NationStates Jolt Archive

The UK government is proposing changes to the law so that co-habiting couples obtain the same 'rights' as married couples. This means when they break up they can make claims on their ex-partners estate etc.

To me this seems wrong and not needed as couples already have the option of marriage (or the equivalent in law for same sex couples) and it is possible to obtain all or some of the rights by various legal contracts and actions.

What do you guys think?


Here is a link to it from the bbc website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6124182.stm

Some people don't like the idea of marriage (I know a couple where the guy is determined to be married in a Catholic church and the woman is atheist and doesn't want to be married. They seem happy enough, though), so it'd be unfair to not allow them rights just because of their belief.

Some of the rights that marriage gives aren't possible to obtain under other legal agreements - various things to do with inheritance for one, I believe. It makes sense to allow co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples.

Also, co-habiting couples are more likely to split up than a married couple. I'd find the figures, but I'm feeling lazy. It's in the Indypedia, if you're interested.

Many US states already have "common law marriages". Please try to keep up, England.

Many US states already have "common law marriages". Please try to keep up, England.
England has civil partnerships for gay couples.

Please try to keep up, America.

Yeah, I know, some states allow gay marriage. But 'please try to keep up, most of America' isn't quite so snappy.

I agree that couples that have lived in the same house for a lot of time should be treated legally as married couples, with regard to children, money etc, expecially in case of separation or death.

Here in Italy, the Corte di Cassazione (highest judiciary court) has ruled that three years of co-habiting are enough.

Personally, I agree.

Some people don't like the idea of marriage (I know a couple where the guy is determined to be married in a Catholic church and the woman is atheist and doesn't want to be married. They seem happy enough, though), so it'd be unfair to not allow them rights just because of their belief.

Some of the rights that marriage gives aren't possible to obtain under other legal agreements - various things to do with inheritance for one, I believe. It makes sense to allow co-habiting couples the same rights as married couples.

Also, co-habiting couples are more likely to split up than a married couple. I'd find the figures, but I'm feeling lazy. It's in the Indypedia, if you're interested.

Inheritance etc is possible using a will, everything that marriage does is possible it just requires some effort on the parties involved in getting legal documents sorted out. Since the current labour government removed any specific allowances for married couples in the tax and benifits system you are not missing out there.

Considering that you can have a non-religious marriage (the registry office) her being atheist is not a problem specifically to marriage, just his insistence to be married in a Catholic church. I thought to be married in a Catholic church you had to both be Catholic so his insistence/determination seems not very logical unless he is determined to convert her or find someone else.

EDIT:
Also you say some people just don't like marriage, well those people can't be pleased about this then as it is basically marrying them together in the view of the law. If they don't like marriage because it is religious then there are always civil marriages so that excuse doesn't wash with me as a reason for this proposal.

Inheritance etc is possible using a will, everything that marriage does is possible it just requires some effort on the parties involved in getting legal documents sorted out. Since the current labour government removed any specific allowances for married couples in the tax and benifits system you are not missing out there.
I think inheritance tax is different for co-habiting and married couples. Also, I think pensions are worked differently for the two. But it's 8.30 in the morning and I've been up for 24 hours, so I'm not going to try to find anything to support that.

Considering that you can have a non-religious marriage (the registry office) her being atheist is not a problem specifically to marriage, just his insistence to be married in a Catholic church. I thought to be married in a Catholic church you had to both be Catholic so his insistence/determination seems not very logical unless he is determined to convert her or find someone else.
Well, she doesn't want to get married, period. I'm not sure about the requirements for Catholic marriages, but it doesn't affect me, so, frankly, I don't care about it.

EDIT:
Also you say some people just don't like marriage, well those people can't be pleased about this then as it is basically marrying them together in the view of the law. If they don't like marriage because it is religious then there are always civil marriages so that excuse doesn't wash with me as a reason for this proposal.
It isn't marrying them in the view of the law. It's giving them rights that they should be allowed anyway.

It's like an immigrant coming to this country and thus having the same rights as everyone else here. Just because they have the same rights doesn't mean they're British - and just because co-habiting couples will have the same rights as married couples, doesn't mean they are married.

It isn't marrying them in the view of the law. It's giving them rights that they should be allowed anyway.

It's like an immigrant coming to this country and thus having the same rights as everyone else here. Just because they have the same rights doesn't mean they're British - and just because co-habiting couples will have the same rights as married couples, doesn't mean they are married.

But they already have access to those rights through the use of various legal documents (they get to pick and choose) or marriage. It is marriage in the eyes of the law, if it has the same rights and the same obligations then it is marriage (if it smells, looks and sounds like a cow then it is a cow no matter what people try and claim)

But they already have access to those rights through the use of various legal documents (they get to pick and choose) or marriage. It is marriage in the eyes of the law, if it has the same rights and the same obligations then it is marriage (if it smells, looks and sounds like a cow then it is a cow no matter what people try and claim)
I could construct a papier mache cow with some sort of speaker inside and cover it in cow shit...

That was totally irrelevant. Wow.

Erm...they don't get exactly the same rights. Sure, they get some, even most, of the same rights, but not exactly the same. So it doesn't smell, look and sound like a marriage. Or a cow, for that matter.

What this does is it makes it far far more convenient for co-habiting couples, because it means they don't have to go through the process of getting often complicated legal documents drawn up for them to have similar rights to married couples.

If you're arguing that they should marry, I'll remind you that some people don't want to get married for whatever reason, religious ceremony or not. And if you want to argue that they can get the same rights by drawing up documents, I've already pointed out that this makes it more convenient for them - and saves them money.

This is the dumbest law assed in recent times.

Many people who co-habit do so because they DO NOT want the legal obligations that come with marriage.

This law basically mandates that co-habitees have those responsibilities unless they opt-out. And while, yes, there is an opt-out clause it seems bizarre that cohabiting couples want a law that states that unless they opt-out they are effectively married by the state as soon as they move in together.

If you DO want the legal obligations that come with marriage then get married. If you don't like religion then get a secular marriage. A secular marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people that states that you have both agreed to enter into a legally binding relationship. Which is exactly what this co-habiting law does, except rather than actively enter into the relationship you have to actively opt-out.

The UK government is proposing changes to the law so that co-habiting couples obtain the same 'rights' as married couples. This means when they break up they can make claims on their ex-partners estate etc.

To me this seems wrong and not needed as couples already have the option of marriage (or the equivalent in law for same sex couples) and it is possible to obtain all or some of the rights by various legal contracts and actions.

What do you guys think?I think it's a good idea for cases were two people have kids together neglect to arranged thing legally, then one dies, and the other is left with the kids. It makes sense the partner that's left gets to inherit things as if they were married.

This is the dumbest law assed in recent times.

Many people who co-habit do so because they DO NOT want the legal obligations that come with marriage.

This law basically mandates that co-habitees have those responsibilities unless they opt-out. And while, yes, there is an opt-out clause it seems bizarre that cohabiting couples want a law that states that unless they opt-out they are effectively married by the state as soon as they move in together.

If you DO want the legal obligations that come with marriage then get married. If you don't like religion then get a secular marriage. A secular marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people that states that you have both agreed to enter into a legally binding relationship. Which is exactly what this co-habiting law does, except rather than actively enter into the relationship you have to actively opt-out.

You said it much better than I did, i was not really presenting my views very well (too early in the morning for me at that point).

I think it's a good idea for cases were two people have kids together neglect to arranged thing legally, then one dies, and the other is left with the kids. It makes sense the partner that's left gets to inherit things as if they were married.

I am willing to compromise in this specific case only, i still disagree overall as the proposal covers all co-habiting couples. It should be noted that the children will still have a claim on the dead parents estate.

Another thing, I am not sure how the government is going to legally define a co-habiting couple as there are many people who share accomadation with a friend(s) or strangers but are not a couple.

I could construct a papier mache cow with some sort of speaker inside and cover it in cow shit...

That was totally irrelevant. Wow.



Sorry about that, i was being a bit crazy at that point.

This is the dumbest law assed in recent times.

Many people who co-habit do so because they DO NOT want the legal obligations that come with marriage.

This law basically mandates that co-habitees have those responsibilities unless they opt-out. And while, yes, there is an opt-out clause it seems bizarre that cohabiting couples want a law that states that unless they opt-out they are effectively married by the state as soon as they move in together.

If you DO want the legal obligations that come with marriage then get married. If you don't like religion then get a secular marriage. A secular marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people that states that you have both agreed to enter into a legally binding relationship. Which is exactly what this co-habiting law does, except rather than actively enter into the relationship you have to actively opt-out.
I agree. The reason not to get married is because you don't want to lose so much you've worked for if you split up, or be forced to stay together in a miserable relationship because you can't afford to lose everything if you divorced.

If they bring this legislation through then co-habiting suddenly gets these problems with marriage which people obviously didn't want or they would have got married.

Oh well, no cohabitation for me, then. Never mind; I sleep better by myself anyway, and like the peace and quiet of not having anyone else around.

What this does is it makes it far far more convenient for co-habiting couples, because it means they don't have to go through the process of getting often complicated legal documents drawn up for them to have similar rights to married couples.
No. It makes it far more INconvienient for cohabiting couples because it means they DO have to go through the process of getting often complicated legal documents drawn up if they don't want to have the same obligations as married couples. Which in many cases is why they are co-habiting rather than married.

(A standard marriage certificate is not a complicated legal document btw... it's... um... pretty standard)


If you're arguing that they should marry, I'll remind you that some people don't want to get married for whatever reason, religious ceremony or not. And if you want to argue that they can get the same rights by drawing up documents, I've already pointed out that this makes it more convenient for them - and saves them money.
Again - if they want the rights they should opt-IN. Many who do not marry do so because they DON'T want the 'rights'/legal responsibilities that come with marriage. If they wan't these rights they should marry. If not they should be left alone. And it does not save money as now all the people co-habiting because they do not want the legal responsibilities required by marriage have to get legal documanets drawn up which will be unique to each situation and hence no standard form, and haggling over who gets what after how long etc.

Oh, we've had this for decades and decades. It works fine, and protects children resulting from these unions. Nice to see the UK finally starting to join the 20th century...

Oh, we've had this for decades and decades. It works fine, and protects children resulting from these unions. Nice to see the UK finally starting to join the 20th century...

Child support and access/custody are issues that normally work seperately from marriage.

Oh, we've had this for decades and decades. It works fine, and protects children resulting from these unions. Nice to see the UK finally starting to join the 20th century...
But surely it would be easier if every couple who wanted marriage "rights" nipped along to the registry office and signed the bit of paper, rather than all those who don't having to get the legal mumbo-jumbo sorted out so they don't get lumbered with them?

Children are a seperate issue; both parents of a child already have obligations to support it, regardless of marital (or cohabitation) status. The CSA might be considered crap by many, but that's a seperate problem entirely.

Child support and access/custody are issues that normally work seperately from marriage.

Yes, but in a marriage it is usually the spouse that automatically inherits and the children, unless there is a will specifically specifying it, have to wait for that other person to die. In cohabitation, the children can be shielded from demands coming from the other person and have direct access to the inheritance of the deceased. The Swedish cohabitation law isn't just there to govern rights to some person - it is also there to govern rights against a person. It's very orderly and makes these breakups in most cases very clear cut, as it only applies to the joint home and joint property.

Yes, but in a marriage it is usually the spouse that automatically inherits and the children, unless there is a will specifically specifying it, have to wait for that other person to die. In cohabitation, the children can be shielded from demands coming from the other person and have direct access to the inheritance of the deceased. The Swedish cohabitation law isn't just there to govern rights to some person - it is also there to govern rights against a person. It's very orderly and makes these breakups in most cases very clear cut, as it only applies to the joint home and joint property.

AFAIK - In the UK the children automatically inherit unless there is a will that specifically passes inheritance to a co-habitee.

(In marriage the husband/wife automatically inherit unless there is a will stating otherwise)


I can't see much difference regarding inheritance when comparing the existing system here to the system you have.

But surely it would be easier if every couple who wanted marriage "rights" nipped along to the registry office and signed the bit of paper, rather than all those who don't having to get the legal mumbo-jumbo sorted out so they don't get lumbered with them?

The Cohabitees Act provides minimum protection for the weaker partner when a cohabitee relationship ends. Living together is not a willy-nilly thing to do - it does actually make you responsible in certain aspects to the other person and his/her needs. Don't want that responsibility? Then don't live together with someone. What you're saying is sounding an awful lot like "waaah, I wanted to be in a very close grown up relationship with another person, but I don't want any of the responsibility coming with being in a grown up relationship with another person!"

People who aren't ready to assume the consequences of cohabitation should not cohabitate with anyone, instead of bitching about said consequences.

Another thing, I am not sure how the government is going to legally define a co-habiting couple as there are many people who share accomadation with a friend(s) or strangers but are not a couple.It'd be funny if students sharing a dorm room suddenly are de facto married :p

It'd be funny if students sharing a dorm room suddenly are de facto married :p

I would not be happy as I shared a room with someone for 3 years during our studies because of the cost of accomadation in London.

AFAIK - In the UK the children automatically inherit unless there is a will that specifically passes inheritance to a co-habitee.

(In marriage the husband/wife automatically inherit unless there is a will stating otherwise)

None of this precludes challenges to that order, especially in the absence of a will. The Cohabitation Act is there to govern these relationships specifically as one otherwise easily gets "caught" in between different laws applying to the myriad of issues relevant to a dissolution of a non-married couple's home - especially when children are involved. Regulation was needed to plug a hole and protect people, and indeed has done so very well.

It'd be funny if students sharing a dorm room suddenly are de facto married :p

To count as a cohabitee three criteria must be fulfilled.

• The cohabitee must live with his/her partner on a permanent basis. Thus, it is a question of relationships that are not of short duration.
• The cohabitee and his/her partner must live together as a couple. This means that the parties live together in a partnership normally including sexual relations.
• The cohabitee must share a household with his/her partner, which means sharing chores and expenses.

Hence, two siblings or friends or students or whatever living together are not considered to be cohabitees.

The Cohabitees Act provides minimum protection for the weaker partner when a cohabitee relationship ends. Living together is not a willy-nilly thing to do - it does actually make you responsible in certain aspects to the other person and his/her needs. Don't want that responsibility? Then don't live together with someone.

OR - If you want to live with someone who you want to be legally responsible to you in such a way then get married to them...

If the person you are with refuses this them maybe you are not suited to each other.

This Act seems to be aimed at forcing responsibility on people who have chosen their lifestyle as they do not want to have that responsibility. If they DID want that responsibility they would get married. If their partner wants them to have that responsibility then they should push for marriage.

None of this precludes challenges to that order, especially in the absence of a will.

In the absence of a will the order is pretty clear. In the presence of a will it is pretty clear.

• The cohabitee must live with his/her partner on a permanent basis. Thus, it is a question of relationships that are not of short duration.
What defines 'permanent basis'?

OR - If you want to live with someone who you want to be legally responsible to you in such a way then get married to them...

If the person you are with refuses this them maybe you are not suited to each other.

This Act seems to be aimed at forcing responsibility on people who have chosen their lifestyle as they do not want to have that responsibility. If they DID want that responsibility they would get married. If their partner wants them to have that responsibility then they should push for marriage.

The moment you decided to live someone, you did in fact assume responsibility against the person. Again, if you don't want to be responsible towards another person, do not live with them and get your financial and property shit entangled. If none of the parties "want" this dissolution to take place, then they can both simply agree to say "I waive the rights given me by this law" and then just go on their merry ways. The thing is that this won't often happen. One person will often have claims against the other. Hence "protecting the weaker partner." There is no pretending that the financial and property shit has not been entangled - there is no pretending that you're not a grown up living together with another grown up.

In the absence of a will the order is pretty clear. In the presence of a will it is pretty clear.

My my, you seem not to have been involved in many inheritance issues, especially with the other parent of your children...

What defines 'permanent basis'?

That is up to the courts to decide, but things that will give it away are things like an extended period of living on the same address, children born during the time, common bank accounts, common bills, common property, witnesses attesting to you having presented yourself as a romantic couple living together for a while and so on and so on. Usually establishing that someone has lived with someone on a permanent basis is not very hard to do, and in most cases is simply not a matter of dispute that even has to be dealt with.

The Cohabitees Act provides minimum protection for the weaker partner when a cohabitee relationship ends. Living together is not a willy-nilly thing to do - it does actually make you responsible in certain aspects to the other person and his/her needs. Don't want that responsibility? Then don't live together with someone. What you're saying is sounding an awful lot like "waaah, I wanted to be in a very close grown up relationship with another person, but I don't want any of the responsibility coming with being in a grown up relationship with another person!"

Yes, you have responsibilities (you have to pay your share of the rent and bills, etc.) and there will be a few inconveniences when you split up (for instance, you probably have only one kettle and now need two), but it's not really different from sharing a flat with a friend.

If I were to move in with some rich woman, and because of her wealth I didn't have to work for a few years whilst we were together, then when we split up I can't - shouldn't be able to - claim off her because I'm now not able to live in the manner to which I've become accustomed. I should count my blessings and go back to work.
If one partner in a couple is foolish enough to pay towards a mortgage in the other's name then they should expect to lose that when they split up (unless they take action to guard against losing it beforehand) and in that case they have nobody to blame but themselves.

The moment you decided to live someone, you did in fact assume responsibility against the person.
Um... No.

Even under this new leglislation you only have a legal responsibility once you have been co-habiting for a while.


Again, if you don't want to be responsible towards another person, do not live with them and get your financial and property shit entangled. If none of the parties "want" this dissolution to take place, then they can both simply agree to say "I waive the rights given me by this law" and then just go on their merry ways. The thing is that this won't often happen. One person will often have claims against the other. Hence "protecting the weaker partner." There is no pretending that the financial and property shit has not been entangled - there is no pretending that you're not a grown up living together with another grown up.
And there is no pretending that both grown ups made a grown up descision to live with someone where they did not owe serious legal rights to each other. If they did not get married then the chances are that is because they (or at least one of them) did not want those rights. If they wanted the rights they could just get hitched.

In the UK I think the rule is going to be 2years and BAM! married automatically by the state. And this is to protect people who DON'T want to get married!

fuck it, let them have it. whatever.

Um... No.

Even under this new leglislation you only have a legal responsibility once you have been co-habiting for a while.

If you've not been cohabiting for a while, you will not be needing this law as you not have time to get your business entangled with that of another person. Surprising as it may be to you, romantically involved people who decide to live with each other will tend to live with each other for a sufficient time allowing that to happen.

And there is no pretending that both grown ups made a grown up descision to live with someone where they did not owe serious legal rights to each other. If they did not get married then the chances are that is because they (or at least one of them) did not want those rights. If they wanted the rights they could just get hitched.

In the UK I think the rule is going to be 2years and BAM! married automatically by the state. And this is to protect people who DON'T want to get married!

Have you even read the article?

"Under the proposed plans, cohabiting couples will be able to claim lump sums, a share of property including the family home, regular maintenance payments or even a share of their partner's pension in the event of a split.

The move towards new rights for cohabiters follows recommendations made by the Law Commission earlier this year.

Until now, couples choosing to live together, rather than get married, have enjoyed far fewer rights under the law than their wedded equivalents, even if they have been in a relationship for many years and have had children together.

The changes only apply to the law in England and Wales. Scotland has had similar arrangements in place since May 2006.

There is a common misconception that couples cohabiting for long enough are effectively "common law" spouses.

There is no such thing recognised in law and cohabiting partners that subsequently split up may find themselves left with nothing, even if they have contributed financially to a household or paid a mortgage on a property in their partner's name for many years. "

So, first of all, this will not give all the right of marriage at all, meaning it will not be "forcing" anyone to get married, so you can stop that lacking "argument" of yours now.

Secondly, you seem to think that living together with someone means you are somehow an island against the other person, that everything you have is separate. I'm sorry to have to inform you, but that's just not what living together with someone entails. You will invest in things jointly. Someone will take care of children and lose money on it. You will accrue more and more and more joint property and baggage. And so on and so on....

As stated by the article, if you don't want to claim your rights, you won't have to. The other person, though, might just want all that entangled shit unentangled without being left with nothing. Pretending away the realities of living together with someone is monumentally stupid, and if one is that stupid, one should not have moved in with someone in the first place. Going "waaah, but I didn't want to get married" doesn't make the fact that you did move in with someone and share a common household go away.

Yes, you have responsibilities (you have to pay your share of the rent and bills, etc.) and there will be a few inconveniences when you split up (for instance, you probably have only one kettle and now need two), but it's not really different from sharing a flat with a friend.

That comment right there exposes that you know oh, so little about what you are speaking of, that it makes it virtually pointless to discuss anything in this matter with you. You're simply talking out of your ass. Please, don't move in with anyone.

That comment right there exposes that you know oh, so little about what you are speaking of, that it makes it virtually pointless to discuss anything in this matter with you. You're simply talking out of your ass. Please, don't move in with anyone.

Feel free to enlighten me...

Have you even read the article?

"Under the proposed plans, cohabiting couples will be able to claim lump sums, a share of property including the family home, regular maintenance payments or even a share of their partner's pension in the event of a split.


So, first of all, this will not give all the right of marriage at all, meaning it will not be "forcing" anyone to get married, so you can stop that lacking "argument" of yours now.


Did you properley read the bits you yourself bolded?

The proposed plans will give rights to cash lump sums, share of property, maintanence payments and shares of pension funds in the event of the relationship ending.

A marriage gives rights of cash lump sums, share of property, maintainance payments and shares of pension funds in the event of the relationship ending.

What's the difference?

Is people want the rights/protection of marriage then what is stopping them from getting married?

Really?

What is stopping a cohabiting couple from getting married and getting the exact protection that this law seems to be trying to provide?

The UK government is proposing changes to the law so that co-habiting couples obtain the same 'rights' as married couples. This means when they break up they can make claims on their ex-partners estate etc.

To me this seems wrong and not needed as couples already have the option of marriage (or the equivalent in law for same sex couples) and it is possible to obtain all or some of the rights by various legal contracts and actions.

What do you guys think?


Here is a link to it from the bbc website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6124182.stm


It's a good idea, if as a couple you buy a house, and the slit up you should both get some fo the cash, thats right.

Did you properley read the bits you yourself bolded?

The proposed plans will give rights to cash lump sums, share of property, maintanence payments and shares of pension funds in the event of the relationship ending.

A marriage gives rights of cash lump sums, share of property, maintainance payments and shares of pension funds in the event of the relationship ending.

What's the difference?

Is people want the rights/protection of marriage then what is stopping them from getting married?

Really?

What is stopping a cohabiting couple from getting married and getting the exact protection that this law seems to be trying to provide?


It's a personal choice some people don't like the idea, why should they losse out? I

It's a good idea, if as a couple you buy a house, and the slit up you should both get some fo the cash, thats right.
There is already an existing mechinism fo this, you can buy houses with friends, relatives, children or partners with an agreement on who pays how much and who gets what share in the event of wanting to sell up or in the case of a falling out.

• The cohabitee and his/her partner must live together as a couple. This means that the parties live together in a partnership normally including sexual relations.I think this will be a very hard criteria to check. If a couple split, the one that stands to loose something in settlement could simply claim they were never in fact a real couple. Even if there was sex involved, (s)he might just claim they were "friends with benefits".
Without a written contract these kind of things are hard to prove. I'm not sure these new laws will do much to solve the problems they supposedly deal with.

Glad to see that the UK is stepping up to the plate on this.

In Canada, if you co-habitate for two years and present yourself as a couple (not just room mates), you are legally considered a common law couple. And now that same sex marriage is accepted across the entire country, homosexual couples are covered under the common law couple concept as well.

I mean really. If a couple decides they are a couple, why do they need a piece of paper from God or the government saying that they are? It just doesn't make any sense to me, though if some one wants to be formally married and have a ceremony and all, I'm certainly not going to stop them.

(Unless you're Britney Spears. I think she needs to be single until she actually grows up.)

I think this will be a very hard criteria to check. If a couple split, the one that stands to loose something in settlement could simply claim they were never in fact a real couple. Even if there was sex involved, (s)he might just claim they were "friends with benefits".
Without a written contract these kind of things are hard to prove. I'm not sure these new laws will do much to solve the problems they supposedly deal with.
Bah. All they have to do is call in your co-workers and friends. Are they using spousal benefits at work? Do they have wills and insurance policies with each other as beneficiaries? Do their friends and relatives consider them a couple? Are/Were they sharing a bedroom? Do they have children together? Have they been living together "as a couple" for at least 2 years?

It's really not that hard, Canada has been doing this for as long as I can remember.

Bah. All they have to do is call in your co-workers and friends. Are they using spousal benefits at work? Do they have wills and insurance policies with each other as beneficiaries? Do their friends and relatives consider them a couple? Are/Were they sharing a bedroom? Do they have children together? Have they been living together "as a couple" for at least 2 years?

It's really not that hard, Canada has been doing this for as long as I can remember.

That seems way too subjective to be part of a law.

Bah. All they have to do is call in your co-workers and friends. <..> Do their friends and relatives consider them a couple?How trustworthy are those? They're hardly independent witnesses after all. Easy enough to cast doubt on their motives.

Are/Were they sharing a bedroom?That can easily end up as one's word against the other's.

Have they been living together "as a couple" for at least 2 years?Define "as a couple" in legal terms

I don't really see how this arrangement will solve anything in the cases were people want to frustrate justice/fairness. And in other cases were people split up on friendly terms, a law is hardly needed because they'll arrange things amicably.
And if you look at the problem with some divorce cases, it will hardly be better here where the relationship is so much less defined.

The Cohabitees Act provides minimum protection for the weaker partner when a cohabitee relationship ends. Living together is not a willy-nilly thing to do - it does actually make you responsible in certain aspects to the other person and his/her needs. Don't want that responsibility? Then don't live together with someone. What you're saying is sounding an awful lot like "waaah, I wanted to be in a very close grown up relationship with another person, but I don't want any of the responsibility coming with being in a grown up relationship with another person!"
But why can't it be voluntary?

Canada's had laws about this for decades. Any two people who live together and share expenses become legally married.

But what business is it of the government what the state of my relationship is?

This is a terrible law.

How trustworthy are those? They're hardly independent witnesses after all. Easy enough to cast doubt on their motives.

That can easily end up as one's word against the other's.

Define "as a couple" in legal terms

I don't really see how this arrangement will solve anything in the cases were people want to frustrate justice/fairness. And in other cases were people split up on friendly terms, a law is hardly needed because they'll arrange things amicably.
And if you look at the problem with some divorce cases, it will hardly be better here where the relationship is so much less defined.I note that you didn't try to refute the other situations I presented: are they legal beneficiaries of each other through wills, work, life insurance, etc? Are they each other's emergency contacts at work?

Like I said, common-law couples are legally recognized after 2 years in Canada, and the system I described above works fine. I have yet to read of, or hear of, any acrimonious 'divorce' suit based on "oh, we weren't really a couple", and I avidly follow the news.

That seems way too subjective to be part of a law.
What, pray tell, is subjective about being listed as a beneficiary in a will, in insurance papers, or in your RRSPs (401K for you Americans)?

What is subjective about using spousal benefits at work? (health insurance etc)

What is subjective about them having children together?

What is subjective about filing taxes as a couple?

The system in Canada works, whether you are comfortable about it or not.

What, pray tell, is subjective about being listed as a beneficiary in a will, in insurance papers, or in your RRSPs (401K for you Americans)?

What is subjective about using spousal benefits at work? (health insurance etc)

What is subjective about them having children together?

What is subjective about filing taxes as a couple?

The system in Canada works, whether you are comfortable about it or not.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is either, Equus. To me it just makes good practical sense.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is either, Equus. To me it just makes good practical sense.
:D That's because you're a sensible kinda guy, Sam.

:D That's because you're a sensible kinda guy, Sam.

Indeed. Flattery will get you everywhere. ;)

Well, maybe not cohabitating, but still. :D

Many US states already have "common law marriages". Please try to keep up, England.
I know, I'm shocked...we've been doing this in Canada for ages...

But why can't it be voluntary?



Because who ever decides to end the relationship is naturally going to try to weasle out of their responsibilities. This kind of law says, 'nice try, no go, pay up fucker'.

Like I said, common-law couples are legally recognized after 2 years in Canada, and the system I described above works fine. Actually, it differs from province to province (or territory). It's one year (or is it six months now? That was being discussed at one point, haven't checked the statute recently) in Alberta, or immediately upon having a child.

But doesn't detract from your point. Carry on.

Actually, it differs from province to province (or territory). It's one year (or is it six months now? That was being discussed at one point, haven't checked the statute recently) in Alberta, or immediately upon having a child.

But doesn't detract from your point. Carry on.

You're right - it's two years in my province, but I notice that some have shorter time periods. I don't think any are longer than 3 years though.

You're right - it's two years in my province, but I notice that some have shorter time periods. I don't think any are longer than 3 years though.

We have this new weird statute, the Adult Interdependent Relationship Act...it actually does extend the period to 3 years now...or you can enter into a formal agreement immediately. Hmmm. I should read this damn thing. You can also be in this sort of relationship with a dependent family member in a non-spousal relationship. You can even be in this relationship with a non-family member, and in the absence of a will, that person can apply as next-of-kin!!!!!!!!

Check out this Alberta Law Foundation FAQ on this Act, it's kind of crazy...

FAQ (http://www.law-faqs.org/ab/inter.htm)

Because who ever decides to end the relationship is naturally going to try to weasle out of their responsibilities. This kind of law says, 'nice try, no go, pay up fucker'.
If they agreed not to have resposibilities, then there's nothing out from which to weasel.

We have this new weird statute, the Adult Interdependent Relationship Act...it actually does extend the period to 3 years now...or you can enter into a formal agreement immediately. Hmmm. I should read this damn thing. You can also be in this sort of relationship with a dependent family member in a non-spousal relationship. You can even be in this relationship with a non-family member, and in the absence of a will, that person can apply as next-of-kin!!!!!!!!

Check out this Alberta Law Foundation FAQ on this Act, it's kind of crazy...

FAQ (http://www.law-faqs.org/ab/inter.htm)
Alberta brought in that law when Ralph was musing about deregulating marriage. If he did that, no one would be legally married, but anyone could for an Adult Interdependent Relationship. It would have been an excellent solution to the gay marriage problem.

It would have been even better if the formation of an Adult Interdependent Relationship was entirely voluntary.