Living Together is NOT the same as Marriage.

[Mia62]

Or so the groundbreaking legal decision in Ontario says. Apparently the ruling was that this woman was only entitled to what she put into the relationship NOT the usual 50% given in a marriage.

Interesting. This could change a whole lot of plans for people.

What do you think?

 

[Gil_Favor]

some people will argue that living together is no different than being married. i have done both and there is a difference. it is difficult to put into words, but there is a difference.

 

[Purrde Flower]

If you live with someone long enough isn't it considered common law marriage?

 

[P. B. Walker]

Most of America has the 7 year rule... after 7 years it's a commonlaw marriage.

I agree with that rule. Just living together for a year shouldn't get ya all that. JMHO

PBW

 

[Purrde Flower]

I thought it was 6 months. Boy! I need to freshen up on some of this stuff.

 

[Carp]

There should be a difference between living together and marriage. People living together without marriage have choosen to not make the committment of marriage to each other. After some time (7 years is fine), the relationship shold be legaly indistinguishable form marriage. I want to spend some more time thinking about this. Any help out there?

 

[SexyWench]

The Supreme Court of Canada ruling said that upon the dissolution of a common law relationship spousal and child support obligations are the same as for a divorcing couple. Property division upon a break up is a different matter.

 

[Guest]

Gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally get married have troubles...

 

[lavender]

There should be a difference between living together and marriage. People living together without marriage have choosen to not make the committment of marriage to each other. After some time (7 years is fine), the relationship shold be legaly indistinguishable form marriage. I want to spend some more time thinking about this. Any help out there?

I can't help but disagree. Marriage has become an institution - one created by religions and the state. Why should the state or the church be able to come in and regulate the commitment between two people? Why should the state or a religious institution be able to say that the commitment between two people, while not on paper, is any less real than the commitment made by people who took vows? As we have seen in our society, those vows are almost meaningless. That is evident in the divorce rate.

There are couples who are just as strong, even moreso, in their bond than married couples. Why does that little piece of paper or the sometimes insignificant vows make a relationship any more recognizable?

I think it's bullshit.

 

[Mia62]

Why does that little piece of paper or the sometimes insignificant vows make a relationship any more recognizable?

I think it's bullshit.

That little piece of paper is the only thing that makes that relationship legal. If you go strictly by the name of the law, it may be bullshit but that is the way it is.

 

[Guest]

I think it's bullshit.

Look above you. Am I still low-IQ retard?

IQ test is culturally biassed anyways...

 

[Purrde Flower]

I read somewhere that you only have a legal or "true" marriage if you got your certificate from a priest.

 

[Carp]

I can't help but disagree. Marriage has become an institution - one created by religions and the state. Why should the state or the church be able to come in and regulate the commitment between two people? Why should the state or a religious institution be able to say that the commitment between two people, while not on paper, is any less real than the commitment made by people who took vows? As we have seen in our society, those vows are almost meaningless. That is evident in the divorce rate.

There are couples who are just as strong, even moreso, in their bond than married couples. Why does that little piece of paper or the sometimes insignificant vows make a relationship any more recognizable?

I think it's bullshit.

Thanks.

In my mind, it isn't really a question of strength of commitment, but rather type of commitment. Choosing to live together is fine. I've done it. It is a type of commitment. Choosing to get married is also fine, and is another type of commitment. Done that, too. It is a different type of commitment than living together. Not better or worse, just different, IMO.

 

[Ms_Lilith]

I read somewhere that you only have a legal or "true" marriage if you got your certificate from a priest.

That, my dear, would be what is called religious propoganda. You can have a legal marriage if you are married by a justice of the peace, or if you're married in Vegas, or whatever. Those marriage certificates are legally binding.

 

[penguindance]

 

[CoolidgEffect]

I can't help but disagree. Marriage has become an institution - one created by religions and the state. Why should the state or the church be able to come in and regulate the commitment between two people? Why should the state or a religious institution be able to say that the commitment between two people, while not on paper, is any less real than the commitment made by people who took vows? As we have seen in our society, those vows are almost meaningless. That is evident in the divorce rate.

There are couples who are just as strong, even moreso, in their bond than married couples. Why does that little piece of paper or the sometimes insignificant vows make a relationship any more recognizable?

I think it's bullshit.

If the state is going to legally bound to provide benefits to surviving partners, I don't see why they shouldn't be involved? How hard is it to get a marriage liscense?

The problem isn't should the government treat couples living together the same as married couples, the problem is the government should allow all couples regardless of sex to be married.

 

[Mia62]

(Hi Mia!)

Hiya, baby. All rested up now? Or not?

 

[penguindance]

 

[SexyWench]

The decision is based on a Nova Scotia case

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/walsh.en.html

 

[Mia62]

Thanks for the link, SW.

" Courts and legislatures in this country have also recognized that denying certain benefits to a class of persons on the basis of their marital status is unjust where the need for these benefits is felt by both unmarried and married cohabitants equally. Both courts and legislatures have extended certain benefits to heterosexual unmarried cohabitants. The appreciation of an injustice and the resulting actions reinforce the view that the denial of marital property benefits demeans the dignity of heterosexual unmarried cohabitants. The steps taken constitute an acknowledgement of an historic attack upon the dignity of these individuals. Lastly, the MPA cannot survive a s. 15(1) scrutiny because of the availability of alternative remedies. These remedies are inadequate relative to those accorded spouses under the MPA. The claimant's dignity is demeaned by offering her remedies that are greatly deficient relative to the legislated property regime.

Given these conclusions, it follows that the MPA infringes s. 15(1). This infringement cannot be saved by s. 1 of the Charter. There does not appear to be a pressing and substantial objective for the omission of heterosexual unmarried cohabitants from the MPA. Taken as a whole, the true objective of the MPA is the protection of married individuals from the harmful effects following the breakdown of the marriage to the exclusion of all non-married cohabitants. This is not a constitutional objective. Assuming that the objectives of the MPA are pressing and subtantial and justify a breach of a constitutional right, the means chosen are not proportional to the objectives considered due to the absence of any rational connection between the exclusion of heterosexual unmarried cohabitants from the MPA and the purported purpose of the statute."

Can someone explain this in layperson's terminology?

 

[curious2c]

Sadly, it seems that most relationships be they married or just living together, are judged by the break up. I have seen people married for years...decades really, and I have some friends that have been living together for just as long. They have the same problems and even the same good things happen to them. It seems that when the government or church get invovled is when defining starts.

Just because you are married should not give you an 'edge' on what happens in a divorce...but seening as the government and church have such a sway over things...no wonder our society has such fucked up regulations and laws.

 

[zipman]

Most of America has the 7 year rule... after 7 years it's a commonlaw marriage.

I agree with that rule. Just living together for a year shouldn't get ya all that. JMHO

PBW

Is it coincidental that it becomes a common law marriage at the same time that the 7 year itch happens.


Oh no, another conspiracy!

Discuss

 

[P. B. Walker]

Is it coincidental that it becomes a common law marriage at the same time that the 7 year itch happens.


Oh no, another conspiracy!

Discuss

LOL... I guess now we know... I always thougth they just picked that number outta their asses, but I guess they were thinking just a little bit.

PBW

 

[peachykeen]

Just because you are married should not give you an 'edge' on what happens in a divorce...but seening as the government and church have such a sway over things...no wonder our society has such fucked up regulations and laws.

Couldn't disagree more. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that if there is no marriage then technically there is no divorce, the fact is that if two people consciously choose to enter into marriage, then they should be recognized differently than two who do not. They have a legally binding contract.

 

[Guest]

Coke is not the same as Pepsi, either.