worst off. Anyway, I'd still like to know what you're on about.

Originally posted by LouiseB
Dare I suggest that a couple becomes a couple when that couple believes that it has...?Yes, but it couldn't work in the eyes of the law as it's far to easy for one half to think they are a couple and the other think they are "just good friends" (or just claim that they thought they were just good friends when they have to hand over half their belongings)!Originally posted by LouiseB
There was talk about a document that people could sign up to, stating their couple-ness.

It might be something that someone like DaB might do, in acknowledgement that he and his fiance are couple, but in advance of their wedding.

Or it might be something that a lebsian couple with kids might do who wont be getting married ever.

Or any combination thereofIsn't that a marriage certificate? Why not just let lesbians get married? Afterall, it no longer has to be a religious ceremony. It's merely a legality.

Would you be able to sign multiple copies of this "document"? I could just see all those money grabbing women out there signing several to get half of all their boyfriend's belongings! ;)

I see you point though and it's a good idea. Weddings take time to plan. So, what we're really saying is we should make an "engagement" more legally binding... (isn't it)?

That might stop all these kids saying "let's get engaged" thinking it's a good idea. (I'm talking about 16-18 year olds who get engaged to get engaged - i.e. not get engaged to be married - never tell their parents and then split up 6 months later!) When I came to uni, 3 of the girls who lived in the flat above me were engaged and none of their parents knew. Needless to say, none are engaged now and all have different partners... :roll: