Co-habitation now equals Marriage Rights in the UK

**Male-Rights-Network** · 12th-June-2007

I referred to their introduction in a recent post on the Don't Get Married board:

Wake up people, co-habitation laws being lobbied for throughout the world by feminist groups will cause the same result through "automatic marriage" or "marriage by default". This has little to do with "not walking up the aisle", this is to do with the effective prohibition of male accumulation of wealth.

The State, in Communist fashion, is repossessing men's assets and redistributing them as it wishes.

The State is the Number 1 enemy of men worldwide.

The Labour Government has decided to establish an "opt-in" marriage system, whereby co-habiting with someone for any length of time will give them specific rights to your property, savings, pensions and yes, income in the form of alimony and child-support. Furthermore, any involvement of a child or the partner "sacrificing their career" puts you at extreme additional risk.

This story has gotten NO coverage in any of the other major British newspaper and NO coverage on any of the British news channels, e.g. BBC, Sky.

There is no such law in Ireland... yet. Though feminist groups are lobbying heavily for it. (Separately, the Irish Government intends to bring in a new incentive to divorce by extending the "first time buyers" grant to them. See my other post.)

I think it can be safely said that Britain is the most Matriarchal society in existence at the moment. I think such "automatic marriage rights through co-habitation" laws exist in America, though the Brits' implementation will be very liberal and a great incentive for greed-driven females. Eternal Bachelor has long predicted them; now here they are:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1913200.ece

The Times
June 11, 2007
Unmarried couples get equal rights on ‘divorce’
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

Cohabiting partners who split up are to get similar rights to divorcing couples under plans to be outlined next month, The Times has learnt.

Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.

The reforms are to be published by the Law Commission, the Government’s law reform body.It is expected to drop any proposal for a time stipulation, so that only couples who had lived together for, say, two years, could bring a claim; or any bar on childless couples.

Plans that would have made it harder for the partner who stays at home to lodge a claim have also been dropped. Courts will no longer have to be satisfied that the unmarried couple jointly decided that one of them should give up their career and stay at home and that the decision was not made just by one of them.

At present, cohabiting partners have no financial rights if their relationship breaks down, regardless of how long they have lived together. If there are children in the relationship, the partner who has residency will get child maintenance but can make no other claims.

The proposed reforms will offer legal remedies to up to two million cohabiting couples.

...

The Law Commission reforms aim to strike a delicate balance: they seek to give cohabitees who break up protections similar to those for divorcing couples, but to stop short of automatic rights to a financial share. This means that the courts would have the same discretion to award maintenance payments, a lump sum or share of the property – but the right is not automatic.

A cohabitee will still have to show that he or she has suffered or would suffer financially as a result of the split, so claims after short relationships are likely to fail, and those where there are children are most likely to succeed.

...

The Commission’s original idea was that people wanting to lodge a claim on the grounds of financial disadvantage must show that the couple had jointly decided that one would stay at home and give up a career. Someone who made an “imprudent, unilateral decision to give up work” should not be able to claim. But experts said that any agreement would be hard to prove and easy to deny.

Courts in New Zealand and Scottish have experience of measuring economic disadvantage arising from childcare, usually based on potential loss of earnings and career prospects.

With more couples choosing to live together and not marry or defer marriage, there is growing pressure for the law to change. Research shows that few people are aware of their lack of rights and many wrongly believe that cohabitation makes them “common law” spouses with rights similar to those of married couples.

Many contribute to mortgage payments on a home in their partner’s name, or reduce their earning capacity by looking after children, but get little or nothing when the relationship ends.

**bola** · 12th-June-2007

Quote from Male-Rights-Network

The Labour Government has decided to establish an "opt-in" marriage system, whereby co-habiting with someone for any length of time will give them specific rights to your property, savings, pensions and yes, income in the form of alimony and child-support. Furthermore, any involvement of a child or the partner "sacrificing their career" puts you at extreme additional risk.

Isn't it likely though that a lot of the men affected by this law, voted Labour? Serves them right then.

By the way, I thought it was an opt-out system?

**Male-Rights-Network** · 12th-June-2007

Isn't it likely though that a lot of the men affected by this law, voted Labour? Serves them right then.

Yes, indeed they were: they bought the "New Labour" rubbish, not realising that a leopard does not change its spots. If it doesn't tax the rich by raising income tax, they do it through Systematic Wealth Transfer by liberalising Divorce procedures, and now they do it through mere co-habitation.

Such a pity that Labour were voted back into power in 2005 - it looks like they are really going to town on their Marxist societal disintegration agenda this term. They've also ramped up the powers of the CSA to remove men's passports, raid their bank accounts and print their names in public. They are proposing to abolish female prisons and the Home Office recently replied to an e-mail about it, basically defending it and saying they will go ahead if they get half a chance. I have not read anything new about it recently, but plans are in train to impose massive cuts and freezes on the wages of male - and only male - Civil Service workers. Their "Gender Duty" programme is basically just "gender mainstreaming" which just means "feminist agenda mainstreaming", for example is specifically says that boys should not be given extra classes even if they are disadvantages on all levels of the educational system. These are all highly Marxist anti-male policies and laws that have only come to the fore in the last few months.

Fantastic how Labour bills itself as an "it's the economy, stupid" party when really it is just as Marxist as it ever was.

Then again, it's not like the similarly Marxist-Feminist "Conservatives" would be any better. So I suppose can you blame those men if there never really was a choice?

By the way, I thought it was an opt-out system?

Yes, you're right bola, I got that wrong. Except that it's worse than most "opt-out systems": it assumes you want to opt yourself in, but yet it does not give you the possibility of opting yourself out if you explicitly say so. No contract and no agreement can invalidate this "automatic inheritance agreement".

**bola** · 12th-June-2007

Quote from Male-Rights-Network

Then again, it's not like the similarly Marxist-Feminist "Conservatives" would be any better. So I suppose can you blame those men if there never really was a choice?

I agree it's not much of a choice, but at least the Conservatives are less eager to initiate these hostile laws. What we really need in the Western World is a conservative, right of center Labour party. A party that can represent both the economical and social interests of the lower income groups, but steers clear of ethnocentrism. A genuine "blue Labour". Currently a lot of working class men have little choice but to vote Labour for economic reasons and sign a lot of their rights as male citizens away. They're basically held hostage.

**Yan Yan** · 12th-June-2007

This means that the courts would have the same discretion to award maintenance payments, a lump sum or share of the property – but the right is not automatic.

That was the scary part for me.

"Discretion" = licence to loot.

**Timocrat** · 13th-June-2007

Die Hard 4 (Canuck speaks to our UK friends on their new common law opt in system):

"Welcome to the party Pal! "

Come out to the coast, have a few drinks, bang your married!

You have been dealt the ace of spades. You no longer have the full right to choose you wife! Get out while you can!

**Tyrael** · 13th-June-2007

Someone should start a website about making the marriage/divorce deal a good option for men again and abolishing the idiotic co-habitation policies which are merely a attempt to cover up the original marriage/divorce problem.
Other issues are also attached to this such as domestic violence, child support = alimony to ex-wife, false allegations and lack of shared parenting.

**Male-Rights-Network** · 14th-June-2007

Quote from Timocrat

Die Hard 4 (Canuck speaks to our UK friends on their new common law opt in system):

"Welcome to the party Pal! "

I get the impression that the UK's implementation of "marriage by default" through co-habitation is more liberal than the US's. Is this so? When was the US's co-habitation = marriage law brought in?

**selkie** · 14th-June-2007

I don't think the US has a co-habitation law.... yet. But Canada does.

**Tyrael** · 14th-June-2007

Someone should start a "restoremarriage.com" website with forums which explains why marriage has become a bad option, the harm it's inflicting on society, bad co-habitation laws and that it needs to be fixed to become a attractive option for men again.

**selkie** · 14th-June-2007

Quote from Tyrael

Someone should start a "restoremarriage.com" website with forums which explains why marriage has become a bad option, the harm it's inflicting on society, bad co-habitation laws and that it needs to be fixed to become a attractive option for men again.

Hey Tyrael, that actually sounds like an interesting idea.