On balance at the moment I can't quite see why people who want the same rights as married couples shouldn't just get married (where this includes civil partnerships). It's not like you have to make a big expensive party of it. Mind you I'm more inclined to reduce some of the rights for married couples.
*actually reads report*. Ah, I see they're talking specifically of rights to wealth when a partnership breaks down. That's difficult. I'm sure a lot of people do end up feeling hard-done-by when they've been sharing finances and split up. And it's hard to always come to an amicable agreement. I note I'd probably have ended up with a greater share of the wealth from the house if we'd been married. I'd hate to have had to taken it to court though.
I don't think there's anything at the moment stopping unmarried couples writing some sort of contract between then when pooling finances in order to ensure that something sensible happens when they split up. I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything like the plans outlined should be opt-in rather than opt-out - ie the default remaining as it is at the moment.
The conclusions section mentions "the possible lack of enforcability of Living Together Agreements" and refers to this Law Commission report (I think) (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp179.pdf) which I've not read but is said to advocate making such agreements unambiguously enforceable. Not that that would make much difference to people who didn't make one.
Oops, just realised I was horribly unclear there, I meant I read the BBC report on the research, rather than the research report itself.
If your "should be able to get extra legal rights by mutual agreement without getting married" just means the ability for agreements to be enforcable then that's fine.
And then you either make an agreement, get married, or live without.
I can't quite see why people who want the same rights as married couples shouldn't just get married
A fundamental disagreement with the way civil marriage is based heavily on Christian ideas of marriage? The way Civil Partnership just Isn't Quite The Same? The way the government is no-way-no-how going to let me marry three men and them marry other people and so on and so forth (there are, er, about 10 of us) even if we all wanted to be committed in that way (which I'm not saying we do)?
There's nothing to stop me writing any sort of contract I please with anyone I please (so long as it does not require the parties to it to commit any offence) - that's not the same as saying that I'll be able to go to court and have our contract enforced; it's not the same as saying that when I'm seriously ill my parents won't be contacted against my wishes... it's not even the same as saying that my obnoxious parents couldn't contest my will so that they get my money (if they were mean enough) when I die.
I think what I'd prefer is that everyone who wants to write such a contract be allowed (and provided legal aid for, if they are poor) to do so and that all such contracts be enforced; perhaps the government might offer tax incentives for including particular clauses in your contract - but I'm not very much in favour of that (I am in favour of giving the custodial parent(s) of children tax breaks but not in a way connected to the married-ness of the parents).
I note that I don't actually object to the idea of people being able to form contracts which grant each other rights, as I said above. I just don't see why cohabiting couples should be given extra rights automatically. Either make a contract by getting married, or make a contract outside marriage. But if you want *exactly* the same rights as married people just get married dammit.
Automatic wossnames would be impossible I think - you'd have to at least declare that you were 'cohabiting' (rather than house-sharing). I think lots of people want some (or even all) of the rights associated with marriage (some of which are handed out by the government at present and not available to unmarried people) without the baggage that comes with marriage.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
*actually reads report*. Ah, I see they're talking specifically of rights to wealth when a partnership breaks down. That's difficult. I'm sure a lot of people do end up feeling hard-done-by when they've been sharing finances and split up. And it's hard to always come to an amicable agreement. I note I'd probably have ended up with a greater share of the wealth from the house if we'd been married. I'd hate to have had to taken it to court though.
I don't think there's anything at the moment stopping unmarried couples writing some sort of contract between then when pooling finances in order to ensure that something sensible happens when they split up. I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything like the plans outlined should be opt-in rather than opt-out - ie the default remaining as it is at the moment.
no subject
no subject
If your "should be able to get extra legal rights by mutual agreement without getting married" just means the ability for agreements to be enforcable then that's fine.
And then you either make an agreement, get married, or live without.
no subject
A fundamental disagreement with the way civil marriage is based heavily on Christian ideas of marriage? The way Civil Partnership just Isn't Quite The Same? The way the government is no-way-no-how going to let me marry three men and them marry other people and so on and so forth (there are, er, about 10 of us) even if we all wanted to be committed in that way (which I'm not saying we do)?
There's nothing to stop me writing any sort of contract I please with anyone I please (so long as it does not require the parties to it to commit any offence) - that's not the same as saying that I'll be able to go to court and have our contract enforced; it's not the same as saying that when I'm seriously ill my parents won't be contacted against my wishes... it's not even the same as saying that my obnoxious parents couldn't contest my will so that they get my money (if they were mean enough) when I die.
I think what I'd prefer is that everyone who wants to write such a contract be allowed (and provided legal aid for, if they are poor) to do so and that all such contracts be enforced; perhaps the government might offer tax incentives for including particular clauses in your contract - but I'm not very much in favour of that (I am in favour of giving the custodial parent(s) of children tax breaks but not in a way connected to the married-ness of the parents).
no subject
no subject