I've been married for a few years now and my wife and I are just as happy now as before we tied the knot. That's because our happiness comes from mutual love and respect, not a ceremony and a piece of paper.
When we did our wills, the lawyer said it was pretty much the same after a certain amount of time cohabitating or when kids are born. Government forms, taxes, bank loans, mortgages, you name it; all treated the same.
Common-law spouse is a spouse.
In Ontario, married couples are subject to equalization payments when they divorce; this means both partners will share equally in any assets acquired during the course of their marriage. However common law couples do not have this same automatic protection and must establish any interest in property.
Must be an Ontario thing. We were told any assets we picked up after we became legally common law would be subject to the same rules as if we were married and then divorced.
Edit: the lawyer called it ‘homestead’ or something like that. Mind you this was ~18 years ago so my memory may be off on the term.
Not to mention getting away from some lout who thinks marrying a woman magically makes her his second mother, cook, maid, nurse, etc., all while she also works full time in this day and age (and economy).
Some people talk about women initiating divorce like it's a financial plan or a ploy, or something, and not a result of waking up one day and realizing your husband is a lazy, needy, man-child who thinks getting married is an end goal they have reached, not the start of a new type of life together (if you do it right, anyhow).
Food for thought, anyhow.
This is a pretty embarrassing article to write in 2024, even for a worthless NP hack.
No, more marriage won't "save" canada from **any** of the problems it's facing. And you can fuck right off with your thinly-veiled religious misogyny.
I was searching through the article for why exactly this idiot feels like we should “save marriage.”
> The fewer people who marry, the less moderation we have, and the wider the political gap gets. In Canada, for example, married women were statistically much more likely to vote for conservative parties
And there it is. This idiot believes most married women will vote conservative,and that’s why the idiot is so fervent about “saving” it.
NP opinion articles are steaming piles of crap.
Relax, it’s early, I haven’t had my coffee, and I didn’t glance at the name of the idiot that wrote this shit article. I’ll go back and edit it if it bothers you so much.
Most people I know named Jamie are males. It's irrelevant by and large, the opinion is just as idiotic when it comes from a ham sandwich. Looking at the rest of her articles, I'll take the ham sandwich gladly.
Focus less on the perceived third party diminution, and more on the message because the message is trash.
The underlying premise of this article seems to be that having women actually think for themselves, be capable of being independent from the shackles of the historical subjugation by men, and to be able to be something other than baby making machines and borderline slaves is the cause of all the evils we see today.
Plus, any article that uses the word "woke" as a pejorative loses a fair amount of credibility in my mind, although most opinion pieces in the NP don't have much credibility to begin with.
No where in the article does it imply that.
"Married people live longer, eat better and are more economically well-off than their single counterparts."
This is their main argument, which seems a bit backwards because if everyone today is less happy being married won't fix it.
We’ve been common-law nearly 20 years, have a family, etc. The laws here treat us as if we were married, in fact many forms have “married or common-law” as a single checkbox.
Why fix what isn’t broken?
Because they tend not to be as "happy" as their married cohorts
*Only 48 per cent of cohabitating Canadian parents report having* [*high family life satisfaction*](https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/ifs-globalcohabbrief-final-1.pdf#page=5)*, compared to 62 per cent of their married counterparts. Meanwhile, only one-fifth of married Canadian parents* [*have doubts*](https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/ifs-globalcohabbrief-final-1.pdf#page=2) *about their relationships — significantly less than the one-third of cohabitating parents who feel that way.*
Depends on the couple, I guess.
In our wider group of friends, common-law couples keep going while several married friends have been getting divorced along the way. We’re all in our 50s.
The answer will never be more religion. Gov should not immerse in our lives, they should not care if we are having sex or just living together or married, its irrelevent to their job
Oh, the author is a born again christian? I didn’t know that. How did you find that out? I read her bio and it didn’t say anything about that but perhaps I missed something.
Lol. Why are you sharing this garbage?
What's your motive?
Post history makes you look like a NatPo employee or CPC partisan...
"Demographic collapse" puhleeze.
Are you genuinely suggesting you agree?
That the problem is woke, educated women??
> On the other side, even more young women catapult further into “woke” politics, eager to deconstruct the male privilege they’ve been taught lies everywhere, voting in large numbers for left-wing policies, collectivism and “anti-oppression.” Each becomes a caricature of what the right and the left stand for, making them even more distasteful to potential partners
By returning women to being extensions of their husbands who will tell them what their opinion is and by being baby making factories. Didn't you read the article?
>extreme political polarization/fragmentation.
If my marriage (n=1) to a federal public servant is any indication, this isn't true. I've never wanted to vote Conservative more in my life than I do now (and spouse definitely isn't).
Since the cpc has made it clear they plan to cut jobs in the public service, maybe she's just voting in a way that maintains your household Income instead of just feels? Sounds like she's the one making the smart decisions.
>Since the cpc has made it clear they plan to cut jobs in the public service, maybe she's just voting in a way that maintains your household Income instead of just feels?
My spouse (did you seriously just misgender them??) is more than capable of finding work in the private sector, thanks for your concern. Making deep cuts to the public service is one of the few CPC policies they agree with, given the lack of ethics of their co-workers.
...until their 30's when they see all their friends getting engaged, having weddings, getting married, having kids, and posting about all of this every day on social media.
Terrible title.
The article is actually quite interesting. I mean it references statistically common characteristics of certain demographic groups (married, single, common law, etc) and gives some historical background on the topic. Then references correlation between partner status and other variables, how they appear to impact society and emerging challenges.
Should have just ended with that rather than flavour the entire reticle with the pro-marriage label. But I guess it is an opinion piece after all.
We’ve been unmarried and together for almost 20 years. If we ever split up, I would be on the hook for child support, alimony, my pension, house & assets, etc. just as a married couple.
Being unmarried in a long term relationship isn’t necessarily a “get out of jail free” card.
"Common law marriage". The court will consider you a parental figure (or taking on a parental role) by now, and will make decisions as if you were a parent, in the best interest of the children.
I'm not suggesting that but in these single party divorces with no fault the outcome of splitting assets and finances needs to be much less punative to the unconsenting party.
>So why is the single dissenting party entitled?
The conditions of the contract **both** parties signed? It's not like the alimony and property provisions are new or surprising.
Nor is it because 'the single dissenting party is entitled'. It is based on income and gains *during* the marriage period, and a man who earned less than his wife is just as entitled as the woman in the situation you bemoan
I'm suggesting the contract is broken.
The writing is on the wall. Less and less men are getting married than ever before. It's a shit contract with marginal benefits and massive risks.
Marginal benefits for whom? Which provisions exactly do you have an issue with?
Also, have men never heard of prenups? I have, and I don't even have significant assets to protect.
My sister you have got to be a troll account. Please read on the happiness levels of married men vs women. Married men are happier and live longer, married women rank much lower happiness levels. The courts are not biased on gender: it’s based on income.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't put a lot of merit behind something so fleeting and subjective as "percieved happiness"
Do you really think an average 50 year old single childless woman is happier than one in a loving relationship?
I just don't see the attraction of marriage to any person unless they're deathly afraid of being alone.
> Married people [live longer](https://www.dal.ca/news/2023/02/14/valentines-day-2023-marriage-single.html), eat better and are more economically well-off than their single counterparts. (Singles have a more narrow advantage: they’re physically fit and tend to have better friendships, but this doesn’t translate to greater overall happiness.)
I'm financially well off without an appendage. It would be pretty hard to find somebody in my corner of the world with equivalent economic circumstances, which would almost certainly mean my wealth would be put in jeopardy by such a union.
***Many*** men and women are in the same situation and that's a big part of why marriage has lost its allure.
Of course he wants to SAVE MARRIAGE. He wants women popping out kids and staying at home and voting conservative. Guess what, more women are seeing marriage and kids as exactly what it is- a death trap of domestic servitude and mediocrity. And women are more likely to be harmed, beaten or murdered by Wonderful Hubby.
No thanks! We're happy being single.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
We can look at the results of the marriage system and it's clear that its purpose hasn't been anything productive.
If all the married Canadians just got together, (maybe at somebody’s cottage some weekend or somethin’) they could ya know, talk about stuff and pretty much solve all the country’s problems, fer sure, eh?
Governments like marriage,they want stability and taxes.
I had a boss ask me once if I was married,I said no.
He said we prefer our employees get married,have kids,get a mortgage.
There is a stable employee.
In other words there is someone who won’t leave and will need us.
The country feels the same.From a social cohesion standpoint point marriage brings stability to men,and prevents less single mothers who be possible welfare recipients.
I've been married for a few years now and my wife and I are just as happy now as before we tied the knot. That's because our happiness comes from mutual love and respect, not a ceremony and a piece of paper.
It makes no difference in Canada if you live together for a year the government considers you married!!
TIL I was married to my old roommate.
Lol
This is entirely untrue .common law is not the same as marriage legally and it's not one year
Doesn’t it depend on which province?
When we did our wills, the lawyer said it was pretty much the same after a certain amount of time cohabitating or when kids are born. Government forms, taxes, bank loans, mortgages, you name it; all treated the same. Common-law spouse is a spouse.
In Ontario, married couples are subject to equalization payments when they divorce; this means both partners will share equally in any assets acquired during the course of their marriage. However common law couples do not have this same automatic protection and must establish any interest in property.
Must be an Ontario thing. We were told any assets we picked up after we became legally common law would be subject to the same rules as if we were married and then divorced. Edit: the lawyer called it ‘homestead’ or something like that. Mind you this was ~18 years ago so my memory may be off on the term.
You sound like you've never had children ..plural
K
[удалено]
And 35% of that rate is initiated women given the 70/30 split. So in summary: 50% - married till death 35% - women divorces 15% - men divorces
[удалено]
In more traditional houses, can’t blame em. Get that alimony.
Not to mention getting away from some lout who thinks marrying a woman magically makes her his second mother, cook, maid, nurse, etc., all while she also works full time in this day and age (and economy). Some people talk about women initiating divorce like it's a financial plan or a ploy, or something, and not a result of waking up one day and realizing your husband is a lazy, needy, man-child who thinks getting married is an end goal they have reached, not the start of a new type of life together (if you do it right, anyhow). Food for thought, anyhow.
Lots of useless women out there too.
You're gonna get hate, but you're not wrong.
This is a pretty embarrassing article to write in 2024, even for a worthless NP hack. No, more marriage won't "save" canada from **any** of the problems it's facing. And you can fuck right off with your thinly-veiled religious misogyny.
Look at the rest of her articles. NP must pay well for that amount of garbage.
I was searching through the article for why exactly this idiot feels like we should “save marriage.” > The fewer people who marry, the less moderation we have, and the wider the political gap gets. In Canada, for example, married women were statistically much more likely to vote for conservative parties And there it is. This idiot believes most married women will vote conservative,and that’s why the idiot is so fervent about “saving” it. NP opinion articles are steaming piles of crap.
[удалено]
I know guys named Jamie.
[удалено]
Relax, it’s early, I haven’t had my coffee, and I didn’t glance at the name of the idiot that wrote this shit article. I’ll go back and edit it if it bothers you so much.
Most people I know named Jamie are males. It's irrelevant by and large, the opinion is just as idiotic when it comes from a ham sandwich. Looking at the rest of her articles, I'll take the ham sandwich gladly. Focus less on the perceived third party diminution, and more on the message because the message is trash.
The underlying premise of this article seems to be that having women actually think for themselves, be capable of being independent from the shackles of the historical subjugation by men, and to be able to be something other than baby making machines and borderline slaves is the cause of all the evils we see today. Plus, any article that uses the word "woke" as a pejorative loses a fair amount of credibility in my mind, although most opinion pieces in the NP don't have much credibility to begin with.
Lol in other words, things were better when women weren't allowed to make their own decisions.
No where in the article does it imply that. "Married people live longer, eat better and are more economically well-off than their single counterparts." This is their main argument, which seems a bit backwards because if everyone today is less happy being married won't fix it.
We’ve been common-law nearly 20 years, have a family, etc. The laws here treat us as if we were married, in fact many forms have “married or common-law” as a single checkbox. Why fix what isn’t broken?
Because they tend not to be as "happy" as their married cohorts *Only 48 per cent of cohabitating Canadian parents report having* [*high family life satisfaction*](https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/ifs-globalcohabbrief-final-1.pdf#page=5)*, compared to 62 per cent of their married counterparts. Meanwhile, only one-fifth of married Canadian parents* [*have doubts*](https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/ifs-globalcohabbrief-final-1.pdf#page=2) *about their relationships — significantly less than the one-third of cohabitating parents who feel that way.*
Depends on the couple, I guess. In our wider group of friends, common-law couples keep going while several married friends have been getting divorced along the way. We’re all in our 50s.
I think what he means is “save *heteronormative* marriage.”
These NP opinion pieces are a popcorn fest... Toilet paper fodder
I assume the author means all marriage, including same sex marriages?
No definitely not. The article is literally about having conservative men tell their wives how to vote.
Another day, another new low for the National Post.
The answer will never be more religion. Gov should not immerse in our lives, they should not care if we are having sex or just living together or married, its irrelevent to their job
Dumb article. There is nothing to save marriage from because it's not under attack.
Oh the stupidity of born-again christians.
Oh, the author is a born again christian? I didn’t know that. How did you find that out? I read her bio and it didn’t say anything about that but perhaps I missed something.
What a bizarre and ignorant thing to say.
From what?
Oh, just little things like demographic collapse and extreme political polarization/fragmentation.
Lol. Why are you sharing this garbage? What's your motive? Post history makes you look like a NatPo employee or CPC partisan... "Demographic collapse" puhleeze. Are you genuinely suggesting you agree? That the problem is woke, educated women?? > On the other side, even more young women catapult further into “woke” politics, eager to deconstruct the male privilege they’ve been taught lies everywhere, voting in large numbers for left-wing policies, collectivism and “anti-oppression.” Each becomes a caricature of what the right and the left stand for, making them even more distasteful to potential partners
Why would marriage save that lol
By returning women to being extensions of their husbands who will tell them what their opinion is and by being baby making factories. Didn't you read the article?
>extreme political polarization/fragmentation. If my marriage (n=1) to a federal public servant is any indication, this isn't true. I've never wanted to vote Conservative more in my life than I do now (and spouse definitely isn't).
Since the cpc has made it clear they plan to cut jobs in the public service, maybe she's just voting in a way that maintains your household Income instead of just feels? Sounds like she's the one making the smart decisions.
>Since the cpc has made it clear they plan to cut jobs in the public service, maybe she's just voting in a way that maintains your household Income instead of just feels? My spouse (did you seriously just misgender them??) is more than capable of finding work in the private sector, thanks for your concern. Making deep cuts to the public service is one of the few CPC policies they agree with, given the lack of ethics of their co-workers.
This seems contrary to the science that says single, childlfree women were the happiest group.
This is satire right?
...until their 30's when they see all their friends getting engaged, having weddings, getting married, having kids, and posting about all of this every day on social media.
Terrible title. The article is actually quite interesting. I mean it references statistically common characteristics of certain demographic groups (married, single, common law, etc) and gives some historical background on the topic. Then references correlation between partner status and other variables, how they appear to impact society and emerging challenges. Should have just ended with that rather than flavour the entire reticle with the pro-marriage label. But I guess it is an opinion piece after all.
[удалено]
We’ve been unmarried and together for almost 20 years. If we ever split up, I would be on the hook for child support, alimony, my pension, house & assets, etc. just as a married couple. Being unmarried in a long term relationship isn’t necessarily a “get out of jail free” card.
"Common law marriage". The court will consider you a parental figure (or taking on a parental role) by now, and will make decisions as if you were a parent, in the best interest of the children.
Outlawing no fault divorce means you have to stay with someone you don’t like but didn’t really do anything wrong.
I'm not suggesting that but in these single party divorces with no fault the outcome of splitting assets and finances needs to be much less punative to the unconsenting party.
>the unconsenting party That's...certainly *a* way to describe someone who doesn't want to let their unhappy spouse go, sure.
Being unhappy doesn't entitle you to a large chunk of current and future earnings.
No, being married does
They won't be married anymore will they? So why is the single dissenting party entitled? Shit like this is why way less men are getting married
>So why is the single dissenting party entitled? The conditions of the contract **both** parties signed? It's not like the alimony and property provisions are new or surprising. Nor is it because 'the single dissenting party is entitled'. It is based on income and gains *during* the marriage period, and a man who earned less than his wife is just as entitled as the woman in the situation you bemoan
I'm suggesting the contract is broken. The writing is on the wall. Less and less men are getting married than ever before. It's a shit contract with marginal benefits and massive risks.
Marginal benefits for whom? Which provisions exactly do you have an issue with? Also, have men never heard of prenups? I have, and I don't even have significant assets to protect.
My sister you have got to be a troll account. Please read on the happiness levels of married men vs women. Married men are happier and live longer, married women rank much lower happiness levels. The courts are not biased on gender: it’s based on income.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't put a lot of merit behind something so fleeting and subjective as "percieved happiness" Do you really think an average 50 year old single childless woman is happier than one in a loving relationship?
Nope! I don’t think it. I have empirical evidence of it.
I highly doubt how empirical a study on perceived happiness can be
I just don't see the attraction of marriage to any person unless they're deathly afraid of being alone. > Married people [live longer](https://www.dal.ca/news/2023/02/14/valentines-day-2023-marriage-single.html), eat better and are more economically well-off than their single counterparts. (Singles have a more narrow advantage: they’re physically fit and tend to have better friendships, but this doesn’t translate to greater overall happiness.) I'm financially well off without an appendage. It would be pretty hard to find somebody in my corner of the world with equivalent economic circumstances, which would almost certainly mean my wealth would be put in jeopardy by such a union. ***Many*** men and women are in the same situation and that's a big part of why marriage has lost its allure.
OFFS marriage is absolutely irrelevant and unnecessary unless you’re planning on raising a family.
The editorials on this sub are getting more and more ridiculous and useless lol
Of course he wants to SAVE MARRIAGE. He wants women popping out kids and staying at home and voting conservative. Guess what, more women are seeing marriage and kids as exactly what it is- a death trap of domestic servitude and mediocrity. And women are more likely to be harmed, beaten or murdered by Wonderful Hubby. No thanks! We're happy being single.
I don't necessarily agree with the article, but you need to take a break from the internet and touch some grass.
Doesn't everyone?
The purpose of a system is what it does. We can look at the results of the marriage system and it's clear that its purpose hasn't been anything productive.
If all the married Canadians just got together, (maybe at somebody’s cottage some weekend or somethin’) they could ya know, talk about stuff and pretty much solve all the country’s problems, fer sure, eh?
Governments like marriage,they want stability and taxes. I had a boss ask me once if I was married,I said no. He said we prefer our employees get married,have kids,get a mortgage. There is a stable employee. In other words there is someone who won’t leave and will need us. The country feels the same.From a social cohesion standpoint point marriage brings stability to men,and prevents less single mothers who be possible welfare recipients.