Simplistically, if the partnerships can be recognised in some tangible way then this shouldn't be an issue but I have voted 'No' because the matter is not that simple!
There is already a squeeze on MQs and in the provision on Welfare facilities (and rights to access for OWPs) for the pads amongst us. The MQ estate simply could not cope with every Tom, Dick and and Kylie who decided to shack up a whim. Whilst I have every sympathy for long term relationships who feel that they should enjoy the same benefits as married couples, under current circumstances, it is simply not practical.
If, as I have often herad the argument go, what does it matter, marriage is only a bit of paper, then if it REALLY IS only a question of obtaining that bit of paper to enjoy the full benefits available, why not simply buy into the deal and get yourself a bit of paper that the system can recognise?
For good reason, the Army is supposed to be encouraging (married) accompanied Service. To extend the benefits available to all and sundry would be a disincentive for married accompanied service and would be financially unsustainable.
I voted yes - in a previous existence, was a long term live in girlfriend of a serving soldier.
It cannot be beyond the wit of man to come up with a form that said soldier signs, declaring his significant other to be precisely that, which means she then gets the benefits of a wife - be entitled to maintenance on relationship break down - paid at source from his pay packet, etc etc.
However, she must also then pay the price - be subject to Mil Law, for example.
I suspect you might get a dramatic drop in the numbers of soldiers wanting to shack up with their latest conquest, and a corressponding drop in the number of Sharons freeloading of their Saturday night taxi ride home as well.
Make it official and legally binding - for those who are committed to each other it would work.
You were only a long term girlfreind of a soldier as he refused to marry u, u old trout
Don't believe that most toms couldn't handle the responsibility of living in an MQ with their boyfreinds/girlfreinds and I don't care what whines that statement causes. Some of them have difficulty keeping their rooms clean. Can you imagine if they started breeding? Lordy!
The Army has went too PC as it is. Single mums and all that sh*t. We do not need Cfn Jones and his Lance Jack girlfreind of all of two months Sheena creating shit on the patch. Half of these people don't know how to flush the toilet.
But I do agree that they should pay full Food and accommodation rates whilst pads can live in the Mess for half the cost.........and get better rooms because they have higher rank.
First, marriage in a registry office isn't really a marriage in Gods eyes in the traditional sense, but it does show a committment, which is what it should all be about. If you can't show you are committed to each other in some tangible way, why should you have any benefits?
Secondly, if this does become the norm, every tom dick and tracy will be doing it, and by the end of a decade you could end up with half a dozen dependant exes. How do you split your pension? There would undoubtedly be many like that, or does the benefit go to the lastest one in perhaps a long line?
Make a tangible committment and reap the rewards, shack up and don't; it's quite simple in my eyes. Fck me it's not like divorce is a big thing anymore.
Not guilty, but I am available, so long as she isn't a minger.
I was a singly throught my time in the forces, and did indeed think of every possible way of living off camp.
Even if I were to have married I would have sooner forced a bedford wheel up my hoop than live on any patch.
Much better to buy your own gaff and live out, keep the trout away from all things military and all the Ron hill wearing white stilletoed, tattooed trollops that frequent the NAAFI pumping each others hubbie's and some of the singlies.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone takes the MOD to court (again) for denying their human rights because they believe that they are treated differently based on their marital status or sexual orientation in that they are not allocated an FSQ. Of course the MOD will cave in, as ever, due to the PC rot imposed by their political masters.
At the rate Annington Homes are selling off the current stock, there won't be any quarters left in 10 years anyway.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone takes the MOD to court (again) for denying their human rights because they believe that they are treated differently based on their marital status or sexual orientation in that they are not allocated an FSQ. Of course the MOD will cave in, as ever, due to the PC rot imposed by their political masters
BRAVO! Well said that man...
PC behaviour. If I were a black, overweight, lesbian single mother with one leg and a Muslim belief, I'd be one hell of a rich girlie.
If you are in a heterosexual relationship there should be no problem with getting quarters if available. The obvious thing is that married pers come before you and when you meet the criteria laid down you get issued said quarter when available. Rules, can you meet all the requirements that will and should be laid down, I am engaged at the moment to a female soldier( thought i would mention this) but we are not entitled i can prove that we are in a relationship we have financial commitments together (house) etc etc, where is the problem. To bloody PC thats what, Pte fucknuts gets preggers gets quarter "load of bollocks" moves boyfriend, girlfriend in creates animosity!! in the remainder of her unit because of this, next thing all females try to get preggers and out the block!! Poor sod single guy shafted again. As for those in same sex relationships no! Am i homophobic !!!! maybe
The questions asked was 'Should the Army recognise unmarried partners?' The word 'partners' covers it for me in that they have to be recognised as partners with a commitment to each other. Not just the Friday night, everlasting commitment to 9 a.m. Saturday morning. If a couple have a genuine partnership but do not wish to take the formal step of marriage why should we stop them? However, there must be a demonstrable show of this commitment and while marriage is the obvious one, I am sure that some arrangement showing this commitment, time together, children etc could be put together very quickly.
I thought the whole point of MQs was to benefit/retain trained soldiers. Cheap accomm, a perk /incentive, esp on low rates of pay in comparison with civs,and extra strains on relationship ie deployment.
so if it retains trained soldiers who dont happen to be married then all the better. Some of us dont believe in God or Religion, or indeed the need to spend ten grand on a wedding which we cant afford !
And it might protect some of the blokes from themselves, being forced into marriage just to get a benefit. And also from some of the sl@gs who get pregnant on purpose, then a hasty marriage, followed by deployment followed by divorce and csa.
If relationship goes titsup then an exWife will have more rights than an ex GF. Whats in the soldiers interests??
The obvious thing is that married pers come before you and when you meet the criteria laid down you get issued said quarter when available. Rules, can you meet all the requirements that will and should be laid down,
They shouldnt be entitled to married quarters because they are not married!
What if they full-fill as above and get a quarter. Then the patch fills up and a new married soldier arrives, do the partners get kicked out of their home or dose the one who has shown a real commitment live in the block away from his family until the partners break up.