Civil Partnership, Marriage & Cohabitation Essay

Civil Partnership, Marriage & Cohabitation - Essay Example Standard property law is used for these couples.2 Cohabitation law may extend to opposite sex couples, same-sex couples, and platonic pairs.3 Therefore, just like with standard property law, if a cohabiting couple breaks up, and it is shown that one of the partners has not financially contributed to the home, even if that partner has contributed child care or labor, then than that partner is still not afforded an interest in the property. This is different in marriage – in marriage, the property is divided equitably between the spouses, regardless of the amount of financial contribution from the parties, or the lack thereof.4 This essay will examine the issues surrounding people who cohabit, as well as the specific cases regarding cohabitation, and will attempt to make recommendations that would help couples be better protected under the UK law. Cohabitation Law verses Marriage Law Property division is an issue when considering cohabitation law and marriage law. Cohabiting cou ples do not have the same property rights as married couples.5 Basically, if there is a cohabiting couple, and they break up, their property would be divided according to ordinary property law, which basically means that the property follows the title – if, for instance, there is a house with only one person's name on the deed, then that person alone is entitled to the property. If both person's name is on the deed, then the property would be divided between them evenly.6 With marital law, it is different – if a marital couple divorces, the property is divided between them equitably, regardless of whose name is on the deed.7 The Marital Causes Act 1973 gives a court the right to order the transfer of property from one party to the other upon the filing of a dissolution of marriage, or the court may also order the sale of property as well.8 This principle is shown in several cases that have been decided in UK Courts. One is Burns v. Burns, which states that if there is a non-working partner in a cohabiting relationship, and that non-working partner does not contribute financially towards the purchase of the house, or the mortgage payments, than that spouse is not entitled to a division of that property.9 The plaintiff in Burns lived with the defendant, without the benefit of marriage. Valerie, the plaintiff in Burns, took care of the children and stayed home, forgoing a career and money of her own. That said, when the relationship progressed Valerie went to work, and paid domestic bills from her salary, along with buying furniture and equipment for the house, while also spending money on children's clothes. She also decorated the interior of the house.10 Despite all that the plaintiff contributed to the household, the plaintiff did not get property rights in the house after the couple broke up. This was because Valerie's contribution to the household did not directly contribute to the finances of the home- she neither made house payments, nor did she contribute to the down-payment of the home.11 This principle was echoed in Lloyds Bank plc v. Rosset, which is a case involving a married couple. 12 In the Lloyds case, the court held that only financial contributions to the home, not conduct alone, would be relevant in awarding property rights, therefore the partner who did not contribute financially was not entitled to any portion of the house. Abbott v. Abbott,13

How would Frederickson recalculates the definition of 'self-evident Essay - 1

How would Frederickson recalculates the definition of 'self-evident truths' - Essay Example George Frederickson differs that he defined the truths although may appear as self-evident has to be contextualized according the existing order of the day. Civil right which is inherently natural right of man for Locke has to be defined according to the four models of ethnic relations for Frederickson which are hierarchy, assimilation, pluralism and separatism. Both Locke and Frederickson may have advocated the emancipation of man but their methods and perspective are different. Both recognized eurocentrism or the perceived superiority of the individuals in America that came from Europe but Frederickson was more benign compared to Locke who was predisposed for cultural pluralism â€Å"that is fully inclusive and based on the free choices of individuals to construct their own ethnic identities† (642). Locke however just like his predecessor Hume reflected the general thinking of the day where the American colored Indians are to be classed with â€Å"children, idiots and illit erates† because of their lack of facility to reason (Shohat 88). And Locke defined this to be true and self-evident which needs no justification because it is the natural order of man. ... These theories define how people differed from each other and how they should interact. a) Hierarchy This type of social relations has been the dominant entity in defining truth in the early part of American history. This ethnic relation has claimed rights and privileges that are confined to a particular group and excluding others as unfit to be equal. This type of social relationship defined the Indian conquests and black enslavement during the colonial period. It holds that people who differed from the old-stock Americans of British origin are inferior. b) Assimilation Assimilation may be more benign and less racial in the classical sense compared to ethnic hierarchy definition of social relations but it is still hinged on the premise of the superiority, purity and unchanging character of the ingroup (Frederickson 635). Thus it follows that the outgroup is inferior and needs to conform to the ingroup through assimilation to achieve equality and stability in society whose truths are defined by the dominant ingroup. c) Pluralism The pluralistic point of view of social relations celebrates the differences among the various groups in society and does not judge a certain ethnic origin to be inferior or obliterate them through assimilation. Truth is not monopolized by the dominant ingroup because ingroup’s cease to exist in a pluralistic society. It posits that the cultural diversity does not defeat the notion of equal rights and mutual understanding but is in fact desirable to sustain a democratic nation state. The distinction in this theory is not race or color but rather the degree of â€Å"civilization† an individual has attained or how they have evolved from â€Å"barbarism† to being civilized. d)