Written evidence submitted by Mr Bren Calver [HAB0082]


In our experience as a traditionally married couple the vows we took in marriage certainly have helped to focus our minds in times of hardship and distraction the commitments of loyalty we made to each other to create an environment of love and material security for the well being of our family as a whole.   


In our view marriage is undermined if this legal commitment is missing since either party can just walk away if selfish demands are not met.  And whilst collateral damage can be mitigated, the emotional betrayal and damage to the innocent partner and children in a family can never be in most cases mitigated without mental health problems.


In our view cohabitees are really people looking to see if their relationship will work without jeopardising the interests of children but, this only works if /when they decide to have children, they responsibly then commit to marriage before starting a family for legal, welfare, and emotional protection of children who will very much depend on a stable partnership, while taking the guidance of both parents and the qualities both impart while they grow up. As we understand this proposal there is no commitment by either party to this legal marriage protection. And according to statistics 53% of five olds and 15% of five year olds will lose one or both parents when they just cohabit. Therefore non commitment to marriage will just add to family breakdown which already costs this country £50 billion a year! Therefore encouraging commitment to marriage, not undermining it, needs supporting by government to fulfil parenting standards. Without this stability and guidance and nurture children are already in emotional crisis which causes the public purse £50 Billion a year, not to mention the mental health issues that arise in later life. 


We also feel encouraging legal commitment to marriage for (life) currently provides transfer of assets to the surviving partner in the event of death, therefore also provides a frame work of financial security for children when assets pass automatically to the surviving partner.  However, If just cohabiting a Willcan just as easily provide this (without undermining) the commitment legal marriage brings to the Welfare and nurture of children.  


Finally,  we feel extending these marriage rights to cohabiting couples will not only promote irresponsible people using this cohabitation back door to avoid commitment to partners and children if the relationship fails, but also creates another problem since this proposal doesnt distinguish between lodgers or partners of same sex who could go on to expand their households with indeterminate numbers of alleged family for illicit purposes of sex or drug rings (under the cloak of family).  Terrorists could also again exploit same sex cohabitation with indeterminate numbers of alleged children of the same sex to create a cell (under the cloak of family) all support by the state.  Whilst this can also happen with traditional marriage this supports the need for tighter laws not laxing them.


June 2021