Interesting discussion.

I read somewhere that the rate of breakdown of de facto relationships is 6 or 7 times higher than marriage relationships. Since the only difference between the two is that marriage involves a formal undertaking, obviously it is nonsense of government policy to assert that the form makes no difference to the substance. In fact the explicit commitment is the essence of the substance.

De facto relationships laws are abusive and should be repealed. There is no reason why people who have not made a voluntary commitment should have one imposed on them. A de facto spouse has no moral claim to such a law, since if they want the incidents of marriage, they can always marry. Why should people who deliberately choose not to make a commitment, have one forced on them against their will, just to provide the benefits of marriage to those who are too slack to formalise their own status?

Exactly Peter.

The reason many de-facto relationships may 'fail' is precisely because both parties never intended for them to be a long term thing.

The mistake in this whole argument is the assumption that people in de-facto relationships have made any commitment or had any desire to stay together for the long haul in the first place.

The religious and the old fashioned project their goal onto people who may have no such goal, and then say they failed at this goal.

ante_bellum,

'but when you choose to cohabit- you're choosing NOT to marry - which would suggest to me that it is a choice not to make that promise. As well there is something to be said for community accountability.'

This illustrates the mindset beautifully. 'Choosing not to marry' as if the goal and default position is being married, and anyone who is not has somehow chosen something.

People choose to marry, they don't choose not to marry. It's like the religious saying atheism is a religion.

If two people start having a sexual relationship but live in separate dwellings are they making a considered choice not to move in together? If they break up 2 weeks later have they failed to move in together? Maybe they've failed to get married too.

I suppose some people cant get around the idea that two people can live together with no thought of marriage.

"I wonder why the break up of a longstanding cohabiting relationship doesn't seem to be considered as just as painful and disruptive as a divorce."

Quite right, Pynchme. Not being married doesn't means it hurts any less when you break up. And it's just as messy legally.

The problems start when cohabiting partners aren't clear about each other's intentions. If one sees it as a "trial marriage" while the other isn't interested in marriage at all, then everybody's going to get hurt.

I don't see why anyone should assume there's going to be a transition from de facto to marriage - and if you haven't talked about your aspirations after you've been together for a while, then somebody should be starting that conversation.

I don't understand why some posters seem to feel women are being used in de facto situations. Women can start conversations about where the relationship is going. They usually do, in fact. They can make decisions if their partner doesn't want marriage. They can do that anytime.

I do object to the article's premise that marriage is more worthy a goal than de facto. Why? Because it shows a capacity for commitment? Well, given the divorce rates, I doubt that's the case anymore. People might think marriage is forever, but the reality is, it isn't, in spite of the vows. So why see de facto as some kind of second rate arrangement?

And a de facto relationship isn't a sleep over. It's sharing your daily life with a partner. It has the same challenges as marriage.

Dunno about shacking up, but the following yarn on three brothels up for council consideration in Perth this Tuesday night illustrates the Liberal-National state government's folly at failing to introduce a Prostitution Amendment Bill to give guidance on where they can be located ...

http://www.oneperth.com.au/2010/08/21/sex-in-the-city-too/