The Languish marriage poll

[dps]

Note to our foreign posters:  common-law marriages may be legally recognized in South Carolina, but as with almost all legal matters, that doesn't apply uniformly across the country.

[MadImmortalMan]

Note to our foreign posters:  common-law marriages may be legally recognized in South Carolina, but as with almost all legal matters, that doesn't apply uniformly across the country.

I think they still accept confederate money too.

[Drakken]

If I am to be married, I want my first dance on "Son tanto triste" by Ansaldo Bracchi, as conducted by Ennio Morricone, and a huge cake made of brown chocolate and orange marmelade.

Whoever gets the allusion without googling it wins my everlasting respect, because I'll feel exactly like most of the "guests" in that scene : hopelessly trapped and craptastic.

[Drakken]

S'il te plait explique-moi ce "Lola" ci.

If Lola wins, 1.2 million Quebecers (on a population of 7 millions) will be shotgun married against their will because de facto union will be given the same legal statute as marriage, even though Quebec is French civil law territory and not common law. Including the dreaded alimony to the ex-partner in plus to child alimony, but minus the partition of patrimony after the separation, which was denied to Lola by the Cour d'Appel.

Quebec is the world leader in de facto unions. Most people here chose de facto union because they deliberately refuse to marry, either for personal or economical reasons, or simply because they are cheap bastards. All this is poised to change because of a Brazilian golddigger who is not satisfied of the hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in child support, plus expenses paid, that Eric voluntarily consented to her, and a screaming bitch of a feminist lawyer who totes that every woman is a potential house slave to be compensated for her sacrifices.

Even some groups of women are riling up against this. First they feel infantilized because it's based on the assertion that women need to be supported throughout their lives and cannot be truly independent, plus in practice it opens up the door for legal macking: men who make lower incomes who can cuddle up with them for three years, then separate AND ask them to pay alimony as ex-partner.

We'll have an explosion of "separations" if Lola wins, because no one is interested in paying an alimony for living three years with a partner under the same roof, even if no child. So couples will probably choose to live under two different roofs instead, or whatever loophole they can find so that they are not considered life partners.

[Barrister]

S'il te plait explique-moi ce "Lola" ci.

If Lola wins, 1.2 million Quebecers (on a population of 7 millions) will be shotgun married against their will because de facto union will be given the same legal statute as marriage, even though Quebec is French civil law territory and not common law. Including the dreaded alimony to the ex-partner in plus to child alimony, but minus the partition of patrimony after the separation, which was denied to Lola by the Cour d'Appel.

Quebec is the world leader in de facto unions. Most people here chose de facto union because they deliberately refuse to marry, either for personal or economical reasons, or simply because they are cheap bastards. All this will change because of a Brazilian golddigger who is not satisfied of the hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in child support, plus expenses paid, that Eric voluntarily consented to her, and a screaming bitch of a feminist lawyer who totes that every woman is a potential house slave to be compensated for her sacrifices.

We'll have an explosion of "separations" if Lola wins, because no one is interested in paying an alimony for living three years with a partner under the same roof, even if no child. So couples will probably choose to live under two different roofs instead, or whatever loophole they can find so that they are not considered life partners.

You'd be a lot more persuasive if you kept out the misogynistic slurs in your post.

And I seriously doubt more than a handful of couples will suddenly separate.  Of the Quebecers I've talked to, they've all said they didn't get married because, well, nobody else got married.  The whole province just got out of the habit of being married.

[Drakken]

You'd be a lot more persuasive if you kept out the misogynistic slurs in your post.

And I seriously doubt more than a handful of couples will suddenly separate.  Of the Quebecers I've talked to, they've all said they didn't get married because, well, nobody else got married.  The whole province just got out of the habit of being married.

I am not in front of a tribunal, so I can use whatever language I feel like, votre Seigneurie. And my language is tame, compared to what some men AND women have uttered in my presence on these two people.

I loath Anne-Marie Goldwater, the public persona. She might be a good jurist, but I despise her personality and every interview I've watched her showed herself as a shrew, a reactionary feminist and an attention-seeker. And no one here respects Lola, either. Anyway, AMG will not be part of Lola's team at the SCC. She has been fired.

It's not misogyny, it's my loathing for two individuals who will change the life of more than a million Quebecers for the worst, due to sheer avidity and a pathological need for lecturing a whole population out of ideology, without any concern for the consequences.

And talking to two-three Quebecers in the dearth of Yukon do not a sample make. I live in this Province for 31 years, may I remind you. You sir ain't.

[Grey Fox]

Stop. with. the. editing.

[Drakken]

Stop. with. the. editing.

I'm done.

[HVC]

charge your partner rent. I'm sure if they're inclined they can now charge you with sexual harrassment after you break up as a tenet, but at least no alimony

[Barrister]

You'd be a lot more persuasive if you kept out the misogynistic slurs in your post.

And I seriously doubt more than a handful of couples will suddenly separate.  Of the Quebecers I've talked to, they've all said they didn't get married because, well, nobody else got married.  The whole province just got out of the habit of being married.

I am not in front of a tribunal, so I can use whatever language I feel like, votre Seigneurie. And my language is tame, compared to what some men AND women have uttered in my presence on these two people.

I loath Anne-Marie Goldwater, the public persona. She might be a good jurist, but I despise her personality and every interview I've watched her showed herself as a shrew, a reactionary feminist and an attention-seeker. And no one here respects Lola, either. Anyway, AMG will not be part of Lola's team at the SCC. She has been fired.

It's not misogyny, it's my loathing for two individuals who will change the life of more than a million Quebecers for the worst, due to sheer avidity and a pathological need for lecturing a whole population out of ideology, without any concern for the consequences.

And talking to two-three Quebecers in the dearth of Yukon do not a sample make. I live in this Province for 31 years, may I remind you. You sir ain't.

Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I have the more realistic opinion...

[Malthus]

 

Lots of folks common-law it in other Canadian provinces, no harm done.

[DGuller]

Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I people who are not Drakken have the more realistic opinion...

Fixed.

[Drakken]

Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I have the more realistic opinion...

Odd, since even women groups in Quebec (except those who advocate in favour of single mothers, who have issues to lobby) have been vocal in there disagreement over this decision. It's not a man v. woman issue, as most women were as much outraged at the idea, but whether it's the court or the legislator who should decide the rules of engagement around marital statutes, and whether Quebecers will lose the flexibility and the freedom surrounding the choice of being de facto partners, all based on a domestic quarrel involving parties which have more money together than 99.9% of the Quebec population and a lifestyle totally out-of-touch to most Quebecers.

Plus, polls made after the verdict showed that 56% of those polled believed that de facto unions shouldn't have the same protections as a marriage without a contract, outside of child support, which is already covered under the Civil Code, compared to 35% in favour.

Près de 56 % des répondants ont dit que s'il n'y a pas de contrat de mariage, «aucun des conjoints de fait ne devrait avoir de responsabilité financière envers l'autre lors d'une rupture (excluant la pension alimentaire aux enfants)».

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/311005/lola-et-eric-pas-d-obligation-financiere-sans-contrat-de-mariage-disent-les-quebecois

So yes, if Lola wins, we are effectively shotgun-wedded by the million.

[Malthus]

Yey somehow when it comes to issues of women in Quebec I feel like I have the more realistic opinion...

Odd, since even women groups in Quebec (except those who advocate in favour of single mothers, who have issues to lobby) have been vocal in there disagreement over this decision. It's not a man v. woman issue, as most women were as much outraged at the idea than men were, but whether it's the court or the legislator who should decide the rules of engagement around marital statutes, and whether Quebecers will lose the flexibility and the freedom surrounding the choice of being de facto partners, all based on a domestic quarrel involving parties which have more money together than 99.9% of the Quebec population.

Plus, polls made after the verdict showed that 56% of those polled believed that de facto unions shouldn't have the same protections as a marriage without a contract, outside of child support, which is already covered under the Civil Code.

Près de 56 % des répondants ont dit que s'il n'y a pas de contrat de mariage, «aucun des conjoints de fait ne devrait avoir de responsabilité financière envers l'autre lors d'une rupture (excluant la pension alimentaire aux enfants)».

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/311005/lola-et-eric-pas-d-obligation-financiere-sans-contrat-de-mariage-disent-les-quebecois

In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

[Drakken]

In those provinces having common-law protections, they are not "the same" as marriage - the *support* obligations are the same, but the *property sharing* is different.

It would be effectively the same here if Lola wins. In the Cour d'Appel decision the judges invalidated all dispositions of the Civil Code over the obligations after separation, except those touching property sharing.

But the core of the problem is in the alimony to the ex-partner. That's what makes it unpalatable to most Quebecers, and the fact that in Quebec de facto unions are considered a flexible manner to provide for a family and child support after separation, outside of the complications surrounding marriage. You live together, you break-up, and the only common obligation is toward any child you have had together.