Sorry, it is also currently too easy for 'helpful' family members to encourage 'poor little helpless females' (with or without children, who they sometimes hang onto for dear life, because they literally are their llife, i.e. don't have to face reality and go to work) to go for all they can get, after all they have to bring up the children, do they? Some fathers would love to do it, but the courts are currently so biased against most fathers.
The current court system looks for someone to be in the wrong, relationships breakdown, be grown up about it, plan for it in advance, preferably before tying the knot, planning for all eventualities, these things can be updated anyway, such as your will. Agencies should be set up to facilitate this, with impartial participants setting out guidelines that adjust to circumstances. Gold-diggers/spongers of both sexes have given Marriage a bad name, get rid of the Solictiors in these post breakdown arguements, and give Marriage another chance.

Dee, uk,

i would like to know what the answer was to the question that sonia, walsall, west midlands asked as i am in a very similar situation and i am worried what might happen! see below:

Hi Can someone help me? Im living with my partner & we have recently split up. We can not agree on anything! Ive tried talking to him, but theres no point. I have a 10months baby girl. At present we have a house, he is saying that I have to leave as I can't afford the mortgage just on my salary with my baby. My family & friends & have no room. Is there anything I can do about staying in my own home or do I just apply to the council. Please help me?

laura, notingham, england

Hi Can someone help me? Im living with my partner & we have recently split up. We can not agree on anything! Ive tried talking to him, but theres no point. I have a 10months baby girl. At present we have a house, he is saying that I have to leave as I can't afford the mortgage just on my salary with my baby. My family & friends & have no room. Is there anything I can do about staying in my own home or do I just apply to the council. Please help me?

Sonia, walsall, West midlands

please tell us more linzy... i am in the same position!

mary, kent,

I have just split with my wealthy partner of 10 years. He didnt want to get married saying he had a bad divorce and this is the problem that NO men want to get married these days and therefore many women like me who have been left childless and without a financial future if their partner goes off with someone else. This is why this law needs to be in place as soon as possible. You could say that why be with him if he didnt want to get married but as i say no men do particularly if they are wealthy.

Katie, Chichester,

hi,i was wondering if anybody knows weither you have the right to contest the choice of who the pension money goes to.i have a father that passed away 6 months ago and his girlfriend who he had been with for 6-7 years is trying to get all the money he had including his 80 thousand pound pension.has anybody had this happen and if so were you able to contest who the money went to like you can the will.they wasnt married and only moved in just before the christmas and she is claiming that everthing belongs to her.please if anybody no's or has any info please let me no

mandy, colchester, essex

hi, well i'm wondering what to do in my situation? having lived with someone for 17 years with one child who is 17 years old and we share care for him, my ex partner whom i'm in court with on the 23rd of this month regarding half of the equity in the house, he is a police officer and i'm not entitled to half of his pension that he has been paying 400 pound a month into for the last 17 years as we are not married (i had no intention of taking him for that anyway) i paid all the bills holidays clothes food ect, while he paid the morgage and the coucil tax, i still paid for the bills for 2 and a half years after i left, and i am paying for his car at 150 a month as i got a personel loan for it, there is 80.000 equity in the house and i am asking for half of that, he has offered me 10.000 (i never took anything from the house when i left), my name was not on the morgage, my solicitor has just rang and asked me to take 15.000 as she dosent think i will win in court? the law need change!

linzy rhodes, halifax, england united kingdom

Most men don’t want to get married now days. I have two children with my partner and we live together have been for 5 years. I also work part time and help with the bills and do most of everything. My partner does take advantage of me, I want to marry but he doesn’t. I would love to marry him as we have two beautiful children. This law is not wrong, I do understand that people have individual’s rights within a relationship and I do respect my partner, but if we ever did split, then what would my children and I have. I work hard to cloth my children and get food, also do all the cleaning, cooking ironing and keeping the house in tip top condition, he pays the mortgage, if we split he gets it all. It is about time some such law was introduced. With the current state of affairs many men do take advantage of so called equality to avoid responsibility. This law will definitely see that equality has a chance.

Christina, cheltenham, Britian

If you have any spare money- buy shares in your local brothel (or what passes for it) and maybe a few STD drug companies.
Nice place UK's going to be pretty soon !!
Basically ,the law can't cover everyone and everything.
This new self serving proposal must be dug in deep and a stake shoved through it !!
Does anyone respect England any more ?
Where are all our values that made us Great Britain....
now' Lonely Britain' to be.

terv, Swindon,

Fundamentally when we choose to marry (as I did) we also choose to become 'one' legally too. Therefore marriage is a contract where you agree to be equal partners in all things. Most people who live together choose to do so because they do not want the state medling in their affairs and respect the rights of the individual to choose. There are a number of financial benefits by remaining unmarried for both parties. These would be compromised under the proposed law. If the state wants to safeguard individuals rights within a relationship then they should respect the individuals right NOT to marry. Surely this is a fundamental human right, as is the right NOT to enter into a contract. This proposed Law is set on forcing a contract on individuals without signature. Surely this cannot be legal? The proposals are proposterous and devalues marriage and the rights of an individual to choose.

Michael White, Posrtsmouth, UK

About time some such law was introduced. With the current state of affairs many men just take advantage of so called equality to avoid responsibility for their partner and children. This law will see that equality has a chance of genuinely existing.

Dion, Herefordshire,

I totally agree with Simon Wood. This will cause mass separations before the law comes into effect. Myself, as like many others, have worked very hard to get my own house, get savings together for myself and my son, and a good business running. My partner has moved in (found out later he's got a lot of debt) and can now walk away with half! Thats hardly fair. Taking what I've saved for my sons future. Any body know of a way in which I can secure my future so I dont lose anything?

Kay Wood, Lincoln, UK

i have been with my partner for 12 years. i was promised marrige all the way through our courtship - which lasted over a year. i moved in with him and somehow (yes right!) it got forgotten. The goalposts keep moving, if i was pregnant, when he had a better job, he felt he was to young, etc. After 8 years together, and failing to get pregnant, we went through painfull IVF treatment. At 11 weeks pregnant with my twins, he pushed me into a metal table and i cracked a rib. Much tears later, we patched things up. We then concieved (without IVF) a baby. I have 3 under 3! When i was pregnant with the last baby he told me at 7mths preg, that he had been having an affair. He pushed me over again 2 nights ago. As it stands i have no rights because i am not married to him. If anyone reads this and thinks this is acceptable behaviour then i would like to speak to them. Being told i am obviously trying to bleed him dry is so far from the truth. Where, exactly do people like me go?

clare underwood, abbots langley,

Hi if the law does change next month can people like myself still claim from their ex-partner before the law changes over property etc.

Peter Burgess, reading, Berkshire

My x partner and myself have split up after living tighter for twenty four years because of her adultery three years ago that I could no longer live with, with me walking away from two daughters of school age and the home we built together. I have asked her to re mortgage the home that is worth about £180,000 for £30,000 that will leave her with a £50,000 mortgage & give me a chance of new start she says she will think about it! This law should have been in place long ago!

J S Johnston, Leicestershire,

This proposal is just plain stupid and I hate it. If either party in an unmarried couple is concerned they will lose out financially if they aren't working or have a child, they should just insist on obtaining the protection offered by marriage! If you're capable of having a child or sharing the costs of a house with someone long-term, you ought to be capable of getting married: it's cheap and easy. If your partner refuses to accept the need for marriage, you should have the common sense to end the relationship.

Forcing unmarried couples without children to split their assets after two years is a completely unnecessary intrusion of the State and the Law in personal life. I'm single at the moment: I've spent a lifetime building my business on my own, building up a pension and my own home: why should I lose half of this just because I live with someone for two years?

Antonia, Reading,

Hi, I have a 3 year old son I split up with my partner when our son was 1 years old we lived together for 2 years - the house was in his name. When we split up (due to him being unfaithful) he left us with nothing didnt give us anything from the house not even our sons cot. He is a footballer and earns a good deal of money and now gives regular maintenance (which took so some time) but it is just not enough for us to live on and I am struggling like mad to pay the bills. I work full time and trying to get my career moving but its so difficult with a child too. I just asked him if he would help out doing our sons room up- he needs a new bed furniture etc as he is sleeping in a broken bed at the moment but i was told where to go. Its so stressful - you live like a married couple yet you are entitled to nothing so I think these new laws are fabulous especially where children are involved! wish they had came out sooner!!!!!!

Jennifer Thomson, Glasgow, Scotland

I am a single mum of two girls, now almost grown, and I am in the same situation as many others.

On my partners insistance I gave up work and a college place to be more flexible for our lfestyle.

When we split up I returned to work, but with no training or education, my wages are very low.

While I agree that he should benefit from his very successful business, I think that my contribution should be acknowledged. I am a hard worker, but simply don't earn enough to support us and I live on my nerves.

I now see that he knew exactly what he was doing, and had no intention of following through on his promises.

I know for sure that my children have suffered from my constant working and anxiety, there is no way to protect children from that reality.

Does anyone know if the law will be backdated, or are women like me (in my fifties, and separated ten years) out of the loop.

Joanne. Henley

Joanne, Henley, England

......which i worked hard for holding down 3 jobs a week, 7 days a week before my ex-partner came along. it was originally my home and now it is half my ex-partners, and it is a home that my 3yo son will loose soon as i cannot afford it any longer, i never wanted to give up work, i still wanted to work but he wanted it the old-fashioned way. ive now lost my independance, and lost my confidence in my ability to work again or be anything but a mother. i'd like to know what happens to those of us this has happened to in the run up to this new law, where their partners decided to do the off before it came into force.

amanda, rochester, kent,

my partner and i had been together over 5 years. we had a child together 3 years ago. when i was pregnant i had to add my partner to my mortgage on what was my house as he wanted the old traditional way of him being the breadwinner and me a stay at home fulltime mum (i was working full-time up until maternity leave). so the house became joint. stupidly when i discussed with him we became engaged after my son was born. stupidly during conversation i told him of the new law that was coming into place. that was in may. so he sneakily changed every piece of correspondence from this address to his mums address so that everything was registered there and no post for him was coming to this address. he has now moved out of this house. he has 2 other houses and his own business that he decided was more worth protecting than being with me and our son. he earns £2k a week and i have just wound out he has to pay just £15.67pw via the case. looks like i am going to lose a home which was mine.......

amanda, rochester, kent,

As this is another of Harriet Harmons babies - you can guarantee that it is to enable women to profit from men 'in the best interests of the child'.
This mysandric feminist has had much impact already in the realm of the family !
One thing is for sure - there will be no benefits involved for Men.
Sadly - there will be little benefit for women too - once men start realising how they are getting stuffed. WHY do you think they no longer want to commit by getting married. Because women like Harmon made divorce such a life destroying opportunity for men.

Dave M, Bristol, UK

For almost 20 years I have saved a MEASLY £20 every week !!! As a single mum it was all I could afford to do and before the laws were relaxed regarding levels of savings (ie £3000 for single persons ) I had to spend it so I could still get help with my housing costs.
I have ALWAYS worked full time , I've missed my son growing up , I've scrimped and scraped for every penny to bring him up properly and now I am faced with him going off to university and being alone.
The house I saved up to buy is for my SON !!!!! and NO-ONE is going to tell me different .If I chose to have a man friend in the future , there is no way on this planet that he (whoever it may be ) will take that away from my son . I would rather suffer the lonliness than lose our home anyday.
I hope the 500,000 new homes planned to be built iin the future nclude an awful lot of 1 bed accomodation because there will be alot of people being 'asked to leave ' their homes by their other halves before the 2 years is up !!!

Gillian Hanson, bridlington, east yorkshire

cant believe what im reading - im seperating from my partner (we are not married) and have 2 kids, i worked the minute i gave birth and went back to work but my salary is far lower. From what i gather now that we are about to split i have no rights at all - not even 20% towards the kids because we are taking joint parental responsibility, ill be lucky if my rich partner offers me any money, will be on a lower income in a smaller house and still have to pay all my own bills and support my kids - so dont dare call me an IDLE woman!!!!

louise s, london, united kingdom

I moved in with my partner 18 years ago and it was agreed we would get married before the birth of our child prior to conception.

When she became pregnant she changed her mind and I felt betrayed. I was told that it was not important that we were married and that this could wait.

I was oblivious to the law on cohabitation and just wanted our child to be born within the context of a loving and committed relationship.
.
What I did not realise is that my partner had no intention of marriage but was keen on another child.

I now recognise that she was fully aware of the law at the time and had been misled for a long time.

In recent years I have lived with the constant threat of being kicked out, undermined and emotionally and physically abused particularly if my partner does not get her own way.

These proposals may help safeguard those who feel oppressed and disrespected by providing a level of security for people to help them start again and regain their confidence and dignity .

john, Bristol, avon

I think the reforms are unfair as they undermine marriage and provide another way for idle scheming women to exploit men.
The Goverment need to realise that men that are poor and rich do badly from marriage laws.

ie a) The poor man is a hazard to his partners social security
claims.
b) The rich man lives in fear of un fair treatment by the
divorce courts even if his wife is unfaithfull !

How is it possible in a civilised country to lose your house, business and pension because your wife runs off with someone else ?

I will not marry as U.K divorce law is always in favour of the idle. ( usually but not always a woman )


Why can't the goverment promote honesty and decency ?
Why is everything geared around womens rights ?

m collier, liverpool, lancashire

The creation of a form of civil partnership for heterosexual couples who do not want to get married, but do want their relationship recongnised in law would address this issue far better. It would protect a couples rights if they opt-in, avoiding the issues some of us have with the idea of marrige

Marion, Bursledon, Hampshire

4 Points 1) This favours Women and is in my opinion run by Labour looking at tax and at reducing government funded Pension income. 2) Many Cohabitees are after a previous marriage & divorce. and want to protect their children's inheritance from some gold digger. 3) Before entering a relationship, particularly later in life, I would consider the Financial wealth of my partner and only enter one with a similar financial burden. I have a story from a friend whose 1st marriage wife died with 2 children. He subsequently married an australian lady. That lasted 2 years. She took 1/2 the matrimonial home assets back to Australia thank you very much. He is now in a 1 bed flat much improvished with little to offer his kids as an inheritance. 4) talking of rights for kids. What about their inheritance rights against 2nd marriage partners of their parents.

JW, London,

Following on from my previous comments ...as i ran out of space, i think if this comes in there should be an opt out or prefered an opt in option, for couples who do not want this forced legislation put upon them.

I am not being heartless or putting people down but there are a lot of money grabbers out there who will use this to their advantage, the government should think twice. There is even a chance of perhaps a lodger making out of this, proving a relationship is hard when there are no documents cementing a relationship are there, such as there are when the couple marry.

I think if a couple are commited to have a child together then yes this law should count, but for a childless couple then no.

PLEASE NOTE MY NAME IS FICTICIOUS !

Simon Wood, Amersham, Bucks

This is a crazy law, couples cohabit for a number of reasons, all have one thing in common they don't want the things that come with being married, they may have had a bad divorce and not want to re marry or they might see living together as a trial before they marry, statistics prove most people who cohabit break up after a couple of years.

This will bring with it a lot of fraudulent claims, after all you marry you sign a register, this does not happen if you cohabit, a lot of couples perhaps stay at each others home on a semi permanent basis and perhaps leave a toothbrush there will this be counted ?

This is a good thing for gold diggers...go and find a rich man move in rent free in his home for a few months take him to the cleaners and start again with the next victim !

I love my partner dearly but can't risk her walking out on me one day and taking all i have worked for before we met... she came in with nothing.

This will cause mass seperations before it becomes law.

Simon Wood, Amersham, Bucks

At last!
My partner and I were together for over 24 years and then he decided to go off with a foreigner on the internet!!! We had two children together and a jointly owned home. Even though I worked in the legal system I was completely unaware that I had no rights with regard to the financial position. I have worked full-time all my life and only had 10 weeks off when each of our kids were born. Because money was very tight I only took on a very small pension thinking I didn't have to worry because he had a really good one. One of our children is still a minor and all he's concerned about is her leaving school and getting his money with no thought as to where his daughter is going live when the house is sold. I am not a greedy person but am concerned about providing my kids with a home. If I became entitled to at least a portion of his pension then I could possibly use it against the house and "buy him out". Without it I can't and have no other way to buy a place for the kids.

Lyn, London, GB

Having read many of the comments I can see things from both points of view.
I am aware some women are out for all they can get financially but I also know men can be just the same-certainly many men don't appear to realise the work involved in running a home and bringing up children-believe me the latter is much harder than "going out to work" - (I'm not superwoman but I run a home, bring up my kids and work full-time so consider I am qualified to make this comment)

Perhaps the courts should be made hear each case based on its particular facts, taking into account things like how long they had been together, whether one had put more finance into the property than the other (or indeed owned the property before the other moved in), whether all children in the family home are children of the couple concerned (rather than from previous relationships) etc.,

Lyn, London, GB

My ex is in a "life partnership". They're not getting married because they don't want to lose the considerable level of maintenance that I currently pay to support them both.

I'd happily support this proposal if it now meant that I could stop paying maintenance (as I could if she re-married) but I suspect that she'll just be able to sting the new bloke in addition to leaching off me for ever!

Women in my life are going to have to live separately or sign a tenancy agreement if they want to live in my house. And to answer the "What next for the single person" questions... the answer is likely that the money goes to the lodger or the last person they met for a one night stand.

Leave the UK.

Paul, London, UK

Absolute madness.....the lawyers must be whooping with joy....how dare any government "marry me" to my partner without my consent....who I live with and in what manner is my responsibility.....if we want 'financial rights" we can marry - either in a church or registry office. As divorcees in our 60's neither wishes to be married and have the responsibilities that this entails again.
Surely it is against our human rights as individuals to be forced into this law.

CJ, london, uk

I agree with Denise Stanley 3 comments down.
I am 17 and my dad has just given me news that he wants to sell the house and travel! He says he has given up on the situation when he hasn't even tried to solve it!
My mum buys the food and basically runs the house. She buys my clothes and most of the things that are mine.
My dad on the other hand is tight as and rarely pays for anything apart from the bills and anything to do with himself.
I think he is so selfish and stingy and I hope that this law comes into play before he gets rid of the house and makes me and my mum homeless!

It's just driving me crazy right now and I think it's fair to say that I absolutely hate him!

He has a responsibilty which is me! He shoudln't of brought me into this world if he couldn't handle it!
hell! I don't even have a wardrobe to put my clothes in!
I live in a house that is dressed up like a museum because HE is a possessionist and likes to show off what at HE has! He's a 2-faced Git!

Chaz, London,

If a man has a wife in the country and a 'mistress' in the town, does this law not in effect give rise to a de facto recognition of polygamy? If a woman, more rare I know but it happens, has two men she lives with alternately (I have known two cases), is this not now also a 'multiple marriage' or whatever you call it? Very interesting! It has the intent of making us more responsible, but I think ome kind of agreement between a couple should be witnessed.

Ratty, London,

Anti-marriage, anti-men, anti-fairness. Infuriating, but hardly surprising from this government I am sorry to say. Shameful!

Adam Neilson, Birmingham,

I split up from my partner of 14 years two years ago. We have a child of 14. He would not marry me (even tho we had discussed this prior to me becoming pregnant.) He would not let me buy into the property or put my name on a bill. I paid towards some bills and ran the house and fed and clothed our child and two daughters from my marriage. I decorated the house and bought furniture etc. We had a 4 bed farmhouse with holiday cottages and land. I sought advice re my precarious financial position but my partner refused to discuss these issues. He made a will without discussing it with me.
I am now on my own having had to downsize twice. My furniture has gone cos it doesn't fit into the tiny box of a house I have bought with the deposit I borrowed from my mother. I have walked away from this relationship with less than I had when I moved in. I am 52 years of age. The law needs to support the many vulnerable women like me.

Denise Stanley, St. Florence, Tenby, Pembrokeshire

My husband left me for a colleague to live in London but separation was instigated in Scotland where even as a 'wife' the maximum time I could claim alimony is 3 years. To hear that even people who cohabitate in England will get even more rights than a married person North of the Border is a bit farcical. It really goes to prove that there is no such thing as a no fault divorce (well not in England anyway). Do I agree? for people with no children, no I do not, get out and earn your own living. However if there are children involved, yes, whoever is left with the responsibility (as I was )is most likely to watch their career prospects go down the pan, therefore it seems fair that the person who takes the main carers role should be supported accordingly by the absent parent who still has a career and a life after all.

Catriona Straine -Urquhart, Edinburgh, UK

I agree with that as nowadays men and women tend to cohabit without marriage.This gives a sense of resposiblity to human.As according to Human Right Acts 1998, we need to have our inalienale rights that we should receive damages accordingly and be responsile for their own actions.So, when there is equal term, people would marry instead of hving in mind that not tying the knot,they can escape from the consequences of divorce.

Susie, Klang, Malaysia

Those creating this law may have the best of intentions, however, while protecting the rights of mums and children (which is good) others just get liabilities for no good reason. My girl friend and I, live together much of the time, both work, both have our own houses but with no children, so is my considerably better pay and pension up for the taking. Having been divorced I will never marry again, surely, that is my human 'right' so I can protect my assets. Why should I be forced into this situation, if I wanted to gamble my financial future I would get married.

pjh, london,

This will undoubtedly affect primarily men for the worse, just as divorce laws affect men detrimently.
This type of legal lunacy will increase women who refuse to get a job, because they - like married women - know that they can force the man to pay for eternity if she chooses to dispose him, but not his money.
This boils down to yet-another antimale, sexist & misandric setup that is designed to hurt men while allowing women to 'take a break'.
If this law gets too out of hand, as divorce laws have become - men will not only enter a marriage strike (as we have) but will then proceed to enter a work-strike, demand that we get to stay at home and force the women out to work so when they choose to dump us - it hurts them instead of us.
Eventually, there will be British men left in this country - we'll all have eloped to man-friendly countries instead where both women AND governments have just a little more respect for their menfolk.

Karl, worcs/uk, England

The main argument that has been given in favour of this proposed change is that supposedly millions of cohabittees are under the impression they have the same sort of rights and obligations as married couples. The obvious solution would be a major publicity campaign to explain that they don't and leave it for the individual couple to decide whether to marry or enter into a civil partnership or stay a cohabiting couple.

The key questions are: (1) Will this legislation be retrospectively applied to existing cohabitees? and (2) Will it be possible to sign legally enforceable opt outs?

WA, London,

This is another step in the destruction of marriage. I mean, why bother getting married if you are placed on equal terms as the unmarried? Just another step towards socialism which is really communism.. A world without Christianity is Hell.

Eric Price, Lichfield, Staffs., UK

This will clearly put people off living together and that is probably the idea - but there is a housing shortage as it is and more people living alone wont help that issue - and where does the law end, what if you are just sharing with a mate do the same laws apply????

Jill Howe, Bromsgrove, UK

This is an appalling idea which completely fails to recognise the main reason why many couples remain unmarried ie an unwillingness on the part of one or both parties to commit. I have been living with my partner for 12 years in my own flat - previously mortgaged, now owned outright. I would love to be married & to share a property together, but he has consistently refused - he is quite candid that he doesn't want the responsibility &, if I'm being honest, is keeping options open. My comfort in this situation is that, if he were to leave, my property is worth sufficient to ensure I would survive financially. But he has consistently paid a fair rent & could thus be entitled to a large share in the property on a split - that would leave me financially ruined at 55. If you enter into marriage, you know the responsibilities & take the risk - but how can it be right that someone who has deliberately opted out of responsibility should benefit from their partner's investments? Terrifying..

Maggie, London,

Question. Consider a scenario where a couple are co-habiting and one of the (the owner of the property probably) decide that this new law is too risky. He/she decides this today and asks their partner to vacate the premises. No rental agreement was ever formed and as it is a casual arrangement, no rent was ever paid, however they have been living together for two years and the partner has "rental rights". Can the other partner invoke their rights as tents? Does this then put the owner of the house in a one or two month time bomb before this new legislation comes in, where the other partner has inheritence rights, the right to claim lost income, etc?

Indeed, in any scenario, what happens where one partner (the owner) asks the other to leave the premises, and the other partner refuses to do so?

David H, Bermingham, UK

This, I suspect, is not what it seems. In the green paper the Law Commission (LC) had no intention of giving men the same right to access their partner's wealth or estate. The LC world view was that only women needed cash handouts, compensation for hurt feelings or wasted years and the right to claim on a dead man's estate. This resurrects the "associated person" concept devised in Family Law Act 1996 that thankfully failed. In my submission to the LC I pointed out why compensation for cohabitees was not only ethically wrong but would bring back the chaos of the 17th to 19th century caused by 'clandestine' and 'fleet' marriages and 'Irregular Marriages' (e.g. see ROBB v. ROBB et al (1891), 20 O.R. 591 Ontario Common Pleas). Homosexual men are only financially penalised only when they enter a civil union and then separate. This option is closed off to heterosexual men.We are slip-slidin' into the medieval embrace of "sponsalia per verba de futuro" where one sex act will equal marriage.

robert whiston, walsall, Great Britain

Question. Consider a scenario where a couple are co-habiting and one of them (the owner of the property probably) decide that this new law is too risky. He/she decides this today and asks their partner to vacate the premises. No rental agreement was ever formed and as it is a casual arrangement, no rent was ever paid, however they have been living together for two years and the partner has "rental rights". Can the other partner invoke their rights as tenants? Does this then put the owner of the house in a one or two month time bomb before this new legislation comes in, where the other partner has inheritence rights, the right to claim lost income, etc?

Indeed, in any scenario, what happens where one partner (the owner) asks the other to leave the premises, and the other partner refuses to do so?

David H, Bermingham, UK

This proposals will have profoundly unhelpful unintended consequences that can be shown to be particularly problematic for a government that says it is concerned about tackling poor parenting and resulting antisocial behaviour. All the social science research demonstrates that children enjoy the best child development outcomes when brought up in a married family context largely because married relationships - informed by a greater measure of commitment - are more stable. If government removes the distinitive marriage legal protection safeguards currently afforded because of the distinctive marriage 'till death us do part' commitment, making marriage the same as cohabitation, it will further erode the incentive for people to marry and thus - statistically speaking - further erode the chances of children being brought up in a stable two parent family with all that this entails - again statitically speaking - for their development.

Dan Boucher, London, UK

AG??? What are you on? In no way will this have the effect of fuelling a separation boom and then adding to the housing shortage. To link to two is utter rubbish. What the recognition of de facto relationships will do is protect the financially dependent partner in a de facto relatioship from being left high and dry by their partner in the event of separation. This is a monumental step in the right direction and brings Britain into line with many other Western Countries.

Fredi, Battersea,

Surely the already-existing institution of marriage is there for those who want to make a financial commitment to each other?

What about young relationship where both parties are thinking of a 'trial period' of cohabitation BEFORE deciding if they want to get married?? Does this mean they will effectively have no choice but to jump straight in at the deep end?

Alex McGregor, Plymouth, UK

Well, what's next? I guess we may see the "people living alone" having to share their wealth with someone. But who is next?
.

Alfred G Heffron, Melbourne, Australia

Julia - I think the only winners will be women (along with the legal profession).

John, Cork, Ireland

Quentin Langley describes this situation perfectly, and it is just another depressing another case of New Labour meddling with society via statue as if none of us are responsible enough to run our own lives.

Only two groups of people will benefit from this - 1) the legal profession who now have a new market (unmarried couples with similar rights to married couples) and 2) gold seekers (mainly women) who now don't event have to trick their unsuspecting prey into marriage. Disgraceful.

Ian, London, UK

I have recently had a partner of 11 years leave me for another woman. I have 3 children under 9. We have a joint mortgage, and my partner has agreed to pay the minimal amount for child maintenance using the CSA calculations.

He wants me to sell the house to free up his equity. I have worked part time whilst bringing up the children. My ex partner has furthered his career and is now earning 50kpa

I have found out since going to mediation that he has a private pension fund with £50,000 transfer value.

I just want a fair outcome on mine and the childrens home. Does this legislation mean that I may not have to give hime 100% of his equity in the house. If this was the case, and a court could decide a fair percentage I would be able to start sleeping at night again.

Sarah, Brighton, East Sussex

One would expect an article appearing in the Times to at least be written in good English.

Christian, Manchester,

I don't know why idiot women have a children out of wedlock any way, get a grip girls and think of the child. Lot of them do it just to 'snare' some poor bloke into that marriage meal ticket. Get a vasectomy boys, its the only way you can protect your assets.

mrs day, Northwood, middlesex

I fail to see why, if you want rights you cannot enter into a civil marriage, or civil partnaship.

J Clements, Muir of Ord,

Contested ancillery relief proceedings following divorce were always a moneyspinner for family lawyers especially in 'big money' cases since the more the assets are contested by the parties, the greater the extend those assets are eroded in legal fees.

If social justice over profit had been anything of a priority exercising the minds of the profession, the mediation provisions under the Family Law Act 1996 would not have been dropped as rapidly as they were!

If adopted, these provisions considerably expand the declining fee base! The lawyers at the Law Commission have done their profession a sterling service!

Well done!

James Lawson, Preston, United Kingdom

Contested ancillery relief proceedings following divorce were always a moneyspinner for family lawyers especially in 'big money' cases since the more the assets are contested by the parties, the greater the extend those assets are eroded in legal fees. If adopted, these provisions considerably expand the available fee base! The lawyers on the Law Commission have done their profession a sterling service! Well done!

James Lawson, Preston, United Kingdom

"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. "

The remedy for such people is simple - insist on marriage. People who choose to take such risks without marriage, should be prepared to take the consequences when things go wrong.

This is the nanny state once again trying to protect fools from themselves with some legal cotton wool.

JC, Hertford, UK

This article is innaccurate. Under the Children Act claims can be brought in a child's name for a property transfer, lump sum or maintenance for the parent with care of the child. In the Principal Registry, financial claims after breakdown of a long period of cohabitation where there are children are routinely listed in the same way as claims on divorce. Under the Trusts of Land Act a cohabiting partner even without children can claim a beneficial interest in a property acquired for the benefit of both but held in only one name, on the basis of non-financial contributions such as looking after the home. This law will clarify matters but it does not alter the practical picture much at all.

Iz, London,

It is an attempt to give contractual rights to people who have not even got round to defining their rights between each other

If they want certainty they should get married.

They are expecting the courts and the law to define what they intended when they do not know themselves.

I am a lawyer so it does not concern me but it will give us plenty of work from all the people who have been " clever" enough not to get married.

I will now get my cut from those who thought they were some how cheating me of my fees by not marrying.

The public have always believed that they have had automatic rights from " common law " relationships so now they are half right.

We lawyers need to be kept busy since the demise of legal aid and large organisations taking over conveyancing.

Peter Wade Soliiicitor Clare Suffolk

Peter Wade, Clare , suffolk

Shame that the goverment cant be as quick to rectify equal rights to both parents on the basis of equal custody alongside this proposed law, as it is, its common knowledge that men get an unfair deal at this present time fighting to see their kids, and after this, further problems will arise, as the goverment seem to put the financial needs of parents before what is right, the welfare of the kids

adam, milton keynes, united kingdom

Rachel raises an interesting question. Why is it "equality" to allow co-habiting couples the effective options and benefits of marriage, but when heterosexual couples cannot engage in a civil partnership, the matter of "equality" never arises?

John, Cork, Ireland

This is just another money making scheme for Lawyers. I beleive that the proposedchanges to the law are already in place in Canada, where nobody now lives together. So that should help children to have a stable up bringing, not to mention more pressure on the lack of afforable housing.

robertalan, rugby, warks

If the law commision is looking for something constructive to do, they should first overhaul the existing divorce system. It is currently too long, plays entirely into the hands of those who have "planned their escape", or who are prepared to put their previous partner under emotional or financial duress withno consideration for the consequences on the children. Because there is no drive to establish the truth, those who stick to the truth lose out to partners who hide assets and lie convincingly. Divorce has become the latest form of legalised white collar crime.It is the reason I will never marry again. I have just lost a very large proportion of assets I owned pre-marriage, to a man with no moral backbone or integrity. I thought that one day I might want to share my life with someone without marrying, but with 2 children to support, if this becomes law I just couldnt take that risk.
Thje law should be there to stop one person taking advantage of another, not to encourage it.

KW, Suffolk,

There's an easier way for unmarried couples to get more legal rights - get married.

C. Morland, Bath,

"First of all, on average men work considerably more hours than women "

Indeed. Women don't have to work more hours, they're more efficient so they get the work done in half the time.

You may hit me now. :P

By the way, even in a "normal" divorce, don't expect to get anything without a fight. I didn't fight (to save my son the trauma) and ended up with half the equity in our house (NOT half the entire value of our house), and that was all. Not even though to buy a brick. I did work, by the way. I paid the deposit for our house, the loft conversion, the floors, the furniture, the windows ... you catch my drift. But my ex refused to move, and that was that.

starling, Lancaster,

Contested ancillery relief proceedings following divorce were always a moneyspinner for family lawyers especially in 'big money' cases since the more the assets are contested by the parties, the greater the extend those assets are eroded in legal fees. If adopted, these provisions considerably expand the available fee base! The lawyers on the Law Commission have done their profession a sterling service! Well done!

James Lawson, Preston, United Kingdom

This is to further compound profound injustice towards men generically.
Men-women partnerships entail the women receiving a benefit and the a man incurring a cost. Most women are looking to have and bring up a child and be a home-maketr. that is a clear benefit. Most men have to work full-time in what is largely an unrewarding way to spend their time.
That is is the situation for the duration of the man-woman partnership. It is crazy to actually extend this iniquity subsequent to the brekdown of the relationship.
At the very least it should be fault-based.
If a woman causes the breakdown then there should be a financial onus on her to return assets such as the house that the man has paid for.
In time the whole nonsense view of men-women will be inverted and we will have social justice again.
In the meantime any man is mad to live with a woman.
The new changes will ensure that millions more men and women on benefit or low incomes will nominally live apart so claim more benefits.

Steve Moxon, Sheffield,

What rubbish! If couples want the rights of married people then they can get married, but living together should not give the same, or any, legal status to the relationship. The law is clear at the moment and this is taking away an option for couples who do not want to marry. It is effectively forcing people into a relationship that they do not want, it certainly puts me off living with someone!

Helen, Reading,

Contested ancillery relief proceedings following divorce were always a moneyspinner for family lawyers especially in 'big money' cases since the greater the extent to which the family assets are contested by the parties, the greater is the extent to which those assets are eroded in legal fees.

If social justice over profit had been anything of a priority exercising the minds of the profession, the mediation provisions under the Family Law Act 1996 would not have been dropped as rapidly as they were!

If adopted, these provisions considerably expand the declining fee base! The lawyers at the Law Commission have done their profession a sterling and profitable service!

Well done!

James Lawson, Preston, United Kingdom

"If they want to 'pool' resources they should get married. I really cant see the issue with this?"

Been there, done that, never again. Actually, we were planning on a civil partnership out of pure necessity, but this law might mean we won't have to.

What's the obsession with marriage anyway? As long as it is a good relationship, why the heck would people need a piece of paper to "prove" it?

starling, Lancaster,

"What about scenarios when women deliberately or 'accidentally' become pregnant"

By immaculate conception?

starling, Lancaster,

If people choose to have children and live together without being married, that is their choice. Marriage exists to give them financial redress and security.
Co-habiting is supposed to be a more casual arrangement, especially where no children are involved. It should be possible to split up from someone in these circumstances without losing ones home and money.

If the law is going to give everyone who shares a home the right to take a share from their partner if they split up, then there should be the provision of legally-binding agreements to waive those rights, to each keep that which is theirs so those of us who are not money-grabbers are not doomed to a lone existence.
No way should a short-term or later in life partner have the same claims on the finances as someone who has been a wife and mother for say 30 years.
There should be different rules for different circumstances and an opt out for those who wish it.

LG, Glasgow, UK

If my girlfriend leaves her toothbrush at my place, is that considered cohabiting? *Shivers*

Pete, Cov,

Can it be something more natural than splitting up?
If you chose not to be marry there were some reasons, one of them, to commit all your belongings. Who will want to own a house now if their partner can get half of it after two years of cohabitation?

Denise Pero, Manchester,

There's some wise counsel in all the previous comments. Same sex couples should be able to opt for a civil partnership, but people should have the freedom not to as well. Above all things, people who have bought and shared a home together, irrespective of the nature of their relationship, should not have to pay inheritance tax on the death of one of the partners. Many people make a life long committment to live with a relative or friend and on losing that person suffer the double whammy of grief and a truly evil and punitive tax that might force them to lose their home.

Mandy, London, UK

This is utterly ridiculous. Is this government trying to destroy relationships or is it purely a mechanism to keep house prices up?

Pete, Bristol, England

That's right Wendy, because only women do the hard work while men have it easy... be real! First of all, on average men work considerably more hours than women and secondly, contribute far more financially to a household. Sure stay-at-home wives do a lot of housework but they also receive free room and board. This legislation simply gives one partner license to loot the other, therein creating an incentive to break-up rather than make-up. Unintended consequence will be less marriage, less co-habitation and less babies.

Robert, London,

When my partner and I broke up, we had owned a flat for 2 years, on which I had paid the deposit and the mortgage, since she decided to go back to college just after we moved in (a move in which I supported her financially). However, when we split, I saw a lawyer who adviced me to 'give her half, and that way you can get on with your life, and not end up giving everything to lawyers'. Sound advice. But it seems to me that some sort of legally binding 'co-habiting pre-nup' would solve many issues that the proposed legislation doesn't cover.

Tom Callaghan, Dubai, UAE

It is good to see a system developing to take care of those who commit to a relationship where the parties live as husband and wife. It is important to ensure that those who give up their employment to become a homemaker or child carer are financially supported in the event of the couple splitting. Otherwise, the weaker party could be left with nothing to reflect the sacrifices they made to the relationship.

Clearly, there will be some perceived injustice, where parties seem to be profiting from these provisions, but this happens in all areas of law anyway (look at personal injury).

What it will effectively do is provide a fair deal for those who choose to cohabit instead of marry.

Barney, London, UK

Having lost everything in a divorce I never wanted to re-marry but I am happy to cohabit with my partner who understands my position. If this law comes into force, I won't risk losing it all again and I will go back to living alone.

Dominic, Kent,

If people choose to be in a legal partnership such as marriage or indeed civil partnership well and good. The answer here is to be clear that not entering into such a partnership has a very different place. The reason that there is no "common law" arrangement is that it is so fraught to sort out when people have not actually committed to a legally recognised partnership. After all a civil marriage can be contracted outside a religious context. if people don't want to make such a commitment for their own reasons then it is not up to the state to "assume" they did.

N Johnson, Manchester, UK

Most of the rights which have been proposed already existed due to constructive and/or resulting trusts, an area of law which has never been particularly clear. If the new laws codify and clarify this situation then this may not be a bad thing??

However, the social implications need to be looked at as well as the legal ones. In a country which is woefully short of housing will we find that new couples maintain their own seperate homes rather than co-habitting through fear of a bill should they split up?

DM, Leeds,

There must be a way of entering a contract that opts out of such legislation? "I hereby agree that I am sharing this house and the associated responsibilities voluntarily and that I will remain completely responsible for my own financial well-being etc.... and that my partner <insert name> will not be held liable for any financial responsibilities in the event of our separation for any reason." Surely not beyond the wit of a decent lawyer? Anyone who wouldn't sign it, stay away gold-digger!

Nick, Rotherham, UK

This could go one of two ways: either cohabitting couples who avoided marriage because of fear of commitment will now decide that they are committed anyway, in which case they will marry, or - more likely - they will ask what is the point of spending on a wedding when they can have all the rights that married couples have anyway?

Personally, I think that if people are too insecure to marry, they should live with the financial insecurities that go with cohabitting. If you are just screwing around, then you need to be prepared to get screwed. Why is the state determined to wrap people in cotton wool and protect them from their own bad decisions? I trust that we will soon have laws to protect companies that can't be bothered to negotiate contracts with their customers - that will save me a load of paperwork!

Michael Cokerham, Bexley, UK

Well, what's next? I guess we may see the "people living alone" having to share their wealth with someone. But who is next?
.

Alfred G Heffron, Melbourne, Australia

What about scenarios when women deliberately or 'accidentally' become pregnant, even when the issue has been discussed and their partner is not willing or ready to take this step? Or in the increasing number of cases of a man who moves in with a woman who already has children? Presumably the man has to continue to go to work and if the couple then splits up he can be taken to court, sued for loss of earnings and then has few rights in seeing his own children, let alone gaining custody should he wish to do so. I am looking forward to the point in the near future under New Labour when there is no longer any point in being a law-abiding tax payer and can join the socially housed, benefit receiving underclass who do not have to concern themselves with these crippling disincentives to trying to get along in life.

Dan, Oxford, England

This will just ensure that I never live with a man. I don't have much in this life but I do have a very hard earned if precarious roof over my head and I am not going risk losing it for anyone.
Mad.

Thalia, London,

This is bad law that fundamentally misunderstands why people cohabit. It is not because they do not like the idea of marriage but want all the trappings it involves. Cohabitees do so because they do not want the commitment marriage entails. I live with my girlfriend but I certainly would not if it meant I was liable to pay her money should the relationship fail. If I was certain beyond reasonable doubt that the relationship would last then I would marry and formally sign up to the obligations that go with it. I want to live with my partner for a reasonable period before marriage. This is precisely what my parents did 31 years ago.

If this law currently existed I would not have allowed my girlfriend to move in. It would be too much risk in what is a trial and error exercise to see what life together is like.

When there are children involved it is a different situation entirely but children are a greater commitment than marriage.

Steve, London, England

I share the concerns of an earlier contributor that "the moral collapse of society is accelerating". However, I would hope that a positive effect of this law would be to make couples think thrice, where they might not otherwise, before entering into a cohabitation situation, where doing so could threaten their financial assets.

Although these rights may codify a worrying shift in society, this shift has already happened, and protecting the rights of those who choose not to marry could in fact go some way to restoring yesterday's unequivocal link between solid commitment and bringing up a family.

Richard Hanstock, Sheffield, England

Messrs. Langley, McLean and G have it right.

When people live together without getting married it is their intent to live together without being married. If people wished to be married, they would choose to be married.

In the US, the notion of "common law marriage" varies from American state to state and to avoid becoming married against one's will, one must live in a state that does not recognize common law marriage. A clumsy system, but at least it is POSSIBLE to evade the nannies who wish to 'neaten things up' by forcing all couples to be married whether they wish to be or not.

With respect to federal old age pensions, in many cases older people in the US who might even wish to be married dare not, as it would reduce their pension. I am surprised that the American federal government hasn't enforced the common law marriage provisions in those states where they apply, as an economy measure to force reduction in pension bebefits for couples electing not to wed.

Steve Richardson, Hillsborough, North Carolina USA

Having worked as a divorce laywer, one of the things that has put me off marriage is the suffering couples who were once in love put one another through in the guise of arguing about money and child care on separation, particularly given that pre-marital agreements are not binding in England and Wales.
This proposal effectively removes the option to keep things simple.

Philippa, London,

If they want to 'pool' resources they should get married. I really cant see the issue with this? The only reason for one to give up work should be to bring up children. Alternatively if this does go ahead there should be some official record that you can sign to acknowledge that you want these 'rights'. Otherwise where does it start and end? For example I would like to know how long I can have a girl move in with me for before she automatically gets a claim on my property.

Jamie Brown, Maidstone, England

This is good news. There are currently no laws protecting unmarried mothers and many get dumped into a poverty trap. With unmarried fathers now getting parental responsibility which was previously only available to married fathers, perhaps the unmarried mother can get the married mother's rights.....

NR, London, UK

Yet another example of a government run by lawyers coming up with proposals that will mean more work for the legal profession. When it is presently so messy, uncertain and inconsistent when married couples split up why do they propose to extend the misery to unmarried couples?

Chris, Cheltenham,

I can't help feeling that this is more a way of trying to reduce Social Security payments to 'deserted' partners than a desire for social justice.

Couples have a choice of marrying, living together or not being a couple at all and are perfectly capable of making whichever choice suits their circumstances best.

If there is real concern in this matter, rather than yet another example of the Nanny State trying to interfere in our private lives, the solution should perhaps be an information campaign to help people understand the implications of each option.

Nick Hill, London,

Having already lost just about everything to my former wife in my first divorce I will have to ask my current partner (and children) to leave my house if this legislation becomes law!

I have 3 children from my first marriage and need to live in a 4 bedroom house for when they come to stay. I lost my first house because the judge said it was in the best interests of the children to sign the house over to my ex-wife
Now I have children with my new girlfriend and another judge says it is in the childrens best interests for me to sign over the house once again, how on earth am I going to have my children to stay if I get kicked out of my OWN house again?

Nick Anderson, Hartlepool, UK

There is already a way cohabitees can enter in to a legal relationship - it's called marrige. This is just a way to ensure that the divorce lawyers maintain their income in the face of fewer marriges.

Andrew Brasnett, Ipswich, Suffolk

unmarried couples are unaware of their rights as they are that when they split the man in 96% cases will be robbed of a meaningful relationship with his children. 40% of all fathers lose contact with their children within 2 years. Where are proposals for a starting point of automatic equal sharing of the kids on separation? I am into my 6th year of argument at great cost whic went to solicitors.

C Adams, London, UK

My, aren't we cheerful, AG!

It' s time people faced up to the fact that marriage is old hat. There are countries that have had these kinds of laws for at least a century, and for some strange reason their countries don't seem to have gone to pot due to the "demise of marriage" (or something like that.)

Sure, marry if you like, I don't mind, and it's a great reason for a knees-up, just don't make ME (and let's face it, the way the law stood, it "made" people get married).

starling, Lancaster,

Why not just allow hetrosexuals to be civil partners? Would that not solve the problem for those who don't want to get married but want to legally acknowledge their partnership?

Rachel, Southampton,

Stupidity personified.
Will fill up the courts.
Will lead to more people living alone.

Kambiz Shahri, P,

But will they have the same rights as married couples with regards to inheritance tax? I doubt it; the new law will take but not give. Marriage and Civil Partnership is an option for everyone today. If people aren't married or in a Civil Partnership it is because they have chosen not to be. What is needed is education about the rights individuals have on separation not more laws, and as for this not undermining marriage and civil partnerships the only advantage left now is for inheritance tax!

Claire, London,

Daft idea! If you want commitment, marry. Also, how long is "living together": ten years? a year? one night?

Gerry, exeter, england devon

I think the only winners will be the Legal profession as many more cohabiting couples are dragged through the Courts to settle financial disputes at the end of a relationship. I cant see it forcing more couples into marraige, it is more likely to ensure that couples dont

Julia Moore, Crewe, UK

This is years too late in coming along. For too long, men (mostly) have used women as housekeepers and to act as surrogate mothers to step children, and then, when all the hard work is done, thrown them out with nothing to show for all the years of support and hard work. If you need a housekeeper, employ one and pay a salary and NI. If you want a partner, there are moral expectations on both sides. If you want to protect your assets - live on your own. Im just sorry this will be too late for so many women in their 50s whose usefulness to a selfish man has ended.

Wendy Lamb, Bergerac, France,

This is one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation that New Labour has yet proposed. It abolishes the right to be unmarried. Marriage is a set of obligations which two people voluntarily undertake. Now these same obligations are to be forced on people who have chosen not to undertake them. The legislation - at least as described in this article - gives no additional rights to couples who are cohabiting. All it does is create a set of financial obligations on people who used to cohabit.

Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

I think that the two main consequences will be: (1) a large increase in the number of LATs which will further restrict supply in the housing market; and (2) a significant increase in couples splitting-up. There will be many couples where one of the partners will never understand why the other will not agree to them moving in.

With this legislation my future is that of a LAT.

Richard , Swansea, Wales

This is called banning cohabitation, by the back door. However it is not a good idea to force people into marriage. It must be freely and deliberately entered into.

The real answer is a three tier system. Cohabitation, either partner can split at any time and each is left with the assets they hold. Civil marriage, either partner can divorce at any time and assets are split by a court. Church marriage, the vows mean what they say.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

By the usual "law of unintended consequences", this will ensure that 100,000s of couples separate for fear of being dragged through the courts thus further exacerbating the housing shortage. The lack of clarity will lead to much injustice and will of course be extremely lucrative for the legal profession.

AG, COLCHESTER, UK

It is most curious that since feminist politicians and philosophy in general command power in Government, that their Seventies slogan of "Disaggregation Now" has not been implemented.

Why is it that the most financially and socially "Aggregating" institution is being strengthened at a civil law level, rather than being disintegrated? Has the nature of "marriage" changed so substantially that it is no longer a concern to feminists?

This decision of quasi-automatic "marriage status" is completely to the detriment of men, and completely to the benefit of women. Thus is makes sense that women should keep hush-hush about the law, and men should kick up.

Evasive definitions of "career", "decisions" and even whether a "relationship" was established ensure that the Courts have a predetermined outcome in mind. Is a 2 month co-habitation eligable? It doesn't say. Is co-habitation proved by rent agreements, or purely verbal evidence? It doesn't say.

Joseph Reynolds, Cork, Ireland

Dear Ian,
I am really impressed by your opinion. Although, I don't fully agree with this law. I am in my thirties and thinking about having a baby but keep postponing my motherhood because I know that when that day comes I will not be able to concentrate on my career anymore. Therefore, I must rely on my partner to look after both, myself and my child. We are not superwomen to do both, have a great careers and be good mothers!!! Luckily, my boyfriend is more understanding than you!!!!!

Michaela, Prague, Czech Republic

This law encourages promiscuity. Wealthy young men should play the field for sex and never settle down with a female, or they will lose half of their assets to gold diggers.

Marriage, or living with a female, consigns a talented (think Paul McCartney) or wealthy male to huge economic loss. It’s not worth it. Don’t be faithful to a woman again. “Love them and leave them” is the way to treat women in the future. That’s what this law is telling us males.

Arthur Gibson, Melbourne , Australia

Surely people have the right to wander blithely in and out of each other's beds and lives as carelessly as they like? We shouldn't recommend it, but we can't legislate them into maturity or being certain of their partner. For many the point of cohabiting is to try a possible spouse on for size, with a penalty-free get-out clause in the event of being wrong.

Also without punishing children for parents' sins, anyone who doesn't want to marry their partner is unsure about making the lifetime commitment (assuming no reason they consciously opt out of marriage). The fivefold increased chance of cohabiting parents splitting when kids are <5 says this is a strong predictor that they aren't ready for the parental commitment either. These splits cost society later in crime, educational failure, etc. No tax or law should be introduced to further this outcome by supporting unmarried cohabitation.

Those ready should buy the cow. Those not shouldn't be legislated into it.

Elizabeth, London, UK

This is wrong. If you intend your relationship to have legal consquences, you get married. If you do not get married, it has to be presumed that you do not intend your relationship to have legal consequences. People will be wary of moving in together now. They will lose out on the experience of sharing their lives with someone and exacerbate the housing crisis at the same time!

Sam, Cambridge, UK

Fantastic news for the family lawyers which means more pain and suffering for those who have to use them. Why do we need even more involvement by the state in our personal relationships? Anyone now considering cohabiting with someone will have to look over the shoulder to see whether their proposed partner is a gold digger or genuine lover. This is an utterly diaboical piece of legislation designed for the benefit of the legal profession.

Nicolai, London,

I'm amazed to read the straightforward and sensible approach expressed above by the other commentators has not entered the "astute" minds of the Law Commissioners. I guess it's jobs for the boys as Mr Leigh rightly points out. And what about a reform of divorce law? It would make sense to start with that, and for example, make prenuptial agreements valid in Court. And then deal with cohabitation.

Peter Colgate, London, UK

I believe that currently pre nuptial agreements are not recognised in the UK. In the light of this, eminently sensible, legislation. This will have to change, especially if there is no time requirement for co-habitation to be proved.

Mark, Essex,

Discriminates against family members but they dislike families in The Law Commission

ToMTom, Leeds, England

Britain's pathetic compensation culture is cranked up another notch. Another legal 'industry' is spawned.

George Orwell could never have made up something as far-fetched as this.

Jon Leigh, Southern, France

Its absolutely insane.

We need a reform of the current divorce laws to stop stealing from men, not an extension of them to make it even more likely. You take out what you put in, and that's it.

Men, you are better off loving and leaving them quick. Move on, move up. Women, you have priced yourselves out of the market with your demands and your expectations which don't relate to reality. Why should men put up with it?

The local brothel will do a great trade.

Ian Smith, London,

Seems there will be a less co habitation now, or there will be something resembling a pre-nuptial for such people. Well I will be thinking of having an aggreement before any concrete aggreement. Life is getting tough and rulings like these make matters worse.

Dr P Mulay, Wadebridge Cornwall,

The moral collapse of our society is accelerating. I have lost all hope that we will turn the corner - towards a society where people who behave responsibly are rewarded - in my lifetime.

Philip Cronin, Bedford,

Whilst this proposal will provide an effective remedy for unmarried couples, its long term effects will include undermining the marriage institution. We should be proposing laws that make marriage an attractive option if we are to have a stable society with children obeying the country's laws.

Lloyd Msipa, London, UK

This is called banning cohabitation, by the back door. However it is not a good idea to force people into marriage. It must be freely and deliberately entered into.

The real answer is a three tier system. Cohabitation, either partner can split at any time and each is left with the assets they hold. Civil marriage, either partner can divorce at any time and assets are split by a court. Church marriage, the vows mean what they say.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

"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."

This is the problem, and the only problem. Fixing it does not require a change in the law but education.

Changing the law to give rights to people who have sought to avoid it, despite the fact that it is easy to get married and cheap to, in a registry office is wrong.

Benedict White, Cuckfield , Sussex