I have often mused that anyone intending to get married should have to watch a divorce up-close to understand exactly what they’re signing up to. The big white dress, the cake, the exorbitantly priced hall decked out in flowers and fairy lights all mask what is in essence a legal contract. Like any contract, it comes with benefits: the right to supersede biological family and be considered next of kin, favourable tax status, the perks of being treated as an “official” couple (it’s a running joke in our household that I only got married to get on my husband’s workplace health insurance).
But those are matched by obligations – the big one being a lengthy legal process if either party wishes to end the contract before death do them part. When a couple stand before a government representative and vow their public commitment to each other, what they’re promising is to make it difficult to back out.
So I am intensely uneasy about the notion of extending such obligations to couples who have chosen not to get married, simply because they live together. Last month a Ministry of Justice consultation, euphemistically named A Fairer End to Relationships, closed for submissions. One of its stated aims is reforming the law on separation for cohabitants by “introducing a statutory framework of rights and protections”. Live with a partner long enough (three years, under these proposals) and the state might consider you de facto married if you split up, regardless of whether you’ve ever said “I will”.
Despite misconceptions, Britain has no tradition of so-called common-law marriage. The government is framing it as a way to provide for children and protect women, especially victims of domestic violence, who could be left destitute if a long-term relationship ends. But family law experts I’ve spoken to are dubious as to the impact the right to take an ex to court for financial recompense will have on the most vulnerable. Indeed, the framework could make life harder for those escaping abusive relationships if they own assets, by enabling a vindictive former partner to pursue legal action. And children’s needs are already taken into account when couples separate, regardless of marital status.
Meanwhile, a flurry of campaign articles have argued it’s simply not fair that couples who live together don’t get the same advantages as their married counterparts. A change in the law is apparently necessary for people who dislike the traditional connotations of matrimony and can’t afford a big wedding. For this group, I have good news: women don’t have to change their name (I certainly didn’t), and there’s no need to give anyone away. Civil partnerships now exist for same- and opposite-sex couples alike, bestowing all the rights of marriage with none of the cultural baggage. And if you want to skip the big wedding, a no-frills ceremony at a registry office will set you back £62, plus £46.50 per person to give notice – akin to renewing a passport. Crucially, though, this requires a decision to bind your lives together. What proponents seem to want instead is a sort of stealth marriage, entered into by default.
It may be billed as “bringing family law into the modern day”, but nothing about this is progressive. Your Relationship Your Choice, the campaign group opposing these changes, argues: “Marriage requires consent. Civil partnerships require consent. These proposals don’t.” I would go further. The right to enter into a legally recognised union with the person you love has been hard fought for, not least by same-sex couples. The right to cohabit, to share your life and possessions on your own terms, should be equally respected. No one should be forced into a union they didn’t choose, which they may be totally unaware of until things break down.
I’ll admit potential divorce was far from my mind on my wedding day, but at least I had some idea what the words I was reciting really meant. The idea of stumbling into such life-changing legal obligations without realising isn’t fair or empowering or up to date with 21st-century sensibilities. It’s a modern horror story.
[Further reading: Is a feminist marriage possible?]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 02 Sep 2026 issue of the New Statesman, Meet Generation Screwed
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentI agree that bringing in de facto “marriage” for co-habiting couples is a bad idea, but I do think there’s a problem with assumptions and misconceptions people have that they do have rights by virtue of co-habiting, where non actually exist. Perhaps a public information campaign highlighting what the actual law and the potential pit falls whilst also publicising the existence of civil partnerships for both mixed and same sex couples, is needed.