RSS

Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?

14 Mar

So I’m in a restaurant, sitting in a booth waiting for some friends, trying to access the internet on my laptop, finding the restaurant has no wireless (what kind of place still doesn’t have that? Oh well, whatever…)

A boyfriend/girlfriend couple is sitting next to me, trying to calmly discuss the prospect of marriage, clearly initiated by her. I learn they’ve been dating for two years, and are planning to move in together this summer; she’s arguing in favour of marriage, he’s telling her he’s open to the idea, but just isn’t sure yet, and can’t give her an answer, at this time, but maybe by the time they’re ready to move in together, he’ll know. She’s arguing that it’s the logical progression of their relationship. He’s not so sold on the idea, it seems.

And why would he be? Nothing suggests they’re Christians, committed to waiting for sex until they’re married; I’m sure they’ve already slept together, spent nights at each other’s places. She’s already about to give him the other thing that comes with most marriages – living together – without absolutely requiring that he first ‘put a ring on it’, so to speak, so what’s in it for him?

Now, with Ontario following British common law, in regards to marriage, eventually the government will declare them married, once they’ve lived together already for some period of time (I forget how long it is), whether or not they put in the effort to make it official before then by signing the papers either at a wedding service or at a Justice of the Peace.

So he’s right, there isn’t any point; they’ll end up married whether they do it deliberately or not.

They’ll just miss out on a potential Bridezilla having ‘her day’, as they say.

No biggie.

But, given that they’re both worldly folks anyway, I’m sorry he’s going to end up, if he is foolish enough to indeed move in with her, married to her in the eyes of the law. Right now, he’s got it made: he gets his jollies, but doesn’t risk divorce, alimony, etc. He’d be a fool to change that.

Advertisements
 
16 Comments

Posted by on March 14, 2015 in Brave New World Order, Canada, law

 

16 responses to “Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?

  1. ddswaterloo

    March 14, 2015 at 11:30 pm

    Trudeau said the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

    Very true, but of course he lied on his motives.

    For now the government is very much in the bedrooms of the nation, manipulating and deciding what a relationship is, how it should be regulated and who benefits.

    Live common law for 9 months straight and you’re married and can sue for divorce and assets. Disgusting coercion. I despite this parasitic system and all those who enable it.

     
  2. Will S.

    March 14, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    I’ve never liked that aspect of common law; if you don’t bother to have either a religious marriage ceremony or to simply go down to the courthouse and get a Justice of the Peace to officially marry you, then what business of the State is it, if you shack up together? Even in the days before easy, no-fault divorce, I still say, it wasn’t right for the State to arbitrarily decide such a thing for you when you hadn’t yourselves, and it’s even more of an abomination, today, given modern circumstances.

     
  3. Will S.

    March 14, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    Sometimes, I am inclined towards the libertarian view of getting the State out of the marriage business altogether – then ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t even be an issue, because the government wouldn’t be involved in sanctioning such relationships, if not recognizing any unions, whatsoever.

     
  4. Sean

    March 15, 2015 at 4:11 am

    I believe it’s three years in Ontario and 2 in BC… or the other way around.

     
  5. Chillingworth

    March 15, 2015 at 8:32 am

    On the other hand, some have argued that the libertarian idea of getting the state out of the marriage business is not as much of an option as one might think.

    People are going to have sex and produce children regardless of what the state does. When the parents break up and start having a tug-of-war about who gets to keep the kid, what would a hypothetical libertarian state do? Tell them to fight it out between themselves?

    https://enjoymentandcontemplation.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/the-state-cant-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/

     
  6. Will S.

    March 15, 2015 at 8:53 am

    @ Sean: Ah.

    @ Chill: Yes, agreed. Hence why I said only that I am sometimes sympathetic to those arguments. But indeed, clearly, such would be problematic.

     
  7. Lena S.

    March 15, 2015 at 9:08 am

    Chillingworth, perhaps it would force people to stop acting like bickering kids, who knows. But if you sign a state marriage ‘license’, the state becomes a party to any issuance of that marriage – i.e. children – which is why the state can come in and remove those children. I believe libertarians generally think that is of greater concern than those who want to duke it out in a divorce.

    If there is no option to use the state as a proxy bully during a divorce, what might people do? What did people used to do? Was there more involvement of the extended family and community to sort these things out before we relied on big daddy government to arbitrate our squabbles?

    I can’t help noticing the first article quoted is written by a woman (the second doesn’t load for me so I don’t know about that one). Don’t forget that women tend to be more collectivist than men, which is another reason men shouldn’t listen to them. (Add the usual caveat that I am aware of the irony here).

    People would still get married without the state. There is no need for a state license to administrate a contract. Once there is a contract, there are laws and courts to deal with the breaking of that contract regardless of whether or not the state gives a license for that contract. It’s the idea that we need a state issued license that is abhorrent to libertarians.

    It is a fallacy that the market won’t develop a solution where there is a need. We can’t know what that solution will be. Just as marriage existed before government redefined it, money existed before government substituted it with fiat. We’ve become so dependent on government that we fail to see that a large portion of what it does is unnecessary and causes more problems than it solves.

     
  8. Wilson Mount

    March 15, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    One year together over here I believe..

     
  9. Will S.

    March 15, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Ah. I can never remember if it’s a year or six months here, or what. Not having ever ‘shacked up’, hasn’t been an issue for me, so I don’t pay much attention.

     
  10. pukeko60

    March 16, 2015 at 1:41 am

    @Lena

    Agreed. Marriage existed before the state got involved: which generally only happened with royal marriages. Most canon law was written to stop kings betrothing their children as soon as they could walk — hence age of consent etc.

    On divorce: again contract. In the old days you had to give the dowry back to the wife and she had to give up rights of the kids to the husband. And when you married he controlled most if not all of your assets. Which is why marriage was entered into cautiously.

    @Will.

    Most people within the church live together or sleep together, and this is tolerated. Which it should not be.

    The marriage as a party thing gets me. What happened to simple, dignified and private? Married at home or chapel, using the old words? With a simple party afterwards and dressed in decent clothes (no gown). A fair amount of the bridezilleriness we have now did not exist when I got married — and I’m not that old.

    And in NZ it is two years, with seven tests, or if you have a kid.

     
  11. Northy

    March 16, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    It is a sad situation. This girl, I’m assuming, was probably entering her late twenties. IF she was serious about marriage, she would have told that guy to wife her up before any sex occurred.

    Now, it’s essentially too late – it is beyond the eleventh hour. She gave away her prime years so that she could get her (probably worthless) degree and d*ck around. I certainly would never marry such a creature. Women can be so stupid.

    It is made even more depressing that this occurred in my province.

     
  12. Will S.

    March 16, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    Welcome, my fellow Ontarian!

    Actually, I overheard her say she was 22; no idea how old he was, but slightly older, it appeared to me.

    If he is her first long-term boyfriend, she could still salvage things, if he were to leave her; possibly, her count might not be all that high. Alas, the way many young women are today, when they are ‘dumped’, many vengefully try to purge the memories by having one-night stands, thinking that will help, when all it does is make their count skyrocket, and their worth plummet.

     
  13. Mark Citadel

    March 18, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Funny you should do a post on marriage in the Feminist age. After a brief and annoying hiatus, I just penned a piece on the same topic. The government has of course abandoned any duty to fostering the institution, in fact many of the current facets of marriage are designed to turn men off the prospect. Literally what would attract a man in this day and age to get married in the West?

    The contract is soluble and slanted towards women should it dissolve.

    He gains no cultural status by being married.

    If its a Modern woman, he will be treated like garbage anyway.

    Any children had will be quickly converted into children of the state rather than descendant inheritors of any legacy.

    Of course men prefer to become swingers and avoid any commitment like the plague. In many cases, the commitment they are being asked to make is that of the wife, with the woman taking the role of the husband. Something instinctual tells most men that this is an awful outcome. Some of course ignore such warnings and go ahead and have their feminist-approved wedding, becoming castrated concubines with a smile on their face.

     
  14. Will S.

    March 18, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Yep; everything is backwards, and wise men, whether Christian or heathen, will avoid becoming victimized.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s