The government is proposing to give cohabiting couples similar legal rights to married couples in a move that will only serve to further devalue and undermine marriage in society. We have already redefined marriage through the introduction of same-sex ‘marriage’, and devalued marriage with no fault divorce, and undermined marriage with the introduction of civil partnerships. This is yet another move to dismantle the distinctive nature of marriage.
Watch our chief executive Andrea Williams: “We’ve already made a mess of marriage in this nation”
How to respond
The consultation documentation is here.
You can respond online to the questions on this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation-document
The deadline for responding is 14 August 2026.
The consultation questions are in three parts. You do not have to answer every question.
Part 1 is about reforming the law of financial remedies on divorce.
Part 2 is about reforming the law for cohabitants on separation. This is a key section of the consultation.
Part 3 is about reforming the law for cohabitants on inheritance.
Six key questions to respond to
There are 49 questions, altogether, but we do not suggest that you try to answer all of them. The six key questions to respond to are the following.
Please respond in your own words as responses with similar wording tend to get discounted.
Questions in Part 1
Question 21 asks about nuptial agreements.
We recommend answering No.
In the comments you can make some of the following points.
- The government should not be introducing a system of legally binding nuptial agreements.
- Marriage is a lifelong commitment “for better for worse, in sickness and in health, till death us do part.” Encouraging nuptial agreements makes it seem like divorce is normal and easy, and so undermines the lifelong nature of marriage.
- Nuptial agreements normalise divorce and separation and create the expectation that the relationship will fail even before it has begun.
- The children of parents who divorce are also more likely to suffer divorce. This creates a disruptive effect on society which continues through generations.
- The government should be discouraging divorce rather than seeking to normalise it. Family breakdown costs society £51bn per year. The government should urgently be seeking to reduce this.
Question 23 asks about whether cohabitation prior to marriage should count towards the length of the marriage.
We recommend answering No.
- The reason is that cohabitation cannot be assimilated to marriage as marriage inherently involves sexual and financial exclusivity, whereas cohabitation is an informal arrangement with no public vows or registration made. The result will be confusion in the minds of the public about the nature of marriage.
- There is already confusion about ‘common law marriage’. Treating cohabitation as if it was part of the marriage will only increase this confusion. Marriage involves a formal legal commitment. It is not the same as cohabitation.
- Treating cohabitation as part of marriage sends the message that cohabitation is anticipatory of marriage or is informal marriage. This undermines the uniqueness of marriage.
Questions in Part 2
Question 25 asks whether cohabitants qualifying means two people living “in an enduring family relationship.”
We suggest answering No.
Cohabitation is not necessarily an ‘enduring family relationship’. There is no clear beginning or end of a cohabiting relationship. There is no public or legal commitment between the partners. There is no documentation about the relationship.
Question 39 asks whether there should be an explicit requirement that cohabitants cannot be given a higher award than if they were a married couple divorcing.
We recommend answering Yes.
It would be absurd to give cohabitants greater legal rights than married couples when cohabitants have not freely entered into a legal agreement about their relationship.
Question 42 asks about how to communicate these reforms to the public, particularly to “dispel the common law marriage myth.”
In the free text response to this question, you could make the following points:
- The government should tell people that there is no such thing as common law marriage.
- The government should promote the benefits of marriage.
- Imposing rights on people who have not chosen them will only encourage the myth.
- The government should encourage people to get married and to make wills rather than trying to fix the problem by treating non-married relationships as if they are married.
Questions in Part 3
Question 43 asks whether cohabitants should get the same inheritance rights as spouses.
We recommend answering No.
In the comments you could make the following points:
- People who have not entered into a legal agreement should not get rights as if they had.
- Marriage is best for society. This proposal ends the unique status of marriage.
- It is unfair and unjust to give the same rights to cohabitants as to married couples.
- People can make a will and can choose to leave their estate to a cohabiting partner. The government should encourage people to make a will.
- This will be unfair on children or other relatives who would otherwise have inherited from a relative but who now find that a cohabiting partner with no legal status in the family has an inheritance claim. The dead partner may never have intended this cohabitation to affect his or her inheritance.
- Cohabiting partners cannot be treated as if they are a husband or wife with no supporting documentation or legal agreement.
Other questions to answer if you have time
Questions in Part 2
Question 26 asks what factors to take into account when considering whether a couple are cohabiting.
We suggest answering All of them.
The lack of documentation or a legal agreement means that there is no clear way to establish what kind of relationship a cohabiting couple are in.
Question 27 asks whether those who are too closely related to be married should be ineligible for the cohabitation framework.
We recommend answering Yes.
In addition, you could suggest that the law should be changed to ban cousin marriage. Otherwise, cohabiting cousins would be given legal rights as if married. In any case the reasons to ban cousin marriage are compelling for health and the benefit of society more generally.
The various reasons for banning cousin marriage are set out in this article.
You can also say that if someone is married then they should never be treated in law as cohabiting with another partner. The proposals do envisage this which is a serious undermining of marriage. The text of the consultation says: “This exclusion would not prevent a person from bringing a claim against someone who is married, where the applicant is in a cohabiting relationship with that person.” No one should be able to legally claim that they are cohabiting with someone who is married to someone else.
Question 29 asks whether couples should have to have lived together for a minimum of three years before qualifying for the proposed cohabitation framework.
We recommend answering No and selecting five years or more as the suggested time .
In the comments you can say that three years of living together is far too short to have the legal consequences of marriage imposed on people who have not chosen legal commitment for their relationship. In fact, no couple should have legal consequences forced on them for any time period. This is unjust and unfair. If people have chosen not to enter into a legal relationship, this should not be imposed on them by law.
Question 30 asks whether cohabitants with a child should automatically qualify for the cohabitation framework.
We recommend answering No.
In the comments you could say that having a child should not automatically result in the legal consequences of marriage. If someone cohabits with another person for one day who happens to have a child, this does not constitute a legal relationship. Having a dependent child is no evidence of commitment for life. Partners should not be forced to be responsible for a child of a previous relationship. Children already have protection through the courts and child maintenance policy.
Question 31 asks whether there should be a two-year time limit on claims made since a cohabiting relationship ended.
We suggest answering Yes.
A time limit is needed because another cohabiting relationship may have since begun. No one should have legal consequences for cohabitation left hanging over them for many years. The only real solution is not to give legal rights to cohabiting partners, but to encourage marriage instead.
Question 40 asks about safeguards for an opt-out agreement for cohabiting couples.
We recommend answering No.
Couples who cohabit have already opted out of the commitment of marriage. They should not have to opt-out of a legal agreement on pain of it being forced on them by their actions. Marriage is freely chosen. Cohabitation is also freely chosen. Couples should instead be encouraged to ‘opt in’ to marriage.