Compulsory marriage: Saying "I do" even when you don't

Here's a brilliant liberal idea - let's make marriage compulsory.

This sounds mad, doesn't it? But it is precisely what the Law Commission is now proposing.

The Commission believes that cohabiting couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as married. Let's unpack what this means, shall we? 

A couple decide not to get married because they don't wish to make a commitment with each other in law. Now the state decides that they can't do this. They don't need to have guests, a reception and a cake with white icing, but the rest of marriage - the rights, the responsibilities, the legal bond - that they must accept. Whether they want to or not.

I prefer the old fashioned way, in which people decide for themselves when they should get hitched. Under the new proposals, a legal precedent will eventually be established which determines the exact moment when leaving your toothbrush at your boyfriend's flat established his right to a share of your income.

Brilliant, eh?

Establishing a legal link between a couple is what getting married is for. Why can't they just leave it alone?

Comments

[John Allen]

Absolutely. If people want to establish a legal compact for their relationship, then they can enter into a marriage or civil partnership. If they don't, then it is right to assume that they don't wish to enjoy this legal protection/burden.

Common law marriages are only supported by self-conscious modern types who think that marriage is old-fashioned, but still want legal recognition of their mutual commitment.

[adam]

That's a rather big step from granting rights to cohabiting couples to saying that marriage is to be made *compulsory*.

And I thought that encouraging marriage was essentially a conservative idea.

[Nony Mouse]

As someone who has lived in a "Common Law" state before, let me assure you that such laws are written so that intent is key. If I live with someone as a roommate for a year, it's a roommate. If I live with someone for a year and represent ourselves as married to our families and friends, it's a marriage.
Far from only being supported by self-conscious modern-types, it's also supported by independant-minded old-fashioned boondock types.

[Gabriel]

Careful Danny, fiver says that within six months Cameron gives this proposal his unconditional backing and lambasts its opponents for heartlessly ignoring the plight of dumped girlfriends. Then you'll have to write a post explaining exactly how Cameron is completely correct in re-intepreting the essential truths of conservatism for the post-modern era and insulting those of us who disagree.

[Guy Herbert]

There's a cultural crosspurpose between John Allen and Nony Mouse that may confuse some. "Common law marriage" in Britain is a linguistic survival and does not indicate any legal status for the relationship, so JA is just objecting to people living together being treated as a legal status. He thinks it ought not to be endorsed or recognised by the state without formality, and that there should be a formal state or nothing. NM is referring to the original sense of the phrase, legal marriages that may be created or recognised in some US jurisdiction without registration, something that hasn't existed in England for a couple of hundred years.

As Adam points out, couples in this proposal do not seem to being granted any of the rights of married people as a couple, merely some rights against each other on separation. So it is nothing like "common law marriage" in the proper sense.

[David Hawkins]

Bossiness has become a profession for an increasing section of the English middle class. I notice it as soon as I arrive at the airport, the constant hectoring Tannoy announcements lecturing me on dangers that would be obvious to a child of nine. "Don't leave your bag alone otherwise it will be taken away and DESTROYED", "Please WAIT to be seated", "Don't STEP over the line", "Photography PROHIBITED".
Perhaps you have to live abroad to notice such things. Perhaps the British imagine that social order would collapse if there weren't a whole group of people employed to tell us how to live our lives.
Well in my part of Berlin, booze is a third of the price it is in the UK, school kids don't have to wear uniforms, you can find your own seat in a restaurant, pubs shut when they feel like it and I don't notice any of the pent up aggression that assaults me whenever I arrive in England.
Germans assume that if you want to share your property with you partner then you get married, but if you live together you have no claim on each others wealth. Children are provided for until they become adults, but that's it.
Is there any limits to the Nanny State ? The latest Law Commission proposal seems to suggest that there isn't. The State seems happy to regulate every aspect of my personal relationships, while being completely ineffective over forced marriages, "honour" killings and child trafficking.
What a strange place England has become, I'm so glad I don't live there any more.

[Marie]

I think this is fair.This is existing in Europe already(france for example).What happennes to the woman if his boyfriend or girlfriend after let's say 5 years decide it is enough when for example a marriage was on the plan.
This is fair for the women and that why here most of the male commentators are against.
As you know we do most of the homework,and we have to pretend to like your mother ,without any insurance that our lover/and hard work will be honored by a marriage or at least a civil union.
i know a lot of women cohabiting that would love to get married but the man doesnt want to...so at least it would send a clear message to the bullshiters that most men are nowdays when it come to take their responsabilities towards the woman they sleep with..........
Well Done.Time has come for men to understand that a women is never to be taken as a sexe object with a vague promise of marriage or civil union.And that nothing is free or be taken for granted.
WELL DONE.

[Michael W stone, BA FBIS]

Precisely what I've thought for a long time. All these "rights for cohabitees" make sense only for people who do indeed want to be married - but through some weird mental hang up just don't want to _call_ it marriage.

Oh well, I suppose that's reasonable. If you live together with a view to doing so permanently and raising children, then you are indeed "married" whether you choose to use the word or not.

[tony]

A great get rich quick and legalised theft scheme for the disgraceful and a receipe for single occupation homes for life.

It will be the ruin of many a good relationship. Who exactly can you trust. ?

[Neil Davenport]

Will the Government run an advertising campaign warning us all that if we are currently cohabiting and dont wish to be obligated then we should split up/live seperately with a decent amount of notice before this becomes law?
Does this have any popular support?
Surely much more specific clarification on when 2 preople will be considered "married" needs to be publicised?
Will the goverment start to legally recognise co-habitation agreements?

So many questions. So few answers?

[THE ENGLISH]

We're glad you don't live here any more too, David Hawkins.

[Uri B]

More fodder for the gold diggers. Live with a bloke for 2 years in his house. Cheat on him, split up and force him to pay for the priviledge. Much like the divorce laws really. Why can't people who are not married decide for themselves what they want irrespective of what the state deems proper? It has no business here.

[Andreas Ottitsch]

I share the concerns expressed by some here, that this is a rather substantial "meddling" by the state into essentially private affairs. What bothers me most here, is that the Commission did not suggest any "fixed" rules as to what the conditions would be for a partnership to be considered "equal to marriage". As a result it will be left up to case law (i.e. lawyers earning their share of the loot) to come up with precedences. And even then there will be no certainty, as there is no one relationship completely equal in circumstances to another. The notion of a "forced marriage" seems to describe this quite well. Taken to the extreme, it means that ANY conhabitation (or perhaps even spending a certain amount of nights in your partner's flat) will have to be taken into consideration, so that you would have to make sure that you do not enter into anything exceeding a one night stand with anyone whom you do NOT want to spend the rest of your life with...
There ARE countries, after all, where cohabitation of a man and a woman outside wedlock is considered ILLEGAL. These are - incidentally - the same countries, where even private consumption of alcohol is considered not only a sin, but a crime... - wait, recent governmental announcements make this not seem so unrealistic around here in the near future either... Hmmm... Soon "British Values" will seem more familiar to many in the Middle East and beyond.

[Marie]

The problem is that in most European Countries this already exists....So Uk need to update his legal system.
I am sorry but cohabiting together doesnt mean you are married.You forgott the pre-nup,the ceremony and therefore the legal registration and sometimes(as it used to be in France) the change of family name.
As well,any woman who got married will see how the outside world suddently take her more seriouly and how other men show more respect...
IT is always a good sign for me when I see a man who had enough seriousness to get married as for any employers.This show you are able to commit to something.

[Bob Finbow]

Hey Marie. I've got a really novel idea. Why not just say "if you won't marry me, I won't cohabit with you"? It used to workk really well. The whole point about 'cohabiting' is that one or both partners does NOT want the commitment of marriage. They should be entitled to that freedom of choice. No other contract is valid until it is signed. Why should this be. It is, and has always been, within the power of the woman to solve this problem by simply refusing unless marriage is on the table. The trouble is, it's another example of women wanting it all. They want the freedom to sleep with or cohabit with whoever they want, but at the same time they want this fact to give them legal power over the man. So the answer is simple. If you want marriage, don't jump into bed until you get it. If you do want to bed-hop, accept that this gives you no legal claim upon the other person

[david]

I think this legal change is overdue. eg, if an unmarried couple buy a house together, and it is put into one partner's name only, and if they break up, the partner who does not have the property in their name has no recourse to get their share, other than by suing. It's to ensure that, if there is a break up, that any joint assets are divided fairly. I agree though that what defines a relationship needs to be set in concrete, not left to case law.

[Lisa]

Time and time again you hear complaints from men that the way the law is moving, they're going to lose half their earnings if they get married, "more fodder for the gold diggers", "A great get rich quick and legalised theft scheme" blah blah blah.

If men are so stupid as to actually date and marry women who are just after their money, then they deserve to lose half. That sort of woman is so easy to spot, the problem being that the male ego gets in the way, so they think that the gorgeous, long legged 21 year old blonde woman is desperately in love with a 45 year old balding man with halitosis, and thus marries her.

If they actually knew anything about the previous law and how property was divided up before (which they evidently don't), they would realise that the recent changes in the law are to protect women who gave up careers and their own prospects to raise a family, and then end up with nothing when their husband leaves them, not to go after men's earnings.

[Bob Finbow]

Hang on Lisa, this is not about married couples. The whole point this article is that these laws are to be applied to people who specifically have not married. That's the injustice of it (although I can't agree that people should not be protected from their own stupidity - what about women who stupidly marry abusive men. Should they not be protected because they should have known better??)