The Christian Institute has warned that government plans to give cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples could not only further disincentivise marriage, but also place a barrier on couples getting together at all.
A government consultation is currently underway into plans that could potentially allow the financially weaker partner in a relationship to continue receiving support from the better off partner after the marriage ends.
Although this is common practice in cases of divorce, there is no legal framework for such arrangements in the case of those who cohabit.
The government claims its plans are to provide greater financial security to “vulnerable groups” when they go through a break up.
The Christian Institute have used the example of pop-star Taylor Swift to demonstrate the potential consequences of such a change.
Prior to her well-publicised marriage earlier this year, Swift was in a six-year relationship with aspiring actor Joe Alwyn. By the time of their separation in 2023, Taylor’s net worth was estimated to be around $400 million, while Alwyn’s was believed to be nearer the four million mark.
Had Swift and Alwyn been together under the government’s proposed system, Swift could potentially have been on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.
Simon Calvert, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, said, “Many people would feel strongly that since they did not commit to one another in marriage, Joe Alywn should not be legally entitled to portions of Taylor Swift’s wealth. But this high-profile example simply exposes one kind of injustice these proposals could create.
“Marriage is the conscious, public voluntary union of two lives – spiritually, emotionally, legally, and financially. Yet these proposals force financial and legal obligations onto people who have not made that commitment, fuelling the myth of ‘common law marriage’.
"This creates a very poor imitation of the marriage union, generating financial obligations without the promises and without the key benefits they bring – namely, greater likelihoods of permanence and family stability.”
The Christian Institute said the proposed reforms would not only serve to disincentivise marriage by giving the associated privileges to the non-married, it would also create “uncertainties” for those who cohabit.
Calvert continued, “Marriage is uniquely beneficial for couples, their children, and wider society. The financial and other advantages attached to it rightly reflect that. People who don’t promise to stay together shouldn’t be treated like those who do. We should be encouraging marriage, not making it look redundant.
“At a time when family breakdown is already at a record high, Government policy should focus on strengthening marriages, rather than creating alternative legal routes that replicate parts of marriage after separation.”
