Marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation
The Law Society has proposed that cohabiting couples should by default have protection if they split up.
I am opposed to this- taking on responsibility towards another person should be done with explicit consent. You give that when you get married or form a civil partnership (which should be the same as marriage but that is a different matter).
This would have the effect of assuming consent to these rules when two people cohabit. No positive commitment is made, no contract drawn up between the parties, yes one is forced upon them, or they must draw one up themselves to escape from it.
This is apart from attempting to define cohabitation, something which is bound to be fraught with difficulty.
I do wonder about the motives for this. Who would benefit most? It seems to me that the lawyers would. A whole new area of disputes for them to administer, handed them by law.
My suggestion is that the Law Society should draw up basic contracts which people can sign setting out their responsibilities towards each other. A bit like marriage really, except even more explicit. This will generate work for the lawyers, and make the system far more flexible and entirely voluntary.
It even opens up the door to other living arrangements. Do you have multiple partners living with you? Well, you can have a contract between the three of you. How about long term house mates? No sexual relationship but things might be purchased together - how do you apportion things in the event of one leaving?
This could be well publicised by the legal profession, helping do away with the myth of common law marriage.
It also acts as a good signal to people in a relationship - is the other person not willing to take responsibility? That might make you think again.
Everyone wins in this situation. Contracts you explicitly make are easier to enforce, they let you define your own terms rather than someone else telling you what you should require and needn’t be expensive. Its the ideal liberal solution.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I think you’re right to point out the problems with the notion of “passive consent”.
Your idea of a simple contract that could be made available for free in a multitude of languages, publicised and with clear guidance as to what your new rights and responsibilities will be can only be a good one.
Anything that makes people acknowledge responsibilities to their partner can only be a good thing and in the end will ensure that people do not miss out because of some notion of a common law marriage that simply does not exist.
It would be liberal, practical and would hopefully make the system a lot clearer, thereby reducing pressures on the courts.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:58 am
[...] back then? on Pink Dog’s blog. A double treat: an archive photo AND a readable blog design. 10. Marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation on Tristan Mills’ Liberty Alone. On why love can’t be [...]