Printable View
It's also pretty much what me and my partner did. I raised the discussion with something like "hey, do you reckon we should get married". He said "yeah, OK".
Though after a weekend of disagreeing about what the wedding would be like, we decided not to bother. No sense in fighting over something where the result isn't particularly important to either of us. Our defacto relationship does have legal recognition, so there's no real need for marriage.
Sure it's ok to have a discussion where the man isn't too hesitant with the topic and the woman doesn't sound too pushy but in the OP's thread, it sounds like only the woman wants marriage and he doesn't sound too interested or ready but she keeps pushing.Quote:
Originally Posted by basilandthyme [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Pushing is what I would not do. I hate the idea of keep insisting for something to get what I want. I hate the idea of having to sound like smooth talking telemarketer with lots of rebuttals to get a man to propose. That would feel like he wouldn't do it on his own will (because he wants to not because I insisted and had to constantly remind him) and I would hate that the most.
That's just me. I would feel bad to remember getting proposed to in that manner.
I agree with basil, smackie, and HIA. Honestly, it's your life in the end. You may very well have conflicting views on the necessity of marriage, and if that's the case, why would you want to be in a relationship where you believe you're one day going to get married while never knowing the other feels the exact opposite? Life is too damn short, Sal.
Not to mention, once they've planned out where they want their relationship to head, he can still be romantic and propose spontaneously. He's not giving an exact hour, day, etc...just a GENERALIZED time frame of things. Thus, she'll never truly know when he's going to pop the question unless she could read his mind (which is something I'd actually love to see).
BlueMoon, I agree that she SOUNDS pushy and it's not a good look. But she may not be represented accurately...or she could be terribly frustrated because of his lack of clarity.
Having been in her shoes prior to my first marriage, I still have to give the benefit of doubt and wonder if she simply needs an open and honest discussion and a timeline.
For what it's worth, if I raised a mutual discussion of marriage (as I did with my now partner) and was countered with "I'll propose when I'm ready", I'd have no choice but to strongly reconsider the relationship. Him refusing to communicate his thoughts and plans is an enormous red flag and goes against so much which is important to me.
We don't really know what was talked about at the beginning of their relationship....there may have been some expectations stipulated...but life is unpredictable. No one knows how things will turn out, because things come up like finances, death in the family or job change, relocating, etc.
For me I stipulated exactly what my expectations were when I met my husband...no kids, no marriage....he said no problem.
Then how did he went from no marriage to becoming your husband later on?Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It's Canadian law. If you co-habitate as a couple for one year, in the eyes of the law you are considered as common-law husband and wife. Common-law follows under the same rules as being married. So if you live with someone for one year you are entitled to half of their property and the same goes for them.
You don't need to have a certificate to be married in Canada. I'm entitled to his pension, and whatever benefits, insurance as well.
Wow *__*.Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
betcha can't say that backwards...
Similar here. I have all the benefits of being a legal wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
When it comes to living together, lack of proposal wouldn't be much of an issue for me. Instead, his ability to claim my assets after a couple of years defacto would be a fair greater issue. I'd probably have to look at something similar to a 'pre nup'. If (heaven forbid) I were single again, I'd need to protect my assets to that they are intact for my kids.
I previously didn't understand the thought behind a pre-nup. I'd argue that it was just about trust and that if there was no trust, you had no business being married. But now I have kids, I realise that I couldn't risk their future on my 'trust'
Actually, (not that it makes much difference I suppose) I think it's two years living together in BC but it's three years here in Ontario. After that, you're considered together under common-law which gives you all the same rights as if you had the marriage license.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551
That Canadian common law shit is insane. If they ever tried that silly shit here, the murder rate of ex girlfriends/boyfriends would quadruple. And yes, I still maintain you are the insane ones.
Common Law varies from state to state. In some states it's even more liberal than Canada. Texas for instance:
Although:Quote:
Texas: calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under § 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a three-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. A 1995 update adds an evidentiary presumption that there was no marriage if no suit for proof of marriage is filed within two years of the date the parties separated and ceased living together.
Source: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspxQuote:
Currently, only nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common-law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriage for purposes of probate only, and Utah recognizes common-law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa (Iowa Code Ann. §. 595.11)
Kansas
Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602, 40-1-403)
New Hampshire
Ohio
Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, § 1)
Pennsylvania (23 Penn. Cons. Stat. § 1103)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas (Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401)
Utah (Utah Code Ann.§ 30-1-4.5)
It actually amazes me how many people are ignorant of the facts as to Common Law marriage. I actually had a JUDGE in one of my courtroom appearances that was ignorant that California doesn't recognize Common Law marriage at all. He asked if I were still living with my wife... I said "Girlfriend". He asked how long we'd been living together, I told him 10 years and he said "Then she's your common law wife."
I said "California doesn't recognize common law marriage."
Was kind of fun schooling a lawyer on a legal issue.
No one here takes that bullshit seriously, and it's not set up nearly as retarded as the Canadian laws I read. Your Texas example is a good one to illustrate the difference. In Texas, you have to show evidence of a marriage agreement, living together, and tell everyone that you are married. You must also file a lawsuit to prove you were in a common law marriage. In Canada(many provinces), you can just be a worthless pile of shit growing on someone's couch for two years, and you're entitled to half their pension. **** you Canada. Fascist bastards.
Um no. In Texas you have two years after you split to file suit if you want to go after the other parties' assets. If you fail to do that within the stipulated timeline you're out of luck.
All you have to do in Texas is "meeting a three-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married." That's it.
And that goes with same sex couples as well. Insane? not really....that's what prenups are for. The government recognized that many don't traditional get married by choice, but are able to get the same benefits as married...my husband can go on my company medical, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
That is not what it looks like to me. "Suit for proof of marriage" sounds like a some sort of court hearing where evidence is presented to prove you were married. The findings of said hearing are then used to make an "evidentiary presumption", a presumption based on evidence presented, at the suit where one party is going after the other's assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartIsAching [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Either way it doesn't really matter. The first prong of the test is that you have to agree to be married, and that is light years ahead of what Canada is doing.
Smackie, that is ****ing insane. People are choosing not to be traditionally married, but the government is forcing it on them anyway. INSANE. If you want marriage benefits, get MARRIED! Your prenup comment makes no sense...get a prenup for what? Just for living together?
Yes, I'm in BC also and this is the law now. So those with assets considering even living together must consider a prenupt. As with most things marriage/divorce, it is the lawyers who will profit in the end. Probably lawyers who came up with this idea, given the decline in marriages with the new gen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
It is kind of strange, isn't it? It's like they simply shifted the "big decision" from whether to get formally married or not to whether to live together or not. It's kind of insane that any two people living together for over 2 years would be considered as good as married, legally speaking. What if two people don't want to share their finances etc. for the long term? What if they just want to live together? I think the best option would be that two people who live together as a couple should have the option of being legally considered as good as married, but it shouldn't be forced unto them. They should be the ones to decide.
Well, it's not quite like that you American capitalist Bitches.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You have to show proof that you lived together. Eg. A unility bill with your name on it, a lease with your name on it. Etc. A couch with your name on it wouldn't cut it.
Its set up to protect both people in the union Equal Rights and all. (just like marriage is) If the two involved just want to split without going to court and fighting over the assets and liabilities, then just like a non-contested divorce, it can be arranged ammicably, papers filed, and done.Quote:
Originally Posted by searock [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The common law situation in Canada is EXACTLY why I always defend it as being just as much committed as any married couple would be. You really have to think about who you're shacking up with, what their pre-livein assets/liabilities are, responsibility for any children coming in, BEFORE you shack up. It's not just for reasons of convenience and for those still in the honeymoon period only to find out post-HM Period... that they're wanting "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover."
Quite right. Who is "they" to make such a decision about the personal lives of citizens?Quote:
Originally Posted by searock [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
In the end, a couple need not admit to anything. I suppose it becomes contentious only when 1 partner wants to benefit from the other... same lesson - be careful who you choose to marry, or live with.Quote:
Originally Posted by searock [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Then you should work on your reading comprehension skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I'm right. I haven't been able to find anything on what a suit for proof of marriage is, but I am right about evidentiary presumption. Are you a lawyer? I would love for you to point me to some documentation that says otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartIsAching [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
How is one supposed to comprehend "Suit for proof of marriage"? Just reading the words should lead one to believe it is a suit where one seeks to prove marriage. Is that not the essence of reading comprehension? Anyway, I'm gonna give my lawyer a call and see what he's got to say about it.
In Canada the question is asked (and therefore proven) on our Income Tax Returns:
There are Five categories for relationship status:
Single
Divorced
Married
Separated
Common-law.
What if one person puts single and the other puts Common-law on all their returns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I do not see how this law protects both people at all. I don't see how it protects anyone.
I claim single anyways.....we don't have any dependents so it really doesn't matter.
What you claim isn't what I'm talking about. It's the top of the Income Tax form about you and your status. I submit my income tax form based on single income. My status with my husband (in the about you section) has been "Single" then "Common-Law" then "Married."
This happens when people are trying to bilk the system. For instace, we knew a couple who claimed Separated because he made too much money and owed a bundle in taxes. He had to prove where he lived now and when he couldn't, (no bills in his name, no lease in his name etc) he had to pay a fine and all the taxes he currently was owing. Rev Cda then did a 7 year audit on him and they found tons more that he couldn't claim and they hit him with interest plus what was oweing.Quote:
What if one person puts single and the other puts Common-law on all their returns?
I do not see how this law protects both people at all. I don't see how it protects anyone.
Social Insurance numbers are tied in with the other partner. If one claims single relationship status while the other claims Common-law status, with that person then the returns would be red flagged and then the investigations would start. For instance if Mr. Smackie claimed to be living common law with Miss Smackie and she said she was living "single" then those two returns would be red flagged.
It's always prudent to make sure both of you are on title to a home, on a lease, on more then one utility bill. Its really the only way you can prove you have been living together as a couple and not just a tenant in the home of the one on title. If someone refuses to put you on title or put your name on the utility bills that you are helping to pay, well then that would be a good reason to think really hard at what you're doing.
BTW: Backup: The division of property would be based on what was made together after the two year mark. So, if Miss Smackie came into the relationship with owning her home (and he moved into it). Then the division would be based on the equity built on that home since the day they became legally common law tied together... NOT on the entire value of that home.
Speaking of social security and tax and trying to rip off the system.....having the state recognise defacto works in their favour when balancing their budget.
As you know I'm a carer. As such, I'm entitled to a sliding scale of state benefit because my ability to work is so limited. If I was single, I'd get quite a substantial amount, but as the defacto partner of a high income earner I get the minimum.
Without the defacto recognition, I could be receiving a substantial state benefits while my husband supports us on a three figure salary. I don't see that it's fair for wealthier people to claim singledom and take money from the pot when others who are much more needy can use it.
I wonder if that's the same here. If I ever had to start over (heaven forbid) I mightn't need to be so adamant about a pre-nup before living with someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Well, you'd still loose a good chuck of the equity in your property that would have been all yours so whether or not a prenup would be necessary is something for your lawyer to advice, I supose.
There are several pre-nups that haven't held up in court in the USA so I don't think even those are as good as they're sworn out to be. It is very important that the one agreeing to the prenup has had their own separate legal respresentation, that the lawyers do their back and forths regarding changes to be denyed or accepted by both parties etc. so that a judge wouldn't find that the person signing the prenup was somehow taken advantage of because they didn't have adequate legal representation.
Yeah, I think I read about that here. Things like not having someone sign under duress etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I'm not sure what you're getting at, BandT? I pay a sustantial amount of taxes based on my income not on our marital status... as does my husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by basilandthyme [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Oh GOOD! everything is in my name so I guess I still get to keep my house....whewww!
btw the law is differnt here in BC....division of assets after separation is 50/50 in most cases.
We still pay individual tax as you do. But some things we can claim back on our tax will be judged by our combined household income. These are generally claims for family related things such as childcare allowances, rebates on health spending, kid's school allowances etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Of course, personal tax claims such as compulsory uniforms and safety gear would still be very much an individual claim.
Not if he can prove he lived there.. (and he actually was so inclined to fight you for his half that has built up since you moved in together) You can keep your house but you'd have to give him one half of any equity that has built up on the property since you moved in together. Buy him out like many divorcing couples do. One stays in the marital home and buys the other one out.Quote:
Originally Posted by smackie9 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The 50/50 split may be based on the equity built up? Or is it based on the entire value of assets in BC?
Forgive me, but I thought this thread died? lol
EDIT: Nevermind; the "new post" icons betrayed me.
50/50 split of entire assets and debts.....But some judges can use their discretion and decide what is divided and how much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I was joking about my last post.....I know I would lose half my assets to him. It would suck balls....I know how most would guys feel......