The Conservative Party has signalled that it will continue to support the institution of marriage by not giving cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples.
Still don’t want to vote for them, I feel that in the end the two ‘main’ politcical parties are pretty much the same under the surface.
The Conservative Party has signalled that it will continue to support the institution of marriage by not giving cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples.
A source close to David Cameron distanced the Party from comments made earlier this week by Henry Bellingham, the Tories Shadow Justice Minister, who voiced his support for increasing the rights of cohabiting couples.
Reacting to Mr Bellingham’s comments, the source said: “This is not the direction we are moving in”.
He added: “Henry spoke out of turn.”
The idea of giving live-in couples the same rights as married couples sparked a backlash from traditionalists.
David Willetts MP, who is in charge of family policy for the Tories, said: “We are conducting a review of family law and no decisions have been taken.”
A shadow minister on the traditional wing of the Tory Party said: “This cuts across everything David Cameron has been saying about putting marriage back at the heart of society.”
In October the Law Commission proposed that partners who have lived together for five years should have the same legal rights as a husband or wife.
The Commission also said that those who have lived together for between two and five years should be entitled to half of the settlement that a spouse would receive in the event of a split.
Labour is expected to bring in the proposals if it wins a fourth term in office.
Last week Baroness Deech attacked the plans labelling them a “windfall for lawyers but for no one else except the gold digger”.
Speaking in her capacity as Professor of Law at Gresham College Baroness Deech said that in America there had been “a retreat from legal recognition of cohabitation as the values of marriage have become recognised once more”.
Tags: Politics
November 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
If married couples receive rights beyond those of co-habiting couples then are will be taking such benefits from those other couples (no such thing as a free lunch). When governments impose penalties on people (restricting rights is just that) the in effect we, through our appointed representatives, are ganging up on people who have done nothing except make their own free choices. Cameron’s intent is evil. Nothing less. If people wish to marry, perhaps with all the religious mumbo jumbo, fine…as long as it is their OWN FREE CHOICE.
‘
Always remember, one person’s subsidy is another person’s sacrifice/penalty. Why should people be penalised for exercising what should be a right of free choice? Any restriction or penalty is a bit closer to totalitarianism (thankfully still a long way off.. but why move closer?)
Many people (I think) believe that support for marriage as an institution will reduce the problem of “wild” kids. They say married couples produce better adjusted kids. Is it the marriage per se that does that, or the fact there are disproportionaltely many co-habiting couples among the underclass? (sorry if that sound like a nasty way to class people. It is pretty accurate and ignoring reality is not a good idea.).
I doubt it is co-habitation that creates problem kids (kids can be conceived in the back of a car). It is a vicious circle of problem people creating problem kids.