This is an interesting way of looking at things.
And in another sense, equalising cohabitation and
marriage is also strangely illiberal. In a truly free society, couples
should be free to live together if they choose, without being forced
into wedlock, or without being forced, by the state, to take up the
responsibilities of legal union.
Cohabitation may,
for some, be as stable as marriage: but it may also be a star-crossed
love affair; it may be a casual form of shacking up; it may be a
"trial" relationship; it may be a form of old-fashioned bohemianism
whereby the couple want to be free deliberately to reject "bourgeois"
marriage (although the true bohemians of old also had the bravery to
reject the benefits of bourgeois values). Individuals should be free to
make a commitment, or not to make it, in short.
That is, that changing the rights of cohabitees (in essence, putting into the law the so called common law spouse provisions that many think are already there, but which haven’t been since the 1750s) is actually a reduction in rights. No longer will it be possible to have a long term bunk up without putting whatever property one has at risk.
A liberal answer would be that those who wished to share such property could make a contract….and we have a couple of forms of that, marriage and civil partnerships. There is also no bar to any other form of contract that people might wish to draw up (in the case of a joint mortgage, for example). By insisting that those who wish to shag and share a bathroom with another person on a long term basis also share their worldly goods with them, this is a reduction in the opportunities and possibilites available to free people.
Are we really in the business of limiting freedom in such a manner?
It’s also worth noting that this is a recommendation of the Law Commission. That is, if we assume (which of course we don’t but let’s do so for a moment) that the Government actually meant what they said about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (The Abolition of Parliament Bill), that this should become law with no debate, no amendment and no discussion in Parliament.
That is, that a basic change in the contractual rights of individuals should become law simply by a Minister stating that it should be so. No, this isn’t deregulation, no, this isn’t getting rid of red tape, this is a fundamental change in that most basic underpinning of society, property rights, which won’t even be subject to debate or vote in Parliament.
Now do you see why such an Act is an excresence?
Leave a Reply