As expected, the Supreme Court supported Quebec's ban on palimony lawsuits this morning, but only by a slim 4-3 margin.So we're still the only place in the Can Am where "I don't see a ring on this finger" still actually means something significant.
The irony is that marriage is widely considered passe and uncool in Quebec.
About one in three Montreal couples lives out of wedlock in Montreal whereas in Toronto it's one-in-12. (Based on 1996 census stats, will update).
Thousands of otherwise-intelligent Quebec women approach the vital wedlock issue as if they were wide-eyed teen runaways taking gifts from a guy with low-hung jeans.
The law discouraging marriage also infantalizes men and rewards them for running away from responsibility.
Quebec's reigning refus globale mythology looks down on the old school folks of the grand noirceur.
But those greatest generation men were mostly stand-up guys who worked hard, went to war and raised big families, whereas the next generation of supposedly-enlightened flakes was a lot less keen on embracing responsibility..
The prevailing hippie ethos, as embodied by this law, encourages men to remain perpetual adolescent Peter Pans by making it wise to cohabitate without commitment.
One could argue that the current system even hurts children because unmarried couples are statistically more likely to separate than married couples and that leads to harmful family splits.
Elsewhere, both unmarried partners are recognized as stakeholders in the household, if one partner goes out and builds a huge financial empire while the other is giving tips and watching the fort at home, it's rightly considered a shared success.
But Quebec law says unmarried couples are just free-agents who happen to be sitting around in the same place.
As a result, a financially-dependant unmarried spouse will be eligible for no support cash other than the pittance that Quebec courts offer in child support.
This is not exclusively a women's issue because it can apply to both sexes but women are victimized by the rules more often than men.
Now why on earth doesn't the Quebec women's movement address this?
Linda Guilbault of the Council on the Status of Women once explained to me that the women's movement, in the 1980s, debated this issue but decided not to pursue the right to palimony, in other words they didn't want to go to bat for the financial security of unmarried women in couples.
She couldn't say why that decision was taken but they have stuck to it. Nobody heard a peep out of any women's group during this whole time.
Up until quite recently - and I'm not fully sure that this has been rectified -- an unmarried spouse would not even be recognized by the courts, so when when your co-shack-up-ee finally shuffled off into that fiery incinerator, various and sundry relatives would be entitled to every last nickel while you - in spite of scrubbing his socks, fetching his Glenfiddich and flattering his sexual abilities - were legally considered a stranger.
I believed they've changed that rule and it's time that they legislate a change to the palimony law here as well.
An old rhetorical question asked, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Well the milk is pretty cheap in Quebec and will remain so.
Until that changes, whether you consider marriage uncool or outmoded, it could very well be in your interests to insist on getting that ring here in Quebec.
We are french.
ReplyDeleteWe do not believe in individual responsibility, which is something the rich use to blame the poor for the poverty the rich inflict on them.
This is why we have "no-
fault" auto insurance.
One more time: we do not believe in personal responsibility.
Get over it.
Can we now say the names of the people involved since we all know it, or is it still illegal to do so due to the kids? But damn I am going to Brazil as a street clown! I think the average rates of divorce for legally married couples in Canada is north of 30% and in some places in North America it is higher I believe nearing 40-50%. Not great proof the institution guarantees permanency. I know enough Anglos who live in common-law in and outside of Quebec. And every one of the my Anglo friends (and family members) who have got married in the past 15 years have divorced. And that is from a very middle class highly educated class of people. The only people I know that are together are ones in common law and some have kids, go figure. Though I would like to see a variety of statistics first before saying my statement holds as an example. The generalization stated that Quebec (read: Francophones) are less responsible made often by comments to the blog, and the blog owner's frequent implicit suggestions that many of the social problems in Quebec is due to Francophones mindset is really tiring not to mention a bit sad. Ontario is 80-90% Anglophone, so I guess the Anglophones are responsible for the societal problems there..kind of a moot point. Robert
ReplyDeleteWell, there's another way to look at it. You lament the lack of responsibility of the current generation, yet if this law had changed it would just encourage more of the same. How about encouraging people to take responsibility for their lives and their relationships by either getting married (if they want the legal status and responsibility that's at stake here) or by going to a notary and essentially doing the same thing without bothering with the wedding bit.
ReplyDeleteWhat's with this idea that we can all just drift in an out of each other's lives and homes and every time we make an exit we can just take half the stuff, without ever needing to make any kind of commitment to the relationship?
What I like about the current system is that it gives people a choice. If you want to co-habitate without the responsibilities and corresponding rights of marriage (or legal contract), then you can do that. Just move in. But if you want responsibilities and rights, then you can do that too.
What I don't like is this idea that just by moving in with you, I'm automatically entitled to half your stuff when I move out.
Women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. This is neither right nor wrong, merely natural. What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. Furthermore, when women destroy the commitment, there is great harm to children, and the woman demands present and future payments from the man she is abandoning. A man who refuses to marry is neither harming innocent minors nor expecting years of payments from the woman. This absurd double standard has invisible but major costs to society.
ReplyDeleteDivorce rate will always be high everywhere for so many reasons.
ReplyDeleteI agree with kgravy here, and wonder where the F. Brigade has gone. 'Tho I've had at least 2 male friends bringing up kids due to wild & derelict Moms-it does, sometimes, really turn out that way.
Despise the "No Fault" Law. It's enabled 2 acts of destructrion-one drunken, on my previously umblemished car. But they can get away with it.
I find, personally, it hard to have much in common with those who do not like kids and animals-not to lump them ensemble!
I have been in one of these nasty C.L. things for a while now. He insists on wearing a ring.
So do I, from him.
Anyway, re: David Attenborough, we all are the PROBLEM! (See Over-Population , Attenborough)
90% divorces are initiated by woman. Kind of doubt that stat. And it might say more about men. Look at the 12 year old who shot his brother in Dorval. Father assaulted both him and his brother with guns more than once when they were a family in the years past. I am sure the mother should have stayed with him and tried to work it out.... yeah right..no she got divorced. Anyway, even though the amount Lola asked for 50 million was high though Eric is worth a billion something - she did not just drift in and out of his life. They were together for ten years. Shit happens. I have met numerous people who as kids had to witness or be aware their playboy fathers had girlfriends while still married. Yeah if that doesn't mess up a kid. I hear the crap guys say and do. Escort business would not be in business without married guys... These people should separate, as Lola claimed was going on - the money thing aside. And as anyone knows Le Cirque lifestyle, the members lead a rather free-form wild lifestyle, and from things she said and others in the business, he was not faithful very much. After all he was 32 and she 17 when they met. Her parents disapproved of the relationship etc. It sounds in a way he is a bit of a predator. He was not rich rich when they met and she was upper middle-class the gold-digger idea that she hooked up for the money does not hold. Lastly, a family is a family whether they are married or not for ten years or whatever. Most woman do not plan to hook up with men and to have kids and to move on. Few woman think oh yeah, it is easier to drop this family unit even though it is going fine and take off with the kids. That is why so many woman stay in abusive relationships, either verbal or physical when they have kids - they know the shit that happens if you go out on your own. Just talk to any family lawyers, hospitals who get battered woman etc. However, in most semi-normal partnerships - it is rarely a once-sided event because relationships are too complicated. The law should be changed to be as it is in ROC or even Brazil. A family is a family unit when it is "lived" regardless of the legal title. Robert
ReplyDeleteWhen I said "nasty" (C.L. thing), I was depicting it in Supreme Court terms. Sorry to all, and to my long-term partner of opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteYou want the spousal protection? Then get married. Simple as that. Good on the Supremes for this case.
ReplyDelete"Can we now say the names of the people involved since we all know it, or is it still illegal to do so due to the kids?"
No, you cannot. The gag order expires when the kids turn 18, and possibly beyond.
"We are french.
We do not believe in individual responsibility..."
And who appointed you as the spokesperson for all Francos, huh Jean Naimard?
I really enjoy your blog, but it comes as a shock to me how different our opinions can be on this topic, especially considering that we are approximately the same age.
ReplyDeleteThe initial premise is to be that couples who marry are somehow more serious in their commitment than couples who choose not to marry. Seriously, have you seen the divorce rates? Are you really sure that a man or woman who goes through the ceremony is more committed than the one who chooses not to?
In many cases, the main reason for getting married was family pressure or the woman wanting to have her "Princess Day". Where the process was helpful is that it did create ultimatum situation where the parties needed to reflect on taking the next step rather than just rolling with it. Of course, this ended several relationships. Also, the entire process did impose a lot of stress on their relationship in trying to create the "perfect day" and, as such, those who made it, were "battle tested", which is a good thing. By the way, those of us in unmarried relationships get our ultimatum moments when we decide to have children.
The second premise of your point of view seems to be that someone in unmarried relationships (usually the woman) is somehow weaker and requires protection. The truth is that typically both spouses usually have approximately the same level of knowledge of the consequences of getting married or not. As a result, this infantilization of adults, especially based on negative stereotypes about women is totally inappropriate, especially now that the information is easily accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and a few minutes to spare.
The third premise of your point of view is that there is always one party who is financially disadvantaged in relation to the other,usually the woman and, I assume, in proportions that would make a significant difference. Yet, restricted enrollment programs in universities today (a lot of times those leading to better paying jobs), have a majority of women. This is the casefor law and medicine. In situations where these women are involved, they're clearly not the "weaker party" and in the case of lawyers, they're clearly not the less informed parties. Please keep in mind that this is the province where many women have received interesting pay adjustments pursuant to the application of the Pay Equity Act.
As for this cow that you speak of, I trust that you understand that today's women are seemingly just as interested as men in getting good dairy. This idea that somehow the woman is giving away something more substantial in a sexual relationship is quaint considering today's mores.
ReplyDeleteAnother point is the fact that the strict application of some of the principles that you approve can lead to some serious inequities. Take for example the situation where the woman has a good job, is responsible and putting some money away for the future, perhaps in a pension plan. You do realize that even if her husband was a drunk, who spent his money on gambling and other women, he is entitled to half of that pension plan, half the value of the equity in the house, the cars, the furniture etc.
I will avoid going into the debate as to whether it is best to put as many obstacles and pitfalls in the way of people who have chosen to end their relationship so that they may stay in a loveless union. People who know that their relationship is finished but refuse to admit it or end it on principle do not make better parents or provide a better environment for their children. Further, these obstacles can create an incredible amount of resentment and animosity that actually hurts kids.
The law that you seemingly find so offensive did not create infidelity, spousal abuse, abandonment or inequalities. These stem from the individuals in the relationships and their degree of commitment and honor (for lack of a better word) is not measured by whether or not they chose to follow the course of their parents chose to follow.
As for your ideas that people came out of "la grande noirceur” were somehow morally superior to individuals living today, let me remind you that this province was the last to give women the right to vote (1940) and that it is only in 1964 that women acquired equal rights in the marriage unit. So, yeah, I am not convinced of the moral superiority of our fathers and grandfathers.
To be clear, the law does not discourage anyone from getting married, it allows an alternative for consenting adults. Clearly, both systems can and do lead to inequalities. I have no problems with the serious discussion on these issues, however I take issue with your perception of the moral superiority of your own choices in relation to those made by the majority of Quebeckers your age or younger.
As I started out by saying, I really enjoy your blog and it is disappointing to be insulted because of the choice that I made with my lawyer spouse not to get married.
today's women are no longer (crudely speaking) uneducated baby-making kitchen slaves who need alimony to survive when the husband leaves for younger woman.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, if you want the marriage-breakup-reward when you decide you want a younger man, keep your knees together until you get that ring on your finger, girls. It pays to think long term.
Here's a game you can play: try to find Lola's house in upper Outremont. Hint: look for the new age-y stuff, it's not that hard to spot.
My understanding is that in most Canadian provinces, if you live common law for more than 2 years, all the laws that apply to married couples are the same if you live common law.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good idea to get married if you are planning on having children.
Personally, I think one only has room for one big wedding in their lives. The 2nd or 3rd time around can never duplicate that.
I don't see much reason to get married when one is older but to each there own.
There are a lot of people who want to be in a union who make bad choices in life. Those bad decisions aren't gender oriented.
When we are young everything if full of hope. When we are older and perhaps wiser, hopefully we are more practical. Nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect.
If you have a history of bad relationships it might be a good idea to have a long look at yourself.
The reality is that sometimes people are better on their own. Less grief all around.
Having said that, relationships are often about flexability on tolerence.
I did the internet dating thing for about 10 years and found most that I met to have a very unreal evaluation of themselves.
It isn't easy in life finding that right person.
I am one of the lucky ones I guess.
The extreme pressure to get married and shame of living out of wedlock is still unchanged in most of North America. You date, you become a couple, everyone asks you every month when you are getting engaged, married and have kids, I experienced it. When the Quebec society rejected the control of the Church in the 60s, it became one of the least religious region on the continent. For many Quebecers in the Gen X,Y,Z generation: wedding=religion. If getting married makes no legal differences, then why? Its unfortunate the Supreme Court put an asterisk to that.
ReplyDeleteNow, the Supreme Court rightly mentioned that couples can sign a contract together and that there is already a process for this. Similar to prenups. I think getting married without prenup is risky and building a family together outside of ''wedlock'' without a contract is foolish as unfortunately there is now a legal difference between the 2. Its only when split happens that you wished you had a contract, or when you retire that you wished you had a RRSP. I wished it made zero difference whether you are married or living together for a certain period of time. If one of the partner refuses such contract, the other should seriously think twice before betting a life together. Shit happens.
Lets play Devil's advocate though...if you are automatically a couple after 12 months and the spouse can claim money following a breakup, should every couples living together and having doubts split before that anniversary? Should they go back to the 50s and never live together until a contract is signed? Hmmm
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/union-a.htm
Disclaimer: I have a prenup
I was surprised to find if you type Lola's real name in Google, the internet Pages Jaunes lists her address as the first results. Surprising, since those with money usually want to be somewhat anonymous. The gag is only in Quebec I think, it is written about in Brazil and in the USA with her name mentioned and Erics. But she walks around Outremont, her kid went to the same school as my friends. The chef from Le Toque or somewhere like that cooked the kiddies lunches or something I was told. For real.
ReplyDeleteA media/journalist insider notes:
ReplyDeleteThese points of view by Mr K. G. indicate he is unemployable from any reputable journalistic enterprise unless he joins the Ezra Levant crowd where rhetoric and contradictory arguments are considered solid logic.