Stop Taking Away Our Right to Choose

by Lynda Goetz

Photo: Feyza Yilderim on Pexels.

In our increasingly authoritarian age, there are some areas in which, rather bizarrely, we have more choice than ever. In terms of personal relationships, there is nowadays a wide variety of choices. We can choose to get married, in the old-fashioned and traditional way, to a person of the opposite sex; equally, we can also now choose to get married to a person of the same sex, quite legally (for those interested in the subject, go to a brief timeline of LGBTQ+ laws in the U.K ). For those to whom the idea of marriage smacks too much of tradition, convention and religion, there is the possibility of civil partnership – again to a member of the same or opposite sex. Both legal arrangements confer essentially the same legal rights on the partners, the difference being mainly in the terminology and the inclusion or otherwise of a religious element to the ceremony. Same sex couples can convert a civil partnership to a marriage, whereas this is not true of opposite sex relationships (presumably because originally same sex couples could create a civil partnership but could not get married).

We can choose to have children within these legalised relationships – something which has only become possible for many with the scientific advances in fertility treatments, egg-freezing, surrogacy etc. Alternatively, we can choose not to confer any legality on our personal relationships and still have children should we choose to do so, without those children incurring any stigma for being born “out of wedlock”, as it used to be called. Being a “bastard” these days may still be a term of abuse, but it is certainly no longer regarded as a societal problem. Although it seems hard to get statistics from the Office of National Statistics for years after 2021, certainly in that year births outside marriage or civil partnership outnumbered those within a legal framework (51.3%).

There are also of course also the other LGBTQ+ aspects of modern life choices. Whilst no-one would wish to suggest that these minority elements have not always been part of human societies, the modern legislation to protect those who feel themselves to be of different sexualities or genders has made, at least in this and other European and Western countries, a further available ‘lifestyle choice’ to those who previously felt themselves excluded from society. In this context then, it would seem that we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves how we conduct our personal relationships. So, why was Starmer’s Labour government suggesting the need to reform the legal status of those who have chosen not to get married or form a civil partnership?

On 5th June, the then Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Baroness Levitt KC, issued a press release entitled ‘Millions of Unmarried Couples to get Stronger rights’. The consultation runs until 14^th August (i.e until the end of this week). It may well be that under our new ‘parachuted-in’ Prime  Minister, Andy Burnham, and his new Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Norris, this will not go ahead. However, as things stand, legislation to cover these issues is still planned. My contention is that this removes autonomy and choice from those who, knowing the choices, have opted, for whatever reasons, not to ‘tie the knot’.

There are, it is true, many who believe that unmarried, cohabiting partners acquire “common law rights”. This, as London solicitors Payne Hicks Beach point out on their website, is not the case. In England and Wales, there is “no such thing as common law marriage”.  In other words, if you choose not to get married or create a civil partnership you will need to rely on contract or property law in order to exercise any rights you may wish to pursue at the end of such a relationship or on the death of one of the partners.  It is presumably to correct this fairly widespread misunderstanding that Starmer’s government put out its proposals. Why, though should those who have chosen not to seek a legal form of union be forced effectively to submit to the intervention of the state on this issue? If a cohabiting couple have chosen not to form a legal union, why should the state foist upon them certain ‘rights’ or ‘responsibilities’? In all other areas, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Starmer’s government was proposing that cohabitants who have lived together for at least three years or share a child would have access to the new framework. The following extract from the Gov.UK Press Release gives an idea of the aims of the proposed legislation.

“Over 3.5 million unmarried couples will be given more financial security under a government consultation launching today (Friday 5 June). Designed to shape future law and better reflect modern society, the consultation looks to strengthen rights and make the separation process less financially difficult for cohabiting couples and those who simply choose not to marry. 

The government recognises that due to cost of living pressures, financial security is more important than ever and the current outdated system offers unmarried couples who live together limited financial rights if their relationship ends. For example under our plans, individuals could gain access to a share of a house sale to help secure their financial future.

Separation is already a challenging time, particularly if one person is financially dependent on another. By bringing family law into the modern day, the government’s proposals will help couples, including survivors of domestic abuse, gain financial security and independence at the end of a cohabitating relationship, whatever their marital status.”

It does also state that, “This new framework will offer cohabiting couples a distinct and different set of rights from married couples, helping to preserve the sanctity of marriage.”

Nevertheless, however you look at these proposals, there is a ‘nanny knows best’ element at work here. The state is attempting once again to usurp individuals’ decision-making process on the grounds of helping couples “gain financial security and independence at the end of a cohabiting relationship, whatever their marital status.” In spite of then claiming they are still “helping to preserve the sanctity of marriage”, they are eroding a traditional institution, which people have, for whatever personal reasons, or indeed ignorance, eschewed, in favour of state interference.

Family life has long been regarded as being at the heart of society and community. It supports cohesion, responsibility, and creates a framework on which communities are built. The state has over recent decades been guilty of chipping away at this basic building block of society. As our populations have grown the state has garnered to itself more and more of the rights and responsibilities once regarded as the preserve of individuals and families. It is now seen by so many as the natural order of things that fewer and fewer people question the gradual acquisition by the state of more and more power and the resulting reduction in individual freedom and choice. They expect that the state will provide education, health care, social care and some sort of financial security. Of course, in a modern, ‘civilised’ society, those expectations are generally regarded as essential. Individual choice has always been subject to the need not to hurt or damage others and, to some degree, to conform to the requirements of the wider society. But should those who wish to seek alternative education, health care or lifestyle be effectively punished financially for not wishing to be part of the system that is provided? If I allow someone to share my house for 3 years, should that give them some sort of financial claim on my house? This idea, if pursued, is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences. Relationships will break up after two years and fifty-one weeks so as to avoid  a situation which people thought they had avoided by choosing not to get married or create a civil partnership.  Surely education and publicity about the legalities of the situation might encourage more people to make their relationships ‘official’? This would be preferable to creating yet another tier of ‘sub-marriage’ relationships.

The seemingly insidious and relentless march of state interference and the removal of individual choice and judgement has speeded up over the last twenty-five years. This latest socialist attempt to erode personal decision-making is yet another nail in the coffin for those of us who still believe in the right of individuals to have freedom of choice.