The Christian Institute has raised concerns that UK government proposals to extend marriage-like financial rights to cohabiting couples could discourage marriage and even make some people more hesitant to enter relationships.
The government is consulting on reforms that could require the financially stronger partner in a cohabiting relationship to continue supporting the weaker partner after a breakup.
Such arrangements are already common following divorce, but no comparable legal framework currently applies to unmarried couples living together. The government says the proposed changes are intended to give “vulnerable groups” greater financial protection after relationships end.
The Christian Institute pointed to pop star Taylor Swift as an example of how the proposed system could operate in practice.
Before her widely publicized marriage earlier this year, Swift had been in a six-year relationship with actor Joe Alwyn. When the couple separated in 2023, Swift’s net worth was estimated at about $400 million, compared with roughly $4 million for Alwyn.
Under the government’s proposed framework, the institute argued, a relationship with such a large financial disparity could potentially expose the wealthier partner to a claim worth tens of millions of dollars.
Simon Calvert, deputy director of The Christian Institute, said, “Many people would feel strongly that since they did not commit to one another in marriage, Joe Alywn shouldn't be legally entitled to portions of Taylor Swift’s wealth. But this high-profile example simply exposes one kind of injustice these proposals could create.
“Marriage is the conscious, public voluntary union of two lives — spiritually, emotionally, legally and financially. Yet these proposals force financial and legal obligations onto people who haven't made that commitment, fuelling the myth of "common law marriage."
"This creates a very poor imitation of the marriage union, generating financial obligations without the promises and without the key benefits they bring — namely, greater likelihoods of permanence and family stability.”
The Christian Institute said extending some of marriage’s financial benefits to unmarried couples could reduce incentives to marry while introducing new “uncertainties” for people who choose to cohabit.
Calvert continued, “Marriage is uniquely beneficial for couples, their children, and wider society. The financial and other advantages attached to it rightly reflect that. People who don’t promise to stay together shouldn’t be treated like those who do. We should be encouraging marriage, not making it look redundant.
