There is a very simple soluion to this and all related ssues. True it will do nothing for the lawyers, which is a shame, but you can't have everything. In this day and age why does marriage bring "rights"? Our laws on the subject are a relic of times gone by. If people wish to marry for their reasons of faith or just to make a statement then that is up to them. But their status for legal purpose should not change. If all are legally single almost all issues relating to marriage, and more specifically it's breakdown do not arise. No one has any "right" to anything they do not bring to it or earn while in it. So why do we think they do?
The former non working partner of a rich person should be just another unemployed person,not someone with a lifelong meal ticket due to the bigotted notion that cooking and cleaning for the rich is somehow more valuable than doing the same for a poor person.

D.L. Stephens, York, England

so what a man can do now is be a financially independent bachelor.

B. T, London,

Andrew Turvey "If you have been part of a relationship in which both parties contribute to the bills but only one party owns the house, then it is appropriate that any gain on the house is split equitably."

How so? First you save on rent money for a couple of years and then you get a windfall after separation which could lead to your ex having to sell up to pay up.

You are actually better off by being in this kind of relationship for a few years so how can you claim a loss.

May, London,

As a woman who owns her home (without mortgate) co-habiting is now a scary option. Do I now remain living alone forever in fear of a relationship breakup and possible loss of half my home and independence??

C Campbell , London,

While I fully support the intentions of the law commission I must point out that this suggestion is insane as it cannot be enforced. How do you decide if someone is in a 'relationship' or not? If I had a part time and casual relationship with a housemate over two years could she claim half my possessions when I moved on? Or ifI lived with a guy for a few years and then claimed we were actually a couple, how could he prove otherwise? Is a couple defined as a pair of people who have sex? If so, how often and how on earth is any law court going to prove sex took place?
There is a reason that every society in written history has marked marriage. It is not about religion but about a contract between two people in front of their community. If you have no contract it is impossible to reneg on it.

Byrne Harris, London, England

This legislation may well have a detrimental effect on family life. Most people would agree that where children are involved, both partners must contribute to their upbringing. If assets and pensions are put up for grabs then a large number of people will decide not to live together. This would lead to an increase in the amount of one-parent families, with consequences for us all. The Government must allow people to choose whether they want to enter into a relationship where all assets are included.

s deering, London,

The one good thing to come out of this utterly invidious proposed legislation is that I have realised there are many sensible people out there who can see this is as wrongheaded as it seems to me to be. As almost everyone has pointed out, if someone wanted their relationship governed by the strictures of marriage law they would get married. As much as the self-interested quango behind this scheme protests, this is simply marriage-lite; if there is any real justice in this world this half-baked proposal will be quietly buried and forgotten about. No doubt there will be many teary-eyed lawyers' faces as they realise they cannot get their claws into the affairs of yet more hapless couples.

Gavin, London,

It is already impossible for a wealthy man to marry.

scc, qwrec, qwrec

`There already are two relationships that produce rights, marriage (in a church or registry office) and civil partnership. If people don't choose the appropriate one for them, then they should remain two legally separate and independent people.' ......... why do we need a change in the law? It can only be the lawyers pushing for this........ more revenue for them .....

C J , london,

The reason whey I haven't married my partner is that I didn't want my relationship regulated by law. If I decide differently, I will marry.
That, surely, is the whole point.

jo adam, wales,

This is excellent, all those men whom single mothers pick out to date in order to support their kids, will be able to get their money back, when they realise they've been had

London Steve, London,

Peter from London, the Opt out clause is in there just so that the lawyers can say that you dont have to do this if you dont want to. They know though that few will opt out in practice. How will the average person know when they have started to be covered by this law, will they get a letter? I doubt it, they will only find out when the gold digger and the lawyer lands a writ on their doormat. There is already a scheme in place to safeguard the interest of partners, and it is called marriage. And you can be pretty sure that you are covered by the laws that govern it when you opt in, it doesnt sneak up on you like this proposal. That said, the suggestions for how they carve up the money after a split seem far more sensible than how they do it during a marriage. They seem to split the money according to contribution, not according to need, which seems highly sensible. Why cant they apply these new rules to financial settlements for divorces?

Dave, Leicester,

I feel that there is a lack of respect for individuals and choice. If in the case of relationship breakdown assets pre co hab or marriage were ring fenced away from the pot to be divided many more people would feel justice had been obtained. Too many fear maintaining a relation ship because of the harsh effect of relationship breakdown .
More publicity of the position will help, with safeguards for both parties, with possibly a codified basis of safeguard for those partners who have acted to their detriment.
Finally marriage is the safeguard option for couples.

Jim richards, bury st edmunds,

Is this not just a simple case of lawyers drumming up more business for themselves by attempting to open up a whole new market? If this proposal is implemented it will be yet another intrusion by the authorities into our lives. People currently have the freedom to choose to get married or not. They should then accept the consequences of their decisions. Removing that (legal) choice would mainly benefit lawyers.

Iain Martin, Dundee, UK

Loads 'a' money, for the Legal Profession, why should you have to opt out from something you haven't opted in to? (opt in is something called marriage), Could it be that to opt out would involve having to have a legal document drawn up by a solicitor? Loads 'a' money! . What a jolly good idea Law Commission, keep those briefs coming.

Simon, Leeds, U.K.

I hesitate to break with ths consensus here, but I sympathise with what this law is trying to acheive.

If you have been part of a relationship in which both parties contribute to the bills but only one party owns the house, then it is appropriate that any gain on the house is split equitably.

Moreover, if you enter into a relationship it is important that the rights of all parties are as clear as possible from the off. This legislation could help acheive this.

This is a major change to the legal status of cohabitation. We need a broad ranging public debate on this and it should only be implemented with braod support - from men as well as women.

Andrew Turvey, Nottingham, England

I noted a while back that its now illegal to choose who you allow into your home if you run a bed and breakfast. Whether one is right or wrong in having a prejudice against such things, surely you should have the right to stop people from practicing their own particular sexual preference in your back bedroom - so to speak.

Its the same with marriage. If you want a contract with all the legal implications make one (i.e. get married). If you don't, don't get married. Its that simple even a Labour minister should be able to understand it. And if you live with someone and they wont marry you despite your protests take the hint .. and leave!

Could it be that this Government finds dealing with the thorny issues of the upcoming energy crisis, climate change, illegal wars, massive unregulated immigration and rising levels of violent crime just far too tricky?

After all, fining motorists and meddling in the affairs of the law abiding seems to be this Government's no. 1 priority.

Mark Burkes, Birmingham, UK

Sure as fate whatever happens males will end up paying more so that females can be subsidised and any children involved will have no absolute right to spend time with their fathers whose only role will be to pick up all the bills and stay away from them. The sooner we move to fair a system where on break-up all common property is sold and both parents are given equal access to the children the sooner divorce rates and co-habiting break-up rates will fall. At present 80% of divorces are requested by women because they have nothing to lose. When that rate reduces to 50% due to changes such as those above then and only then will I believe we have a fair system. 50% of the adults in these relationships (the men) and 100% of the children involved need a better system now, not in 10 years after some other quango has spent years debating the blinking obvious.

John, Dundee, UK

Another scheme dreamed up to enrich the legal profession.

They have made a pot of money out of the misery of divorce. Trouble is people now realise that the best way to guard your rights and not get ripped off by divorce lawyers or gold digging spouses is to not get married. The lawyers are destroying their own golden egg from divorces with their greed. This is to say nothing of the additional conflict they cause in divorce, as they have a vested interest in getting parting couples to fight.

Now they want to get their hands on the money of unmarried couples. They dont like the idea that people have the ability to hide away from their greedy clutches, so they want the law to cover that as well. Such a law would impinge on the freedom of individuals who dont want to be covered by a law of break up.

And if you do want to be covered by a break up law, you can just get married, so there is an option to 'opt in' if you want it.

Dave, Leicester,

Nice....for those with a vested interest, and I thought that you could only make money from the discrimination industry...

Pete Balchin, Solicitor, Bristol, UK

Whoa! I've heard some phenomenally stupid ideas in the past, but this is right up there with the best. There is no contract between cohabiting partners and that is the way they have both chosen to live their lives. If they wanted one, they'd get married. Simple. Two adults have made a choice, and the state does not need to get involved. If these laws were designed to protect children, then they are obscure in the extreme - there are plenty of ways to detail the duties and responsibilities of parents that don't involve subjugating the rights of individuals. Additionally, what kind of person would use such a piece of legislation? It seems uniquely designed to empower the bitter, the greedy and the vicious while penalising the rational and the decent. Our government is utterly, utterly, utterly repugnant - a champion of stupidity and nastiness.

Mike James, London,

The law has already been changed in Scotland - the Family Law(Scotland) Act 2006 came into force on 4th May 2006. The proposals by the Law Commission appear to be similar to the rules that are now in place in Scotland, except that in Scotland there is no minimum period of time that you have to live together before one person can make a financial claim.

The law does not require that you make a claim. It merely provides the right to do so if you think you have been financially prejudiced by your (ex)partner.

As a Family Law solicitor I have yet to come across anyone who has actually made a claim. Perhaps people are unaware of their rights...

S McGregor, Glasgow, Scotland

A few comments here have bemoaned new laws impinging on couples' rights to stay out of the legal system with respect to their partnership. Doesn't the article point out that couples "would be able to opt out of the scheme"?

So where's the problem?

Peter, London,

I like my independence from my boyfriend and I'm not sure how this would add to my life. After 5 years together we trust and understand each other and the law enough to realise what marriage could bring to us - we choose not to at the moment.

I understand that some people need protection but if people want it a trip down to the registry office can take care of that - a marriage doesn't have to be expensive, it's only the wedding event that is.

The opt out doesn't really help because that's just another thing for people to get upset about - 'What do you mean you want to opt out? Don't you love me'. People should be given responsibility for their life decisions not have them made by the government.

Sibs, London,

yeah thats right lets have the lawyers decide how best we can live our personal lives..a clear case of turkeys voting to ban christmas. The further lawyers are kept from the the unfortunate & regular personal issues that aflict people such as separation or divorce the better.but while they are considering how best to fleece the nation lets not forget children ... why not legislate that when one 6 year old dumps his playground girlfriend or visa versa (who may not even be aware that she is a girlfriend) surely a fair split of lunch money, Yu-Gi-Oh, cards and sweets should be settled by the schools in house legal team.

Why dont people realise that in general the only party to win when lawyers are involved are the lawyers. this is not to say that they dont provide a valuable service but they should be the last not the first call u make. Use them as brokers to have conversatons with your partner that u are too lilly livered to have yourself at your financial peril.

zugermany, zurich, switzerland

What good news for the legal profession! Surely the answer is to educate non married couples as to their real legal status and to give them the choice of marrying or not and, indeed, in the case of jointly owned assets, to draw up an agreement?

Also, I should be interested to hear whether changes to the Inheritance Tax rules in favour of such couples are anticipated!

Nick Hill, London,

So, those who do not want any ties in their relationships are having that option taken away. Surely, if a couple wanted the civil, legal and property rights of marriage they can marry.

The ministry of justice (sic) welcomes interference in the most intimate of relationships. Perhaps a name change is the most sensible option. Any suggestions? Something that combines interfere, paternalistic, meddle, intrude, pry and superfluous might be appropriate.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

Wonderful, a law to put people off living together and encourage more single owner homes. If you want rights, get married, but leave unmarried people alone. I am not in need of a nanny state interfering in my personal life and taking away my wages.

Fine to look after children's rights but leave the adults alone!

Helen, Reading, UK

It would be nice if the law left us able to interact with another human being in any way without having to give them half our assets.

And without having to pay lawyers thousands of pounds. Oh hang on, this is a report from the Law Commission. Guess whose interests they have at heart??

And notice all the weasel words, like 'wouldn't automatically' meaning still could, and the need to 'prove' meaning that you need to document every stage of the relationship and then pay for lawyers to argue over it endlessly at £200 of your money per hour. Each.

Divorce in this country is a desperately bad system. Let's not make ending any relationship as bad. Once the legal system get their stupid incompetent greedy hands on it we might as well all become hermits. I refer you to the Parlour case and the North case for examples where the lawyers extend the law from the merely bad to the utterly ludicrous!

Jon Page, Winchester, UK

It could be a coincidence, but the very people who will benefit from a change in the law, are the same people who are pushing for a change in the law. Lawyers. They must hate it when people split amicably. They don't get paid that way.

Arthur, Newcastle,

There already are two relationships that produce rights, marriage and civil partnership. If people don't choose the appropriate one for them, then they should remain, as at least one of them has chosen to be, two legally separate and independent people.

As a lawyer I hesitate to say this. Teachers advocate more education. Doctors advocate more medicine. Likewise, we see the law as the obviopus solution. To the better among my profession it is, 'my client is unfortunate - the law must provide a remedy'. I regret though that the less estimable will advocate anything that gives them new heads of claim, more opportunities to earn fees.

Name withheld, Bristol,