Marriage rights for live-in couples

[AB Asks]

Couples who have shared a home together for two years should have similar rights to married people, Government advisors believe. If the couple split after a 'minimum' duration money and assets would be divided amongst the pair. Tony Blair was going to go ahead with this law � do you think Gordon Brown should? Does this kind of law devalue marriage and create another money making scam?

[LeMarchand]

I thought this happened anyway, though maybe not after 2 years and codified in the law. Isn't that what "palimony" is?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Anyone whose marriage is devalued by what *other people do* has a marriage of no value to start with.

[China Doll]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=471948&in_page_i d=1770

Not much substance to this, anyone know any more about it? That article seems to be mainly speculation. Unless AB Asks read it somewhere else in which case maybe the link would be useful.

I quite like the idea that the bloke I used to live with should pay me for the pleasure of doing so... But then he did earn twice as much as me so I suspect he might have felt a little hard done by.

I don't know enough about it to say what Gordon should do.

Depends how much you value marriage in the first place.

Where there's brass there's muck.

[ruby27]

As with WaldoMcFroog, I think anyone who is married would feel insulted that their relationship could in any way be devalued by the behaviour of others.
Also create another money making scam? What would be the scam, who would be making all this money? AB questions are infuriating as you can not get a response. If a couple were not married and one died, the surviving partner would more easily inherit. So why is this scam? Furthermore if a couple separate especially where there are dependant children, financial arrangements need to be made for the primary carer of the children - where is the scam in this?

[Ethel]

I think it will stop a lot of couples living together unless they buy their home between them and each pay towards the mortgage and bills.

Anybody would think twice about moving a boy/girl friend in to their own property.

And LeMarchand - no, it isn't like that at the moment.

[xhxmxsx]

if people want the same rights as married couples get married! i dont understand these people that move into their partners place and dont have their name put on the paperwork as soon as i moved in with my fiance he put my name on everything as it is my home aswell, i dont understand why people don't do this

[kwicky]

Each case has different circumstances. Many will involve a wife or husband who have left a marital home allowing a new mate to live there. If they also split up you could imagine the complexities involved trying to apportion monies whether from the house value or assets.

[~purpose]

If you (one) want(s) rights - GET MARRIED!

Otherwise... don't bother.

There is a right way to do things and a slightly scummy way.

The choice of the individual...

[Le Chat]

My gut reaction was that it would undermine marriage (in the eyes of the law) but on reflection I think that it could:-
a) Make people think more about the implications of living together...some people just 'fall' into co-habitation because it is a 'come day,go day' arrangement.
b) Encourage people to marry as the financial goal posts are equal.
c) Perhaps enstill a more responsible ethic onto men who father children and then move on?
Who knows unless it happens? It could be good!

[LeMarchand]

Whilst I can see that there are a lot of people who aren't getting married "just in case", what about those to whom it's just a bit of paper (and a whole lot of unnecessary expense)? A lot of the folks here seem to think that not getting married is down to laziness/wanting to keep options open.

[Le Chat]

LeMarchand - I hear what you're saying but it doesn't have to be expensive ( you can just go and get married on your own) and if it's 'just a bit of paper' then nothing will be lost by getting married!

[LeMarchand]

In theory it doesn't have to be expensive, but then you have to invite the parents and the odd "important" relative. Of course, if you invite Auntie Vi, then you have to invite Uncle George and then it all snowballs...