Co-habitants:are you happy to automatically cede property rights to the other half?

[Question R24U]

That appears to be the effect of the proposed new relationship for co-habitants created by the Civil Partnership Act.

Unlike other threads (on the gays and marriage) this applies to co-habitants - whether of the same or the opposite sex who live together

as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship

.

It does not apply to siblings.

and if you live together for 3 years (2 years if you have children together) you can be deemed by a court to be a qualified co-habitant.

Questions:
1) is this fair?
2) why should the State impose duties and obligations on a couple, when they have decided not to get married/a civil parnership (as applicable)?
3) does it comply with Constitutional property rights?
4) Is a hybrid relationship being recognised by the State for a hetrosexual couple not constitute an attack on the institution of marriage?
5) Will a lot of co-habiting relationships not make it to their 3rd anniversary as a result of this bill?
6) What is the story with siblings, carers etc?

170.—(1) For the purposes of this Part, a cohabitant is one of 2
adults (whether of the same or the opposite sex) who live together
as a couple in an intimate and committed relationship and who are
not related to each other within the prohibited degrees of relationship
or married to each other or civil partners of each other.
(2) In determining whether or not 2 adults are cohabitants, the
court shall take into account all the circumstances of the relationship
and in particular shall have regard to the following:
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the basis on which the couple live together;
(c) the degree of financial dependence of either adult on the
other and any agreements in respect of their finances;
(d) the degree and nature of any financial arrangements
between the adults including any joint purchase of an
estate or interest in land or joint acquisition of personal
property;
(e) whether there are one or more dependent children;
(f) whether one of the adults cares for and supports the chil-
dren of the other; and
(g) the degree to which the adults present themselves to
others as a couple.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt a relationship does not cease to
be an intimate relationship for the purpose of this section merely
because it is no longer sexual in nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, 2 adults are within a prohibited
degree of relationship if—
(a) they would be prohibited from marrying each other in the
State, or
(b) they are in a relationship referred to in the Third Schedule
to the Civil Registration Act 2004 inserted by section 26
of this Act.

(5) For the purposes of this Part, a qualified cohabitant means an
adult who was in a relationship of cohabitation with another adult
and who, immediately before the time that that relationship ended,
whether through death or otherwise, was living with the other adult
5 as a couple for a period—
(a) of 2 years or more, in the case where they are the parents
of one or more dependent children, and
(b) of 3 years or more, in any other case.
(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), an adult who would otherwise
10 be a qualified cohabitant is not a qualified cohabitant if—
(a) one or both of the adults is or was, at any time during
the relationship concerned, an adult who was married to
someone else, and
(b) at the time the relationship concerned ends, each adult
15 who is or was married has not lived apart from his or her
spouse for a period or periods of at least 4 years during
the previous 5 years.

[JCSkinner]

The more I hear about this bill, the bigger load of cobblers it looks to be.
I predict umpteen court cases resulting from the fact that the Department haven't bothered foreseeing the ramifications of all of this.
In short, we have a bill intended to bring gay couples equality with hetero ones, and somehow it equates them with sibling relationships instead, offers another backdoor into the country for asylum scammers and economic migrants, and now it automatically hands half of people's assets over to people they've chosen not to marry.
Bizarre.

[sauntersplash]

"From my cold dead hands!!!"

[Mercurial]

So we’re too poor to get rid of blasphemy and a referendum on civil marriage would be too “divisive” (as opposed to what exactly? Those referenda where everyone agrees?). I love this country.

This bill looks to be a messy collection of poorly considered compromises born out of political expediency and cynicism.

[constitutionus]

well looks like if this gets through im going to have to start getting the moth to sign a "visitors book" when she stays over from now on !

one of the reasons i DONT want to get married is quite frankly ive too much to lose and plenty of evidence of how blokes get shafted in the courts.

of all the guys i know whove got married literally 80% of them are now seperated/divorced and has lost their gaffs.

i dont see why the hell some girl should have an automatic entitlement to my stuff just because she's living with me, particularly when SHE decides to feck off.

maddness once again from the ******************************g morons in the dail. its almost like theyre TRYING to destroy the family.

[Arcadius]

As the OP pointed out, it's hard to understand how extending the right to get married is an attack on the institution, but creating a competing form of union for people who are already entitled to get married isn't.

Maybe the government can argue that this will have similar effects on 'living in sin' to what their defence of marriage did to that institution?

[Libero]

That appears to be the effect of the proposed new relationship for co-habitants created by the Civil Partnership Act.

Unlike other threads (on the gays and marriage) this applies to co-habitants - whether of the same or the opposite sex who live together
.

It does not apply to siblings.

and if you live together for 3 years (2 years if you have children together) you can be deemed by a court to be a qualified co-habitant.

Questions:
1) is this fair?
2) why should the State impose duties and obligations on a couple, when they have decided not to get married/a civil parnership (as applicable)?
3) does it comply with Constitutional property rights?
4) Is a hybrid relationship being recognised by the State for a hetrosexual couple not constitute an attack on the institution of marriage?
5) Will a lot of co-habiting relationships not make it to their 3rd anniversary as a result of this bill?
6) What is the story with siblings, carers etc?

I haven't read through the Bill as much as I'd like, but even from a quick scan I think you've mixed up two separate concepts: the civil partnership itself and the redress scheme for cohabitants.

I think the former is only open to couples of the same sex (defined early on in the act as "civil partners") but the latter is open to cohabitants as defined in Section 170. Indeed, if you read it again, Section 170(1) makes clear that the cohabitants it refers to may not be civil partners of each other.

If I'm right, it follows that you don't have to worry so much about concern number 4 (although no doubt many people will somehow see same-sex civil partnership as an attack on the institution of marriage). Giving some sort of redress to a one-time partner in a heterosexual cohabiting relationship (say, because she stayed at home to mind children to the detriment of her career) is not as close to marriage as offering the full suite of rights that same-sex couples can enjoy in civil partnership.

As to the morality of imposing these "redress" rights on qualifying cohabiting relationships, I agree that it is more troublesome than with marriage because these implied rights happen by default after the passage of time (unless, I think, the cohabitants have their own agreement). Then again, is it really fair that a couple could live for many, many years - married in all but name - and then after a break-up the weaker partner is left with nothing, as if he/she was only living with his/her ex for a month or two?

Ireland would, I think, be far from the only country imposing responsibilities on cohabitants, especially when it comes to aspects like maintenance-type compensation at the end of a relationship, or dividing commonly-acquired property.

And when people rightly point out the strange features to this Bill, I would suggest that it might make more sense to look at it in the context of a Minister who might not want to see it become law but who is part of a government publicly committed to having a go at it. Wear you Machievellian hat - Dermot Ahern usually is.

[Question R24U]

I haven't read through the Bill as much as I'd like, but even from a quick scan I think you've mixed up two separate concepts: the civil partnership itself and the redress scheme for cohabitants.

And when people rightly point out the strange features to this Bill, I would suggest that it might make more sense to look at it in the context of a Minister who might not want to see it become law but who is part of a government publicly committed to having a go at it. Wear you Machievellian hat - Dermot Ahern usually is.

I did not mix them up any concepts. There will now be 4 classifications of relationships
1) married (ie hetrosexual committed couple)
2) civil partnerships (ie homosexual committed couple)
3) qualified co-habitants (which this thread is concerned about)
4) others (eg non-qualified co-habitants, non-recognised couples).

If my girlfriend/boyfriend (it does not matter which) lived in my house for over 3 years, then he/she would gain a proprietry interest in my property, because of the passage of time and not because I signed any contract, entered any agreement (such as a marriage/CP) or because they paid anything towards my mortgage.

In my view that is probably unconstitutional (on property grounds) and is totaly unfair.

It could well be added to delay the whole process.

[ivnryn]

In my view that is probably unconstitutional (on property grounds) and is totaly unfair.

Basically, they are saying that since people aren't getting married as much, they will just automatically declare them married after a period of time.

Perhaps, it would be better to determine why people aren't getting married, rather than force people.

[18 Brumaire]

And they wonder why the cost of legal services is so high.