[paisley_cross]

In Quebec, less than half of all couples marry. But those in common law relationships do not have the same legal protections as married folk. One commentator suggested they should. This is a reply to that.

Quote:

It's better to wed than to live common law

Letter

Re: "Quebec should extend marriage rights to unwed" (Gazette, March 7).

Janet Bagnall argues that the legal protection of marriage ought to be extended to couples living common law. But marriage is not the same as living common law. A growing body of research shows that married couples fare better than those living common law. And on many, children of married parents fare better, too.

Then there's the issue of choice. Couples entering common-law unions are generally well aware they are not marrying. In fact, they (wrongly) view living common law as preparation for the commitment of marriage.

If common-law couples are not aware of the non-legal status that is indeed cause for concern - and an information campaign. But information ought to focus on the benefits of marriage.

The state has no interest in bestowing benefits on couples who choose not to marry and, indeed, should not tread into an area where Canadians can be equipped to make their own decisions. As for women's equality and protection, the best advice is simply this: Don't live common law, get married.

Andrea Mrozek
Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
Ottawa

MARRIAGE

Original Comment

[mixedfarmer]

if they want to marry they can marry without religion. So why should they have the same rights? Common law is like dating

[hurley_108]

Quote:

"A Quebec man can meet a girl in a bar," she said. "He knocks her up. They have a baby. If they separate, he owes the mother nothing. When the man is finished with her, she's out. He pays the lowest child support in Canada, but he shares equal parental authority."

So write law requiring unmarried dads to pay child support. Why call effectively all unwed couples married to solve one aspect of the problem?

[Clogeroo]

If you want the rights of marriage then get married. However I don't think people do primarily for that reason. Half of marriages end in divorce now so marrying someone is a liability. Perhaps you will luck out and be that one out of two people who live happily ever after. Or you can be the other person who finds themselves in a brutal struggle of having to deal with either some greedy bitch who wants to milk you for what your worth or even some greedy bastard who will do the same. If you have children you are kind of screwed either way but if not at least you can move on from it and not have some ex still attached to your wallet. The prospect of divorce is enough of a turn off to marriage and usually after watching someone you know go through it is it any wonder why others would not want to be faced with the same situation?

[Clogeroo]

Quote:

So write law requiring unmarried dads to pay child support. Why call effectively all unwed couples married to solve one aspect of the problem?

They already do. In Quebec it is based off of both parents income.

[Wally_Sconce]

I think the largest room for abuse, is when 1 spouse thinks they deserve to be considered married, yet the other spouse wants to hide behind the rights of common law.

IMO, An estoppel is a defense that should be easily attained for anyone whose common law spouse is trying to claim the rights of common law.

if you don't know what an estoppel is, google it. wikipedia has a better explaination than I can provide.

[westmanguy]

Lets take religion out of the equation here.

Common law relationships and civil unions do not deserve to have equal rights as marriage offers.

If people want the rights of marriage...then use that legal union to get them!

[Wally_Sconce]

the problem with that idea is marriage isn't all 'rights' some of it is 'responsibilies'

there are low lifes out there that will abuse the system just to avoid their responsibilies. I say we create a clause that makes it difficult for that to happen.

[westmanguy]

unless your getting into religion...marriage doesn't have any legal "responsibilities".

Not with divorce, anyways.

[Wally_Sconce]

If you have a spouse that forfeits a career to raise you family, you bet you have some legal responsibilies when you try to give her the boot. She is accustomed to, and deserves the same standard of living that the 2 of you shared for 20 years.

[hurley_108]

The kids didn't get a say in whether or not their parents were married. For their sake, the parents should have the same responsibilities as a married couple would when it comes to child support, and if that needs to extend to the same rules for division of assets as a married couple would have, then so be it.

[Wally_Sconce]

Hurley, I agree. In fact, I think the responsibilities of parenthood should supercede all marital & common law rights.

[sasquatch2]

Perhaps it is my way but I have never quite clicked with a "soul mate". I did marry at least once and fortunately have no kids to speak of. Kids are a complication.
Perhaps I am intended to be a hermit...I enjoy the companionship of my dogs.

Relationships always seem to degenerate to power struggles....

[fifeboy]

westmanguy wrote:

Lets take religion out of the equation here.

Common law relationships and civil unions do not deserve to have equal rights as marriage offers.

If people want the rights of marriage...then use that legal union to get them!

How is this taking religion out of the equation?

[paisley_cross]

fifeboy wrote:

westmanguy wrote:

Lets take religion out of the equation here.

Common law relationships and civil unions do not deserve to have equal rights as marriage offers.

If people want the rights of marriage...then use that legal union to get them!

How is this taking religion out of the equation?

I presume the writer is equating all formalized marriages whether they are solemnized in a church, a courthouse or by an Elvis impersonator in a bar in Las Vegas.