5 ms·

In BC, Canada, there is no practical legal difference between marriage and long term cohabitation. Not getting married and living together is rather normal, and

In BC, Canada, there is no practical legal difference between marriage and long term cohabitation. Not getting married and living together is rather normal, and comes with the same risk of financial segmentation and alimony or child support.

giantg2 3y ago
Some states in the US have similar common law marriages.
e-brake 3y ago
I can attest that this. There is no advantage to being married in BC (and many other places) It's not because we are afraid of commitment, like this flimsy article suggests. We simply don't care about the symbolic ritual.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  My friend who got permanent residency in BC after getting married might argue otherwise
noirbot 3y ago
Curious question - does this take effect for all couples/groups? I've been roommates with people for 3+ years before with no sexual/romantic interest. Would I be considered married to them in BC? Is this different for same-sex pairings? What if three people cohabitate for an extended period? Are they all married to each other?
- jdrbc 3y ago
  The law accounts for roommates by defining the nature of the relationship. Cohabitation for a certain period isn't the full definition. The definition does not allow for more than 2 people in the relationship.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    Actually I think the laws in BC are becoming more progressive with nonmonogamous arrangements. I think there was a case recently where a judge split custody of a child between three people who were romantically involved, cohabitating, and raising the child. But generally you would only be considered common law in BC if you're in a conjugal relationship. In practice, if that becomes a point of contention (and I don't think this has been a frequent occurrence), it comes down to how you are publicly perceived. If one person denies the relationship being more than a platonic roommate arrangement, but all acquaintances interviewed claim they were under the impression you were romantically or intimately involved, the court would find that to be a conjugal arrangement. The law does define conjugal arrangement, and sex is sufficient for it to be considered conjugal, but not required.
    - noirbot 3y ago
      Yea, I've always found even the more progressive legal systems to be such that they're often, reasonably, less loose than most progressive cultures. I was discussing this with folks recently about Canada's proposed asylum class for trans/nonbinary folks. There's obviously folks who neatly fall into either category, just like how three people who live together and have a communal sexual relationship could be neatly considered to be "married" to each other in a legal sense. It all gets more complicated on the edges though. How not-commited to your assigned-at-birth gender do you have to be to count as nonbinary in a legal sense? If I live with one person in a committed relationship, but also have a relationship with 4 other people I don't live with, how often do I have to see them before they have a claim on me? It only gets more complex when you consider asexual people, who may have many close emotional relationships with no real strong "ranking" or "best friend" or "partner". It's much easier to just "do the reasonable thing" when it's your friends and there's only a few and much harder when it's the government having to intermediate a divorce, or child custody, or the option to have your partner immigrate.
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        > If I live with one person in a committed relationship, but also have a relationship with 4 other people I don't live with, how often do I have to see them before they have a claim on me? I believe BC law is pretty clear that people need to live together in order to be considered common law. I know marriage doesn't have the same requirement, but there is no legal marriage to multiple people at this moment. I don't think that could practically work with multiple people, if one of those people isn't living with the others and/or sharing finances. But to be fair, I haven't given it much thought yet. If a person has multiple partners who are equally significant, they should ideally be legally entitled to equal benefits, but of course this opens up more nuance. > It only gets more complex when you consider asexual people, who may have many close emotional relationships with no real strong "ranking" or "best friend" or "partner" Perhaps you misunderstand what asexual means. Asexual people might have romantic relationships. They might be married. They might even have sex! It's a spectrum, but has very little to do with who you might date, and more to do with what kinds of activities you might want to do with a partner. Aromantic people are less likely to have romantic partners, and therefore, I imagine, much less likely to be married.

giantg2 3y ago

Some states in the US have similar common law marriages.

e-brake 3y ago

I can attest that this. There is no advantage to being married in BC (and many other places) It's not because we are afraid of commitment, like this flimsy article suggests. We simply don't care about the symbolic ritual.

pcthrowaway 3y ago
My friend who got permanent residency in BC after getting married might argue otherwise

noirbot 3y ago

Curious question - does this take effect for all couples/groups? I've been roommates with people for 3+ years before with no sexual/romantic interest. Would I be considered married to them in BC? Is this different for same-sex pairings? What if three people cohabitate for an extended period? Are they all married to each other?

jdrbc 3y ago
The law accounts for roommates by defining the nature of the relationship. Cohabitation for a certain period isn't the full definition. The definition does not allow for more than 2 people in the relationship.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  Actually I think the laws in BC are becoming more progressive with nonmonogamous arrangements. I think there was a case recently where a judge split custody of a child between three people who were romantically involved, cohabitating, and raising the child. But generally you would only be considered common law in BC if you're in a conjugal relationship. In practice, if that becomes a point of contention (and I don't think this has been a frequent occurrence), it comes down to how you are publicly perceived. If one person denies the relationship being more than a platonic roommate arrangement, but all acquaintances interviewed claim they were under the impression you were romantically or intimately involved, the court would find that to be a conjugal arrangement. The law does define conjugal arrangement, and sex is sufficient for it to be considered conjugal, but not required.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    Yea, I've always found even the more progressive legal systems to be such that they're often, reasonably, less loose than most progressive cultures. I was discussing this with folks recently about Canada's proposed asylum class for trans/nonbinary folks. There's obviously folks who neatly fall into either category, just like how three people who live together and have a communal sexual relationship could be neatly considered to be "married" to each other in a legal sense. It all gets more complicated on the edges though. How not-commited to your assigned-at-birth gender do you have to be to count as nonbinary in a legal sense? If I live with one person in a committed relationship, but also have a relationship with 4 other people I don't live with, how often do I have to see them before they have a claim on me? It only gets more complex when you consider asexual people, who may have many close emotional relationships with no real strong "ranking" or "best friend" or "partner". It's much easier to just "do the reasonable thing" when it's your friends and there's only a few and much harder when it's the government having to intermediate a divorce, or child custody, or the option to have your partner immigrate.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      > If I live with one person in a committed relationship, but also have a relationship with 4 other people I don't live with, how often do I have to see them before they have a claim on me? I believe BC law is pretty clear that people need to live together in order to be considered common law. I know marriage doesn't have the same requirement, but there is no legal marriage to multiple people at this moment. I don't think that could practically work with multiple people, if one of those people isn't living with the others and/or sharing finances. But to be fair, I haven't given it much thought yet. If a person has multiple partners who are equally significant, they should ideally be legally entitled to equal benefits, but of course this opens up more nuance. > It only gets more complex when you consider asexual people, who may have many close emotional relationships with no real strong "ranking" or "best friend" or "partner" Perhaps you misunderstand what asexual means. Asexual people might have romantic relationships. They might be married. They might even have sex! It's a spectrum, but has very little to do with who you might date, and more to do with what kinds of activities you might want to do with a partner. Aromantic people are less likely to have romantic partners, and therefore, I imagine, much less likely to be married.