[H8crilA]

This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality? Similar to the evergreen debates on contracting vs employment - the reality of the relationship should decide, not the title of the contract. Also often your parents can sue you for alimony if they can no longer support themselves in their old age, just like a child can sue a parent. Family law can get you by surprise.

[Barrin92]

>This legislation exists in other countries - automatic protection for partners in "unregistered" relationships. The logic is not deeply wrong - why should a formal act, essentially a signature, decide, rather than what's actually happening in reality?

because automatically tying personal and romantic relationships and property arrangements together seems odd to people who want to keep them apart, just like some people might not want to have any relationship with their family any more and don't want to fiscally depend on them, or the other way around.

It seems archaic to me to have some sort of parallel informal and customary law based on kinship that you're automatically opted into.

[H8crilA]

That's exactly what I meant by "Family law can get you by surprise.". It's not there to protect you, like HR is not there to protect you. Just keep the ship going.