It is a story told of more than one matinée idol, and no doubt actionable, so let us call him The Star.
The Star was rumoured in a big Hollywood prostitution case to have been one of the most regular [I almost wrote “biggest”] clients of the latest martyred madam. An interviewer caught up with him.
– “Mr Star, is it true you hired call-girls.”
– “Now I’m not going to comment on the case, and I never had any contact with Miss X; but it is no secret I have used call-girls plenty of times in the past.”
– “But Mr Star, you are known as one of the sexiest men in the world. You could surely have all the girls you want for free. Why pay anyone for sex?”
– “I didn’t pay them for sex. I paid them to go away afterwards.”
It seems our madly interfering government now wants to police our private lives a bit more closely, and thereby make them a bit riskier. According to The Times:
Unmarried women and men will be able to make claims against their partners to demand lump-sum payments, a share of property, regular maintenance or a share of the partner’s pension when they separate. They will also be able to claim against their partners for loss of earnings if they gave up a career to look after children.
The reforms are to be published by the Law Commission, the Government’s law reform body. It is expected to drop any proposal for a time stipulation, so that only couples who had lived together for, say, two years, could bring a claim; or any bar on childless couples.
Plans that would have made it harder for the partner who stays at home to lodge a claim have also been dropped. Courts will no longer have to be satisfied that the unmarried couple jointly decided that one of them should give up their career and stay at home and that the decision was not made just by one of them. […]
The reforms would apply to both opposite and same-sex couples in “an intimate relationship.” But the Law Commission emphasises that the plans are about granting individuals a remedy, not rights, when they split, and says that the measures will not undermine marriage but make the law fairer.
A marriage or civil partnership is a clear, deliberate, decision. I don’t think the state should control the form of family that is possible, but at least those particular controlled forms are optional, and formally delineated. This opens the way for officialdom to delineate and the courts to investigate any relationship for an actionable degree of intimacy, and for divorce lawyers to open a whole new field of speculative actions. Divorce lawyers will just love the idea that there’s no minimum length of ‘intimate relationship’ involved, and that unilateral reliance by one party can create a liability for the other. And they’ve been agitating for it for years (e.g. in Solicitors Family Law Association, Fairness for Families: Proposals for Reform on the Law on Cohabitation, 2000 – sorry, can’t find that online).
It would be an impressive feat on behalf of the state to make both marriage less attractive (some of its appurtenances – for those who want them – would come free) and at the same time to make sex and friendship outside marriage more risky – and possibly more risky the more affluent you are.
It might do some good of course, undoubtably there are people who are mistreated by partners or mistaken about their rights. But to punish every other single person in Britain for the cruelty or ignorance of a few is an appalling way to go. The parade of motivated winners tells you what you need to know: mad clingy girlfriends, scrounging scrubs of boyfriends, family lawyers, smug marrieds, investigators, officialdom, and prurient tabloids.
I can see a spin-off gain for the proprietors of anonymous, deniable, premises for lovers’ assignations. (Brighton?) Perhaps the Argentinian or Japanese speciality hotel businesses would get emulated here. But that would still be risky for the rich and famous. The only people certain to come out with improved credit (in both senses): proper, professional, prostitutes.
If people want the law to recognise their relationship then get married. It is that simple.
The biggest issue with the UK is that there are too many lawyers in government. Judging by their output they are hopeless at making sensible, watertight and enduring law, only lots of it.
This is another step to making people feel they are not in control of their own lives and that the arbitrary State has “got their ass”.
So the government wants to reintroduce the sordid dirty weekend? The one where the couple pretend not to know one another and book into separate rooms?
False names, the lot? Oh, hold on, ID cards anyone? To be shown on booking in?
Don’t forget, if you have nothing to hide you have no reason to be concerned.
What sane person who owns their own flat will let anyone move in if it means they can legally steal half their property in three weeks time.
You will need a prenup if someone stays overnight at a party the way our fascist overlords are going.
Why do they even go in this direction?
This is the concept of “common-law” marriage as practiced in the US for many years. In a number of states (my home of Georgia for one), they have abolished the practice as of 1987. Even then most states had a time limit (5-7 years was usual) or that the couple had to “hold themselves forth as married” i.e. tell people that they were married even though they weren’t. Seems that you all are in for some interesting time.
BladeDoc,
Oh no it isn’t the same as common law marriage (which was still effectively in existence in the UK until 1837 when nationalised marriage registration came into effect, though it was arguably illegal after the Marriage Act, 1753). There is no proposal to create marriages ex post facto. The idea appears to be that the courts (and officials, too, will follow) will be able to impose obligations on people by virtue of a vaguely defined “relationship”, whether or not those obligations are voluntarily assumed or publicly acknowledged by the parties.
BladeDoc,
It sounds more like Marvin v. Marvin writ large than common-law marriage.
If the courts can now recognize a marriage that isn’t actually in existence, then do they get to also rule that two people can be divorced, even in the absence of either of them actually asking for a divorce?
It does seem the obvious corollary. I guess I need to be very carefull next time I take a contract overseas, otherwise Mrs MarkE might find herself divorced, even though we’re not married.
The whole point of not registering our relationship with the government was to keep them out of our private affairs (as ’twere). I wonder how our non-nup stands now, given that my solicitor thought it was of “uncertain validity” in the first place?
The lawyers in government are simply providing their compatirots outside government with work. Laws should not be made by lawyers (practising or not) as they have a vested interest in making it more complex and indecipherable. The less clear cut and understandable the better, as this means more and more hours which can be billed. This generosity will be rewarded with speaking engagements and teaching positions at various law establishments when their political career is over, with the subject of speeches and lessons being ‘How we made it easier to fleece the masses by creating useless laws which you lot then got paid a ton to argue over’. Parasites the lot of them.
Jarndyce and Jarndyce(Link) gets ever closer.
Our culture is certainly crashing and burning.
Just wait until they make prostitution illegal (it’s illegal in the USA.)
Then, what is a man supposed to do for safe sex? The only recourse is to try picking up girls in bars and have sex in your car (or her place).
That’s not really very safe, but, the real screwing only starts when you get married.
In my experience, the most expensive sex in the world is “free sex.”
I thought one of the underpinnings of our democracy and freedom was the sanctity of contracts. The courts have made a joke out of the marriage contract. No wonder marriage isn’t so popular. Now, living together will be just as dangerous.
These people are mad.
Hey, stop picking on Divorce Lawyers and Prostitutes! They’re human beings also! (Well… I’m HALF right!)
Sunfish,
Wasn’t it California that first gave us Palimony, where ‘pals’ who slept together and broke up had alimony allocated by the Courts? How long ago was that?
(Your comment can be the thread-killer for this column!)
Mandrill,
The lawyers in government are simply providing their compatirots outside government with work. Laws should not be made by lawyers (practising or not) as they have a vested interest in making it more complex and indecipherable. The less clear cut and understandable the better, as this means more and more hours which can be billed.
As I have said before on other threads I think this is just not true. Most lawyers would like the law stable and clearer, so as to be able to focus on the facts of their cases, and so that they can feel that they know what they are doing, and because lawyers are usuallly intellectually attracted by good law.
What we have here is not lawyers in general wishing to complicate the law, but a special interest group wishing to expand their current activities to a new class of clientele.
nick g.
“Palimony” is rather different in most states where it is recognised from what’s seemingly proposed here. And in particular AC is mistaken, ‘cos Marvin v Marvin expressly denied the application of existing Californian family law. What the UK government seems to be endorsing is a regime of division of assets like a divorce settlement for those not married. (And for whom pace Sunfish, no marriage will be recognised.)
I’m the wrong one to ask about palimony. I’ve managed to stay in that fantasy world where one is either married or unmarried, and a judge can’t change that without a man and a woman both saying ‘I do’ or words to that effect.
I just had a creepy thought: same-sex marriage is illegal in most US states, thanks to the morality squad having some free time after solving the problems of deadbeat and abusive parents, family violence, etc.
If actual marriage is no longer a pre-requisite for divorce, then does that mean that gays can’t get divorced either?
(Sorry, firearms training today. It’s a hell of a lot of fun but not really an intellectual exercise. Okay, neither is much else that government does…)
As in Great Britian (both England and Wales and Scotland I believe) “civil partnerships” are becomming the in thing in many States.
It may sound like a cop out – but a “civil partnership” avoids the word “marriage” and to Christians a marriage is a sacred thing (so to talk of “gay marriage” creates much the same sort of feeling as to talk of a “Black Mass”).
Actually if it really is a matter of tax law, visiting in hospital and so on. I do not see why two friends (of either sex) should not be allowed to form a “civil partnership” even if their relationship has nothing to do with sleeping together.
Presently even two sisters or brothers can not form a civil partnersship (although perhaps it they went it for incest….).
To get back to what Guy said:
The real problem here is income and wealth being handed out even when there has been a “no fault” divorse.
I can understand a women saying “he beats me, I do not want him to be married to him, but I still want income from him”.
But “I just do not love him anymore, but I still love his money” does not cut it.
If one “partner” (husband or wife) wants to walk even thought the other “partner” has not done anything to violate the marrage (no beatings, no adultery) that is fair enough – but no income and no share in wealth (such a house)
“But what about the children?”.
Well if the wife (if it is the wife) wants the marriage to end (even though the husband has not done anything to violate the marriage) then she should leave the children with him – if she wants him to pay for them.
Presently the father is often even not allowed to see the children (even though he is paying for them) – as “Family Courts” do not follow the Common Law rules of evidence and procedure and tend to believe any lie that is told about the father.
As for people who live together without marriage (the norm now in the United Kingdom – well outside Ulster anyway), I suppose this was made more popular by some of the tax and benefit laws being different (also one can pretend that one is not really living with so and so – when one is married this is harder) and this “break up and you are taken to the cleaners” thing is also a factor.
If someone is going to be hit when they leave a marriage, why should they not be hit when they stop living together?
Of course I oppose both. But then the whole thing smells like paying for sex to me.
With the partner saying “I do not want to be married to you anymore, but I want X per cent of the house and so on” really saying they were a prostitute having sex for money during the years of the marriage.
Of course, I repeat, nothing above should be taken as support for men who engage in adultery or beat their wives.
Divorse of such people is certainly no a matter of “no fault” or “clean break” (they deserve to be taken to the cleaners).
Quite right, Paul, divorse is no laughing matter, but at least it’s not as bad as a divorce!
Paul: If one “partner” (husband or wife) wants to walk even thought the other “partner” has not done anything to violate the marriage (no beatings, no adultery) that is fair enough – but no income and no share in wealth (such a house)
But what if the wealth (such as a house) was acquired together during the marriage, through joint effort?
Besides, it is almost never the case in a “no fault” divorce that only one spouse wants out – usually it is mutual.
As for children: I am sorry, but the question with whom the children will be living, and who should pay for them should be decided first and foremost with the children’s best interest in mind, however unfair this might seem to either parent. I do agree, though, that the common tendency to almost automatically grant the custody to the mother, even of children who are not very young, is mistaken, ditto visitations etc. These questions should be decided case by case, without sweeping generalizations.
Nick G. – why pick on only one of my errors? I can see a lot up there (but then as no one is paying me for this writing…..).
On Alisa’s point.
Joint effort?
In which case the money would have come from both parties. In which case, of course, the value of the house should be split between them.
Unless you mean by “joint effort” – “but who would have done the dusting when one person was at work if the other person was not at home”.
Good point: To judge by most houses where a man (if we are talking about men) lives alone, no one would have the dusting (or a lot of other things).
No wonder single men tend to die off even younger than married men do (even married men tend to die off five years before women do). In fact, between the dirt and the unblanced diet it is wonder that we do not die off even sooner.
But, of course, a lot of (most?) of us do not actually care if we die off (feminists are quite correct to claim that men do not tend to place a wildly high value on human life, what they do not understand is that single men tend to place a much lower value on human life than married men do – nor is this just placing a value on the lives of their wives and children).
Men do not tend to marry to get a housekeeper or to extend their lives (although this may be a nice thing).
In case I am accused of sexism, in my family it was my father who did the house work (as well as earning the money).
Mother did cook quite a bit (at least till the last years), and I am sure would have done the house work if she had been allowed to – but my Father had rather high standards and would not trust anyone else to live up to them (these standards extended beyond house work – in fact they applied to everything, for example he did not see why getting shot in “peaceful Britain” should mean he had to pay protection money, so he was shot and still did not pay).
On children:
Should the “family courts” decide?
The “courts” that disregard Common Law rules of evidence and procedure?
And if the mother does get the children – why should the father continue to pay for them?
This is what “no fault dixzyt” (O.K. divorce) leads to. A man, who has done nothing wrong (no adultery, no wife beating – nothing), having his money taken by the threat of violence and given to his ex wife to, supposedly, support children he will hardly ever see – and who are taught to hate him.
No wonder people do not get married any more.
Yes, Paul, I did mean the “dusting”. Women do not get married to be provided for, either, although this may be a nice thing. But that’s what marriage is about: an unwritten contract about division of labour, among other things. You work as hard as you can at the office (or wherever), I work as hard as I can at home (or vice versa, to avoid sexism. BTW, I am not accusing you of sexism or anything else, I just happen to disagree with your point of view).
On children:
Should the “family courts” decide?
Well, someone should decide, just like in any civil dispute. In any case, everything possible should be done to minimize the impact the divorce has on children (including the financial impact). This means, among other things, that unless they are above a certain age, they should stay with their mother (provided she is what most people would call a “good mother”). It also means that they should see their father as often as possible (provided he is not abusive etc.).
Well if marriage really is the sort of “contract” you describe Alisa there should be no “no fault” divorce.
After all if someone has commercial contract one party or the other must have broken it for it to be void – “I do not love you any more, so the contract has broken down” does not cut it.
If the wife (to put the matter in sexist terms) wants to end the marriage and still get paid, then she must prove adultery or physical abuse (I have no problem with the idea that a “man” who raises his hand to a women should have that hand broken). Otherwise in what way has the man broken the contract?
“Someone has to decide who gets the children”
I agree with you. But why should this be the “family courts” – insitutions that reject the Common Law principles of evidence and procedure?
The man is assumed to be guilty, and proving that he is not guilty is made as difficult as possible. In short the “family courts” are sexist institutions.
Of course the reaction of many men is also absurd. The phony macho “the game is rigged so I will not play – no commitment for me, there is always pornography and prostitutes to deal with sexual urges”. In reality male sexual instincts are not really separate from emotions – we just lie to ourselves to pretend that they are, these lies catch up in the end. There is nothing more pathetic than a middle aged man acting like a teenage boy “on the pull”.
Paul: OK, now I see what you mean. Sure, if one spouse leaves unilaterally, they should not be entitled to anything (on children later). But then it should not be considered a “no fault” anyway. I have a friend who left her (wonderful) husband and kids, for her own crazy reasons. (I don’t say crazy for nothing, she is kind of flaky, to say the least, although I love her dearly). But she was decent enough not to demand anything from him. The kids stayed with him, too, BTW, although they were at an age when they should be spending more time with their father anyway. They did not even get divorced, and are still married on paper. Now, if both of them were not as amiable as they are, and they did go to court, this by no means would have been a “no fault” divorce, as she did meet another guy, although in all truth he was not the real reason why she left, just a kind of a last straw thing.
On family courts: I understand the problem, but what can you do? Obviously the justice system needs some kind of a reform, or replacement, or whatever. But surely you cannot have a vacuum? Problem is, most real “no fault” divorce cases are where both people fall out of love, and both want out. And more often then not there is enough resentment on both sides to require outside help in ending things as fairly as possible.
On kids: in my friend’s case, like I said, it was in the kids’ best interest to stay with their father. But this is not always the case, sometimes even if the party “at fault” is the mother, especially when the kids are very young. So each case has to be looked at closely by an independent third party, there is no way around it. Whether it is the court, or a therapist, or a friend, but there has to be someone to protect the interest of the kids, when one of the parents is unable or unwilling to put theirs aside.