This is a collection of thoughts and statements about things that annoy me. I am a big, angry man. Hear me roar, or piss off and give me peace.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Uncivil partnerships

Yet another Auntie Beeb story that has made my blood boil...

"Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples" and "However, at present, co-habiting couples have very little legal protection."

Isn't that the whole point? If these people wanted legal protection, surely they'd... get married? (Be it a religious or a civil ceremony).

It's no surprise that fewer men are willing to get married these days - perhaps because of the Hurricane theory of women... Wet and wild when they come, and they take the house and car with them when they go, leaving you with nothing...

The Have Your Say folk are quite polarised on this subject too...

"Until our society stops automatically allowing the female partner to take custody of the children then any talk of 'rights' is irrelevant.

The Woman get the house and the kids EVERYTIME.
The guy gets a damp bedsit flat and a stack of bills.

Is that equality in the 21st century?"


Ouch! So we want equality, but some will still be more equal than others when all is said and done?

"If you want rights, get married you freakin' whinging losers."

Yep, I agree. Seems the obvious stance to take, wouldn't you think? Apparently not...

"My partner and I have been together for 18 years and co-habiting for 12 yet we have little or no protection and few of the benefits that a couple are awarded immediately upon getting married. How is that fair?"

More on "equality" in separation:
"Breakfast featured an umarried couple with 3 kids who were splitting up: the female partner was complaining that she only got 50% of the house and the courts didn't take into account that she looked after the kids and that she needed more protection:

50% of all their assets plus three lots of child support will leave her ex in poverty. What more could she want- blood?"

Clearly, payment in blood is required. Don't get me started on the CSA.

"So, Living with my girlfriend for longer than 2 years is a serious liability, as if we split up under this new Scheme, I will have laws giving her rights to my belongings and money. This just is not right. You can bet this scheme will mainly benefit women who will always justify their right to their ex's money and property. It appears being a bloke in this country means you have no rights, just responsibilities to pay and pay some more."

I think I am seeing a common thread here...

Why don't we leave things the way they are, where people who want legal rights get married, those who don't, don't.

I am posting this with gritted teeth, knowing the messy divorce a friend went through recently, and another (unmarried) friend's separation...

I'll leave you with a quote from Kinky Friedman, on the subject of gay marriage, which was mentioned in passing...

"I support gay marriage - they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us"

* I see that Tory Heaven has also posted on this very subject today... It's only fair that Cato gets a mention and a link...

2 comments:

Grant said...

Good post, Steve.

"Hurricane theory of women... Wet and wild when they come, and they take the house and car with them when they go, leaving you with nothing..."

Hahaha! Comedy gold :-)

Blogger said...

eToro is the ultimate forex trading platform for novice and pro traders.