Unmarried couples, civil partnerships and marriage
Something’s been bugging me over the last few days of discussion about giving unmarried couples more rights as a couple, and it needs clearing up.
What’s wrong with this passage, written by a heterosexual unmarried journalist in today’s Guardian?
The extension of legal rights to [my girlfriend] and me is inevitable, given that they have already been granted by means of civil partnerships to the likes of my gay friends
It’s this: the assumption that the only couples who now have no legal status vis-a-vis one another are unmarried woman-man couples, because that thing called civil partnership has sorted it out for the gays. Er, no. Couples that have no legal status to one another are those who have not gone through a state-approved ceremony (called “marriage” if you’re a woman-man couple, and “civil partnership” if you’re a woman-woman or man-man couple). Changing the law to recognise long-term partnerships outside marriage or civil partnership would affect both straight and gay couples. The introduction of civil partnerships last December didn’t give any new rights to gay couples *unless they chose to take them up by signing the register*. Small point, but one that’s been bugging me.
In relation to the broader issue, it makes sense to me to extend some rights to cohabiting couples who aren’t married or civilly-partnered. Given that those who are screwed over by the current lack of rights are (in the main) women whose relationships with their male partners break up, does anyone else think it ironic that where once feminists resisted marriage as an institution which oppressed women, now it is the lack of that institution which does over women?
yawn
state approved ceremony it has to be,whats your solution instead?
Ffs just because you are gay (probably more a fashion thing than reality) why do you have to go on and on about it
Popular opinion holds that the current marriage laws strongly favour women. Is it surprising that men are reluctant to agree to a contract they believe to have been rigged in favour of the other signatory?
Extending such rights to cohabiting couples will simply persuade such men to avoid living with their girlfriend in the first place.
I expect many more complaints that men are afraid of commitment.
Carol - I get to go on and on about it because this is my blog, funnily enough. You clearly dislike me, my politics and my lifestyle intensely; why then do you keep reading and posting?
Antonia, I don’t think it is a small point at all. It clearly equates civil partnership with so-called ‘common law’ marriage rather than ‘real’ marriage.
You’ve highlighted (to me at least) that, while these proposals are to be welcomed, there needs to be an assurance that civil partnerships wont be downgraded as a result in the eyes of the public.
These are bad and unworkable proposals. If people want the legal obligation to one another, they should go through the formalities required to say so. Beyond that, the only involvement of the state should be to ensure fair division of any property clearly held in common, and equitable support for whoever takes on the childcare role if there are children involved.
May be a bit out of touch, jdc, but I thought that was all that was being proposed, as opposed to the current free-for-all on both children and property when an unmarried couple break up?
They are consulting on a number of things, some of which are probably sensible (presumed inheritance in the event of one partner dying without having made a will, for instance). Also “Whether cohabitants should have access to any remedies providing periodical payments, lump sums, or transfers of property from one party to the other when they separate”.
The short answer to this question would be “no”.
incidently, I believe that straight couples can become civil partners.
Great news for us Humanists…
Tom - you’ve been misinformed. Civil partnerships are for same-sex couples only. But never worry - there’s no law that says you have to get married in a church. Registry office (or hotel, football pitch, casino etc) should do nicely.
Am I the only one confused by all this.
Are civil partnerships:
a) The equivalent of same-gender marriage?
b) A lesser form of legal partnership than marriage?
c) A way for unmarried same-gender couples to access the legal benefits of marriage?
If it’s a) then hetero couples should go to the registry office. If it’s c) then they have a point. If it’s b) then where’s the equality?
Actually, it was one of the purposes of the Civil Partnership Act to place non-cp same-sex couples in the same position as unmarried heterosexual couples. Hence improvements to protections in relation to domestic violence and to the ability to make claims against the estate of a deceased partner in the event of intestacy or inadequate provision by will. And hence, too, the new visibility of same sex couples in realtion to the benefits system, which has its swings and roundabouts. (See the recent House of Lords case of M, where a woman would have had her child support payments as an absent parent had her relationship with her female cohabitant been acknowledged, as it now is following the coming into force of the 2004 Act.) The real problem with this, which has been an Outrage stick to beat Stonewall with among other things is that couples are disadvantaged and discriminated against within the benefits and pensions system on a ground derived from sex discrimination, the assumption of dependency, leading to the sort of thing Beatrix Cambell, you may recall, wrote about memorably in The Road to Wigan Pier Revisited.
There is a real problem that the way civil partnerships were undersold to get them through more easily means that it is not widely understood that civil partnerships are a new form of “status” with generally speaking the consequences of marriage, including the creation of relationships of affinity.
I come from the position that civil partnerships are a), hence my post above. I don’t think you have any chance of getting a definitive answer, though, Tim, as there are likely to be as many answers as people you ask.
CPs are basically the same as marriage. The big differences are: (1) laws on marital children, which can’t apply to gay people, and (2) grounds for divorce and annulment, which are slightly different.
IMHO this is all a big consipracy against men. Lots of men aren’t marrying because they’ve seen divorced men get cleared out, and don’t want it to happen to them. So the response is to treat cohabiting men as part-married anyway, this is really pathetic. I only think this is ironic for some feminists, those who always though women should be independent of men quite rightly think this stinks.
A pedant writes…
Register Office, Antonia! A Registry Office was a labour exchange for domestic staff. Though one might suggest the parallel is not wholly without irony.
It’s quite simple. If you want the protections and obligations that marriage provides, get married (or civil-partnered). It can be very cheap, if you don’t want to go in for all the dress / big party business. If you don’t want those protections and obligations, don’t get married. You get the choice.
Why should the government decide that, for example, I want to support a person for the rest of my life, just because we find it congenial to share a house and have regular sex for a few years?
same sex marriage, in my view is wrong. but what is realy wrong is the right of a couple (a man & woman), to exercise there right to common law marriage. this shows how the church & state are just trying to highjack god/marriage for there own fund rising ends.we must stand up for our right to acpect gods free gift of marriage
Hello
I think unmarried couples must be protected by the law at least once children are involved! I have been in a relationship for over 20 years and have 2 children with my partner. This relationship unfortunately had to come to an end due to my partner’s increasingly abusive behaviour.
The abuse caused horrendous damage and I had no other option, than to report my partner for the second time to the police. I have invested some money in the house and gave up my career to look after my family for a considerable time.
My partner now has given me a notice to quit pretending in his application he is only my landlord and has made it also crystal clear that he will not give me any of my money back, I assume this is my punishment for reporting him to the police.
My situation is such that I have disabilities that limit the type of work I can do and I have no family in this country. I do not have friends as such either due to my partners controlling and possessive nature. I also suffer from severe post traumatic stress disorder and anorexia due to the ongoing abuse. My notice to quit gives me one month to move and I have no where do go or any laws available to me that could ensure that I am not robbed of everything I have worked for over the last 20 years.
I also like to point out, with marriage in the decline, and domestic violence on a sharp increase, to not legislate to protect co-habiting people is potentially a domestic abusers charter. My abuser taunted me for years that if I should leave or report him to the police, that I would lose everything because the house is in his name and he pays most of the bills. Indeed I was cohered into lewd actives that totally humiliated me with the threat to lose everything if I do not comply.
Not so long ago I had legal advice on this matter and nearly had a nervous break down, after being told that not only have I got no rights to the house, I also have to provide proof of purchase of any goods in the house I might claim to be mine. When I moved in with my partner 15 years ago the house was empty and I had everything to furniture a home.
Furthermore, it was put to me that not only would I have to proof that I purchased the goods but I have to evidence where I got the money from. However, it seems my partner does not have to evidence anything, like for example showing the licence that supposed to expire Nov 8th, needless to add, there is not such licence. All he had to do is tell a lawyer he is a landlord and I am his tenant not his partner of over 20 years he abused.
My future is bleak if not to say I am ruined but only because I was not able to make my partner marry me, even though I have been a fantastic mother to his children, one by another women I still help, and a supportive and by far too understanding and tolerant partner.
Right now I live because I have to, not because I want to as I can not believe that in a modern, supposed civilised society such horrendous, inhumane injustice can be possible. The fact that the law has not been adjusted to facilitate unmarried couples, demonstrate how little women are still valued in this society.
By far more women and children suffer than men because of the non-existence of adequate legislations to protect unmarried couples. I am certain if it was the other way round the Law Lords would have made amendments to the law a long time ago!
Please publish this version!!
thank you!
I am in a very similar circumstance to the woman above. I am in a relationship with an abusive, controlling and possessive man. when we met, he had nothing and moved in with me. He proposed marriage, without a ring as we had little money. soon after I got pregnant. We had the baby, and even though things were ok, apart from the physical abuse, which I always forgave him, but still no marriage. When our child was 18 months, he finally started working and in the past few years has become a millionaire.
We are both educated people with MAs. I had to give up work at the start of the pregnancy as I was hospitalised following the miscarriage of a twin. When my child was small, we had no money to pay for help, so I could not go out to work. My partner has always been anti women working. I used to laugh at his quaint ideas regarding a womens place, but very soon it became apparent that I had to stay home to look after our kid as he worked from home and would always hit me if I tried to go out.
I have no money, but thanks to his earnings I have a lovely home. but I have no friends, he has turned all my friends and family against me, and his family despise me and they often come to stay with us for months on end.
I agreed to leave england as I thought a lifestyle change would be great for our child. But now find myself in a country where I have no legal status, can not speak the language, unable to call home as he listens in on my calls, and essentially trapped. He hates me, but I am a good mother. I suffer emotional physical and psychological abuse daily. If I had access to some money, I would leave, but I don’t and the thought of living with my child in a council estate is just so depressing, I will just put up with everything until my child is older, then go.
If I had been married, I would have divorced at the first sign of violence. i feel I supported my partner so much in the beginning years of our relationship that I deserve some financial assistance and it angers me that I have to stay in a horrible relationship until the law changes.
It is easy to say that it is better to be poor and free of such a man, but I worry that my child will not forgive me for taking him away from a life of plenty, private schools, tennis lessons, piano football etc. This is why I stay.
please hurry up and change the law!
I just wanted to add that the reason why we never married is because my partner was advised by his accountant not to, so as to never have to give me any money were we to divorce. I am not included in his will or has no life insurance and he will never buy any property as he is afraid I may have a claim to it. So we are permanent renters. all money is kept in offshore accounts, with the statements going to his parents address. I have my own account, and I have to pay all the household bills with it. He checks all my receipts and he gives me enough money each month to cover all outgoings, but no extra for me. He has never even bought me a birthday or christmas present!
francesca
Which country?(or is that not real country-one in the fairytales?)
hi antonia, i was wondering if you had any good journals or websites for me to access on feminism and the civil partnership act. currently at researching the civil partnership act 2004 and looking and the development and whether it can be a marriage etc etc.
best regards
laura
I believe the only fair way of dealing with all this confusion is for married/civil-partnered people to be treated as such and for cohabitees to be treated as single people in their own right. After all, those who have married/civil-partnered have made a conscious decision to declare that they will support each other for life and thus should be treated as such by the state and society. To be treated as married by the state when you’re only living together is outrageous and I hope we never give unmarried couples the same rights as married people as this would be a far greater abuse of their human rights. The answer is simple: if you make the conscious decision to marry; you’ll be treated as such. If you don’t; you’ll be treated by the state as a single person in your own right. I repeat nobody should be married by default. How on earth are these proposals enforceable anyway? If a cohabiting couple splits up, the one who may lose out financially can always argue that the couple were just good friends. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? The only people who’ll benefit are lawyers who love complexity.