"Proposals to give legal rights to childless cohabiting couples should not become a route to riches for the unscrupulous."

Well, obviously that's exactly will happen! Marriage has absolutely no benefits for men and very few for female breadwinners either. It´s entirely in the favour of women who prefer to stay at home with the kids. Everyone else is sensibly opting out. The government's response is to force the risks of marriage on them against their will.

No-one really believes that their girlfriend will stick with the 'for better or worse any more', and feminist commentators argue that there´s no reason they should. But given that we all know that, why should we put our financial security, homes and happiness on the line for a someone who will probably leave?

After this law it will be possible to change partner every couple of years taking half his (or possibly her) money with you each time you find someone you fancy more. And there's no democratic process involved at all

David Space, London, UK

The whole proposal is a load of old tosh. I assume that it will be officially known as the "Gold Diggers charter" as the proposed legislation seems to make it impossible not to be married someone.

Possibly this is seen as a way of legalising prostitution without alerting the unwitting public.

Bob, Reading,

This is more inappropriate State interference into private life. Marriage rates are at their lowest since records began, surely significantly caused by the penal and onerous life time burdens potentially and unavoidably imposed when a marriage fails (60% +). If adults chose not to bind a relationship in that way, that choice must be respected by the State. Children are already protected. Any laws aimed at imposing similar liability on mere co-habitees will lead to a reduction in co-habiting. Deemed legal "co-habitation" could gradually, without certainyy and without conscious thought arise, unlike marriage which a clear and distinct act. No properly advised person (of even moderate means) should marry today because of the potential financial risk if it fails and that prudence will soon extend to co-habitation. The UK will be a nation of single occupants; there will be no other means of financial self protection.

Howard Paul, London, UK

You can prove that you have been married to someone by producing the marriage certificate but it's pretty difficult to prove that you have been cohabiting with them. If they deny it you're stumped.
Otherwise anyone living as a lodger might like to think about the possibility of grabbing a half share of the landlady's property.

Tony Brown, Gloucester, UK

Surely then the correct answer is to be very clear about the current legal status so that people can (as rational adults) deside on the basis of their relationship themselves. The idea doesn't strengthen marriage if it chooses the right of people not to make commitments they don't want to. The best support to Marriage is to have a campaign that makes it clear what it does and doesn't mean and informed choices can be made..

N Johnson, Manchester, Uk

I totally agree, why not marry? If anything it will encourage more to marry so that the children have a stable home and a real mother and father.

SmileyRose, UK,

I entirely agree that the interests of children must always be paramount, but liability to maintain your children arises from the fact of parenthood rather than marital status. There are already powers to transfer property between unmarried parents for the benefit of the children. If children and their welfare were the sole justification for the proposed reform, it could be argued that the proposals are not necessary.

But unmarried couples is another matter altogether. I suspect most of the pressure for change comes from the legal profession, for reasons which are too obvious to require further elaboration. It is also attractive to the Treasury, because it shifts the burden of financial support on to the former partner. My worry is that a change along these lines will not encourage people to marry, but rather to go for short term, intense relationships, which are then discarded before the partner has had the chance to acquire rights.

Mike McNaughton, Great Moulton, Norfolk

I've seen it all now.

The government punishes men for getting married, so men stop marrying.

The government then notices a large proportion of men still want sex and a cleaner, so let women, shack themselves up in their house. The girlies then "accidentally" get pregnant, thus forcing the semi-reluctant (or at the very least hesitant,) man to become a father.

Thus forth the government punishes men for buying meals and providing shelter for a woman, in return for sex.

I therefore expect less intersex cohabiting but more house sharing.

This is good news, I was worried about a housing crash, but now we're going to have loads of men, and loads of women living separately.

Charles, London,

I love the idea that you can just pick on someone you're not married to, divorce them anyway and claim half their goods. Brilliant!!!

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Why should cohabitation cause a de-facto accrual of rights to property? Marriage carries with it such a right and it is explicit.

What is being suggested is that if a woman moves in with a man and then say leaves after a year and a day then the very act of living with him warrants that he yield a portion of his property and maybe offer her a life-long pension. It's mad. The new slogan could be "A girlfriend is for life not just for Christmas".

Mike Hinsley, Bristol, UK