Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ken0042
As was my original point, if one of those people decided they needed protection, they should have insisted that they get married.
IMO, part of the problem is that it is acceptable for an un-married couple to live together; unlike 30 years ago. (That in itself isn't the problem.) But now there's things like equal to married, common law spouse benefits, and other things that make getting married what so many people call "just a piece of paper." By the gov't bending over backwards to accomodate non-married couples, there is little point in actually having the wedding.
Now that there have been common law marriages break up, there's been people crying to the gov't that they should have stepped in to stop them from doing something irresponsible- and I say irresponsible because if you are that dependant on another person, you should have some sort of contract.
Just to take emotions and everything out and to break it down to a simple level- where else does time do this? If I lent a saw to me neighbour and he's had it for 6 months; does he now own it? What if the gov't made that law. If I demand the saw back 5 months and 28 days later, it's mine. But because I don't bug him because I'm busy that weekend, I can't have it back?
But if I agree that he can keep the saw (in a verbal contract) then it's his.
I know a saw is very, very different than marriage. However we are still talking about division of property.
|
Maybe division or property is the wrong way to look at this. Let's take into account that maybe one of the partner's falls ill, shouldn't the common-law partner be entitled to their belongings, be given power of attorney, etc?