Section 15: cohabitation part of the Civil Partnership etc. Act

Pink Adoptions

Ambersky wrote: »

Also on civil partnerships, I would be happier if it was something you had to opt into, rather than an automatic thing that happened unless you opted out of after five years. Im all on for fairness in the division of property in the case of a seperation but I object to this degree of state interference in automatically declaring people civily partnered.

This is about Part 15?
It is not specific to same-gender relationships, and it is not about Civil Partners, but civil Cohabitants.

Annasopra

Ambersky wrote: »

Also on civil partnerships, I would be happier if it was something you had to opt into, rather than an automatic thing that happened unless you opted out of after five years. Im all on for fairness in the division of property in the case of a seperation but I object to this degree of state interference in automatically declaring people civily partnered. Im against the opt out tactic on principal After all I dont like it when a subscription to an online service decides to automatically renew my yearly membership and charge my credit card for it unless I contact them to op out. I think its an unfair tactic.

Civil Partnerships and the cohabitation provisions within the Act are completely separate

Ambersky

What does this mean? Seriously, this is of concern to me and if I have misunderstood it that would be a relief.
I thought that the new civil partnership bill was brought in mainly for Lesbians and Gays but also for straight couples living together.
Are you saying that couples wont be called civil partners but will be covered under the act as though they were, automatically, after five years of living together.
Is that what you mean by the provision and the act being completely seperate? ( Uh oh that just reminded me of something - you know the churches definition about not being against gays , just the act. they say thats completely seperate. )
Thats not what you mean though is it, anyway it dosent make me feel any better.
I dont like the idea of someone moving in with me and considering they might have automatic rights to my home, income and pension in the event of a break up, whether they call themselves my civil partner or not.
I know people say the courts will decide but Ive seen what straight divorce is like and I dont trust that I wouldnt be paying alimony to someone who treated me badly and then left
Am I misunderstanding something or am I off topic
If what Im fearing is true it could mean a change in Lesbian Gay culture all right. It would mean that when you meet someone you will have to find out first if they are likely now or ever to be financially dependent on you before you even consider moving in together

Chuchoter

Ambersky wrote: »

What does this mean? Seriously, this is of concern to me and if I have misunderstood it that would be a relief.
I thought that the new civil partnership bill was brought in mainly for Lesbians and Gays but also for straight couples living together.
Are you saying that couples wont be called civil partners but will be covered under the act as though they were, automatically, after five years of living together.
Is that what you mean by the provision and the act being completely seperate? ( Uh oh that just reminded me of something - you know the churches definition about not being against gays , just the act. they say thats completely seperate. )
Thats not what you mean though is it, anyway it dosent make me feel any better.
I dont like the idea of someone moving in with me and considering they might have automatic rights to my home, income and pension in the event of a break up, whether they call themselves my civil partner or not.
I know people say the courts will decide but Ive seen what straight divorce is like and I dont trust that I wouldnt be paying alimony to someone who treated me badly and then left
Am I misunderstanding something or am I off topic
If what Im fearing is true it could mean a change in Lesbian Gay culture all right. It would mean that when you meet someone you will have to find out first if they are likely now or ever to be financially dependent on you before you even consider moving in together

The cohabitation thing is for everyone, and it means that if you've been living with someone for a certain amount of time there is a legal relationship between you, vs before where you could be living with someone for 10 years and then they kick you out and then you're on your own.

Civil Partnership is only for same sex partners, and is effectively Marriage lite. There are no provisions for children. You can choose to get a civil partnership, but you can't choose not to be in the cohabitation part no matter what gender you are

Ambersky

Yes Crayolastereo its the cohabitation thing that concerns me.
Its still based on a sexual relationship having been present, relatives or friends dont count, isnt that right. They can be kicked out as you say and there is no legal relationship.
Its all based on who you had sex with. and after that its about money and property.

And Freiheit I think the position of pre-nups isnt clear in Ireland even for heterosexuals, people do them but I dont think its clear where they stand in Irish law. Someone correct me if Im wrong
Also yes I think your right, people probably will be more concious now that they will need to find a partner who is at least as financially well off as themselves.

This kicking out thing. I dont see why we have to be financially responsible for one another. Whats wrong with personal responsibility, even in a relationship sexual or otherwise.

Also when it comes to justice about the kicking out stage it seems always to be put forward from the perspective of the person being kicked out.
What about the person doing the kicking.

Why would they automatically owe a portion, perhaps half after ten years, automatically to the person leaving.
Why would they then have to pay a portion of their income for that persons upkeep for life and even a portion of their pension automatically.

Take the fairly common senario of woman A meets woman B who owns house or at least is paying a fairly hefty mortgage.
They classicaly move in together after a brief courtship, are in love but dont really know one another.
Woman A is unemployed and Woman B tries to help providing rent free accomodation and support in finding job or setting up buisness.

Woman B wants no rent or help with mortgage she was doing fine before she met A but just wants to love and help A.
After working on the relationship for years, not wanting it to end, delaying the inevitable the couple seperate.
There could have been all kinds of mitigating circumstances, A could have problems which started way before she met B. She could be incapable of having a relationship, be an addict of some kind, alcohol, drugs, sex etc.
A has not been use to taking responsibility for herself, she is indignant, feels life owes her something, someone owes her something and its probably going to have to come from B.
There could have been affairs on the part of A but because she stayed at home and cooked some nights she was seen as providing for B in the home, the shared family home and now B owes a portion of the house, a portion of her income and pension to A - forever.
Thats the other side of being kicked out and on your own.

It has to be asked on being kicked out why werent you taking care of and providing for yourself all along?
This idea of joint finances is something inherited from heterosexual marriage and its position of relationship ideal.
It came from a time when men were the breadwinners and women stayed at home. Women were legally prevented from returning to work after marriage in Ireland untill 1973. This also helped justify men getting higher wages than women because they needed it to support their families.
This history also explains something about the position of alimony and divorce as women were seen to have given the best years of their lives, years when they could have been educating themselves or building a career to the marriage and children. It was seen as being only right that the man- who probably did the dirty anyway- should now provide for her as she was the one who enabled him to be in such a good financial positon in the first place.
We dont have to copy this kind of financial dependence and dominance.


Im not questioning the idea of equal division when two people are paying a mortgage, bought it together etc and only one name is on the mortgage.
Its also different if the two people were paying equal shares in everything, seperation is difficult and not just financially.
Im not against looking for justice in seperations and Im fully in support of the recognition of couples especially when it comes to the inheritance of a house and finances or next of kin rights etc.

I think the civil partnership bill has brought in some laws for co habitating couples which apply to them automatically - to us automatically - that maybe in our rush to get married and be equal to heterosexuals we didnt think too much about.

Annasopra

Just to explain

The full title of the Act is

CIVIL PARTNERSHIP AND CERTAIN RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF COHABITANTS ACT 2010

FF explains the difference here

Civil Partnership:

Under Civil Partnership, same-sex couples will be able to avail of benefits in a wide range of areas such as property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.

Ceremonies may take place in civil registry offices or other approved settings.

The legislation will also provide for recognition of civil partnerships, or their equivalents, from other countries.

Redress Scheme:

This Act provides for a limited redress scheme where a cohabitant is left economically dependent.

This will be done through a presumptive scheme- cohabitants will not have to register their relationships but will automatically be covered once a qualifying period of time has passed.

The redress scheme will apply to relationships of at least 5 years.

Pink Adoptions

The redress scheme will apply to relationships of at least 5 years.

... or less if a child is involved.

Which is good as it protects "non-marital" children.

If you have lived 5 years with someone, it is only fair they cannot be left without possible redress.

It will be a gold mine for the 4-courts, but something was needed for the de facto families.

If someone feels it is an attack on their constitutional rights... they can launch a constitutional challenge to this section of the Act.
But I see nothing overly alarming, apart from the misinterpretations and exaggerations, influenced by the school of gold-digging.

Ambersky

I may have been a bit harsh in my last sentence.
I do hope Lesbian and Gay marriage is legalised and that this brings about a change in wider societies attitude to Homosexuality.
I hope it shakes up society generally and makes them take us more seriously, less able to dismiss us.
I hope that this makes for a wider acceptance and appreciation of diversity and dosent bring about a kind of homogenising one size fits all.
I hope Lesbian and Gay culture in all its diversity evolves and survives and especially that there will remain to be supports and social events for people coming out.

I am still concerned about section 15 which "provides for a limited redress scheme where a cohabitant is left economically dependent" and just dont seem to share others confidence that there is nothing to worry about.

I hope we can change some of the more negative aspects of marriage as it has been experienced up to now.
Surely Lesbians and Gays getting married would do some things differently, maybe that will be enough to bring about change.

I hope single people and people who choose not to marry will eventually enjoy an improved social status eventually and maybe be allowed to choose someone to avail of tax free inheritance rights ( with or without having had sex with the person at one time)

I hope that sounds a bit better.

Pink Adoptions

Ambersky wrote: »

I hope single people and people who choose not to marry will eventually enjoy an improved social status eventually and maybe be allowed to choose someone to avail of tax free inheritance rights ( with or without having had sex with the person at one time)

I suppose that the logic behind Section 15 is that some inheritence rights will be arguable in court, in case no will was left behind.
And if they inherit from a cohabitant, it is arguabe that they should be dealt with as family... we are family after all.

Would have to check th Act again to see it is the case already.
Does anyone know?

Ambersky

I came across an interesting article by Noelle Moran from LGBT Noise in a new magazine called BOLT.
In it there is an article called Conformist or Radical which addresses some of the concerns of feminists and others regarding the political direction of the efforts to gain Lesbian and Gay Marriage.
Its the first article Ive read to serioulsy address these issues and give them some credit.
It could be said that were it not for the efforts of those who campaigned for divorce, contraception, equal pay, abortion, gay rights a recognition of family divirsity and other social changes we would not be in the position we now find ourselves in with civil partnership and the possibility of Lesbian and Gay Marriage around the corner.
Rather than dismissing the concerns of many of those who have worked on such causes and fear a return to social conformity the article seems to be saying we may all be working for the same end result.
http://boltmagazine.ie/issues/issue3.2010-08.pdf

LGBTNoise holds strong
the view that marriage
equality cannot be fought
for in isolation. We agree
at LGBTNoise that our
constitution has many
problematic and offensive
provisions, especially from a
feminist and children’s rights
viewpoint. Our campaign
must, therefore, be seen
as one of the many voices
calling for law reform,
constitutional or otherwise.
Ultimately, the ‘special place’
that marriage occupies in
our constitution must be
removed and all diversity
respected. The removal of
the privileges of marriage
must extend across all tax
and social welfare systems.
As such, our fight for civil
marriage should be viewed
as a complement, rather
than an impediment, to these
other essential campaigns
for social justice.

LegacyUser

So if you end a relationship after 5 years but there are no kids and neither of you is financially dependent on other, there are no consequences of this new cohabitation law, gay or straight? It's a bit confusing and unwelcome that this can suddenly come into effect