GF pushing proposal

[BlueMoonSal]

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?

[smackie9]

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.

[searock]

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 *__*.

[HeartIsAching]

betcha can't say that backwards...

[basilandthyme]

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.

Similar here. I have all the benefits of being a legal wife.

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'

[Wakeup]

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

[BackUpOrGetStng]

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.

[HeartIsAching]

Common Law varies from state to state. In some states it's even more liberal than Canada. Texas for instance:

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.

Although:

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)

Source: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

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.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

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.

[HeartIsAching]

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.

[smackie9]

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

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.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

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.

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.

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?

[IndiReloaded]

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.

[searock]

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.

[Wakeup]

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.

Well, it's not quite like that you American capitalist Bitches.. lol

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.