No, actually, I don't.

[gashin]

Very long ago, lightcastle asked me to write up a post detailing my stance against marriage.

Today is not that day, unfortunately (?). But I did just run across this BBC article that inadvertently raises some of the largest practical points. So I'll copy and paste some stuff over, and add in some commentary.

1) "There's supposed to be something

Comments

[telso]

Seems like civil unions are only available in Quebec, with Manitoba also having common law and Nova Scotia and Alberta having other stuff.

The only part of marriage that I've really cared about is the financial contract part, as every other part can be dissolved just as easily inside as outside a marriage (kids are affected/protected regardless, and emotional connection/entanglement is essentially completely independent of marriage). The contract does provide stability and assurance, as well as other rights and obligations otherwise not existent, and from what I understand, that's what you're looking for: a financial contract.

You could draft your own special situation if you want, I suppose, though if it has enough elements that make it look like marriage, courts could possibly end up calling it so (I could see them calling it a de facto marriage with a pre-nup, for example, instead of "Contract regarding financial obligations between J and X" -- there have been cases when companies have signed contracts with both sides consenting to it (contract workers) and the courts ruling the contract workers as de facto employees, forcing the company to pay EI and tax as if the contract worker was an employee). So essentially, from what I understand, you (them?) are looking for "marriage" that has nothing to do with the church, but is more permanent than common law and/or other things (the opposite of what a lot of SSM couples have been fighting for, ironically: the name).

In which case, isn't what exists in Canada (and many countries) what you're looking for (less possibly the name)? The stuff that goes on in a religious institution doesn't really matter in the eye of the law; you still have to go down to a courthouse to get a marriage certificate (I know my parents did back in the '70s). (I'm not sure if failure to get the certificate means the marriage is invalid, though I'm sure the State will register it somehow.) For those who want to stay away from religious institutions (my preferred option, though I'm not going to give up someone I love just because I don't want to compromise), you can also go to city hall and then the courthouse; had I won my city council election, I'd have had the legal power to marry people, possibly even in places outside City Hall.

Lastly, it's impossible to have such a financial contract without the State being involved in your personal relationship, as the only way one can enforce any contract is through the courts. There's really no way around this. And when you think about it, the State isn't really involved in marriage except when the parties to one ask it to be.

Oh, and in Quebec you are not able to change your name upon marriage (since ~1984?); if you want to change your name, you must go through the standard legal name change, which requires notices in local newspapers and a ton of pain in the ass legal work. I know from working experience, for example, that if your marriage was after that year and you don't go through the procedure, you can't use your husband's name for your entry in the electoral list and Elections Quebec will refuse to change it (this has caused some consternation in my CSL/Hampstead riding).

[gashin]

Thank you for your reply! As always, well thought-out. I'm so sorry I'm only getting to it now. It's been a crazy week (and still ongoing; have a Latin midterm in 7 hours, woohoo). On the subject of which: I hope what follows will make sense, as it's 4:00 and I've not slept much in the past few days.

I THINK Alberta has a delightfully-named "Civil Marriage" in lieu of civil unions. Which brings up all sorts of alarming questions. But I could be wrong. I'm basing myself on the sheer volume of women who bring these certificates to me at work in order to get me to change their names, which is still the de facto process, at least here. So, while Quebec can be lauded or criticised for its name-change policy, it is the exception and not the norm. And I would be willing to bet that the largest part of their decision to do so was bureaucratic convenience, not gender equality (though, who knows-- 1984-- could be). The registry of last wills/testaments comes to mind.

Actually, I don't want a financial contract. I can see the utility of them, but don't really want one myself. I'd love to hear somebody make a case for one, though. The prospect of saving on taxes isn't that appealing to me within the greater context of the ways in which I think enforced relationship paradigms are noxious to individuals and individual growth (i.e., the parts of my argument that I didn't write but should if I'm to give anything close to an accurate portrayal of my protests). Really, I'm somewhat relieved to find out that you think children to be protected (and affected) regardless of whether a relationship that dissolves was a marriage or not, because they are the only thing I'd be worried about. I don't like joint finances as a rule, and working in banking has only reinforced that. I imagine that they are sometimes necessary, though can't honestly envision a situation in my life in which that would be the case. Why would you want such a financial contract? On this front you undoubtedly know way, way more than I do about Canadian law, so I'm interested. And I do know that Quebec works differently (ex., accounts opened jointly in all other places in Canada are de facto joint with right of survivorship-- I'd bet that you need to be married or united or whatever in order to have that right of survivorship apply in Quebec, where the de facto is for all things to do through the estate)...

So, yes, I agree that to have a financial contract requires the State to enforce said contract, but I'm still not sold on the necessity for the contract in the first place. At all.

Lastly: And when you think about it, the State isn't really involved in marriage except when the parties to one ask it to be. I offer you my current relationship situation, in which I am a national of Canada and my partner is a national of the US. Even if I come to the conclusion that I don't want a marriage for reasons of principle AND I don't want a financial contract between himself and myself, the immigration process could well demand a marriage/etc of us in order to prove our commitment to one another. This is tricky, because how else do you prove such a thing, right? It kind of sickly proves my point that this is all that society and the State recognise: a paper with a predictable pattern of words on it. And, hell, even THAT isn't enough. From what I've gathered from other sources undergoing the process, things that I might not like or want are actually REQUIRED to somehow PROVE mutual love-- things like the main bank account being joint, bills being joint, etc. In which case I'm expected to go along with these things as a necessary evil. This is, to my mind, the State being involved in relationships/marriages in WAYS in which I don't ask for it to, even if I kind of have to ask the State to be involved when it comes to matters of immigration.