BC government now dictates your wedding date

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

BC government now dictates your wedding date


dissembling.org

Check out this latest article discussing the destruction of the concept of "marriage", by forcing everyone co-habituating while in a relationship to marry at two years. They have literally picked your wedding date for you.

Marriage was always meant to be an expression of love, and it is with regret it now has been redefined as a financial decision by government more than anything else.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I am seriously thinking of sending my bill to the provincial government, they have no right to stick their noses in my relationships and bedroom, and they have crossed the line here! I always wondered where the line in the sand would be drawn in my life before I get absolutely acidic towards my government.....

This is it!

dissembling.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
canadianawareness.org...

That is so god damned creepy - you could be sharing an apartment or house with another person for so many different reasons. Now some nosy bureaucrat at the tax office looks at the screen of a computer doing name/address matching then decides two pairs of names are in fact "married".

One way to complete cluster**** this up, would be to register your pets using their first name and your surname, then wait for the marriage certificate


edit on 30-3-2013 by stormcell because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This is dumb. What is it to our distant rulers if individuals live in the same house with each other? Where a person lives is one of those basic liberties that we're virtual prisoners without. (Squatting excluded, obviously.)

We should be making a move away from governmental monopolization of marriage altogether, I think. Society isn't just brainwashed into it... they're practically begging for them to sanction their bonds. If everyone in the country ceased to seek out a marriage license, it would make it clear to the government that it is truly unneeded in the many ways that society can run smoothly.
(And hey, no more divorce culture.)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Well, um.....this isn't much different than the law has been for a long time. Basically, after 6 months of living with someone, half of everything belongs to the other, without a contract saying to the contrary and nearly all the same marital rights where there, and the police treated you as a spouse.

This wouldn't be making that much changes to the way its been for years, except they have now moved the time ahead from 6 months to 2 years.

This isn't the same as a government forcing you to have a ceremony and become legal.
edit on 30-3-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
What happens if two couples live in the same house?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLastStand
 


Oh hey ya I know, talk about bull huh? It's hard enough to date in Vancouver. Now just forget it if you're a renter and she's a condo owner or visa versa... Now we'll have to bring a prenup along with us on a first date. So if I want to split my $1,200 rent with someone I fancy, I have to cough up half my earnings if things go south? And believe me, it will. Especially in Vancouver where women's attention span are comparable to that of ADfreakingD.

ETA: I just want to add one more thought. The last girlfriend I had that lived with me was from Japan. We lived together for two-years but if I wanted her to stay in Canada with me as my wife, she would have had to prove we were in an intimate relationship. Personal questions, "what side of the bed does he sleep on", "how often do you have sex?" etc, etc, you get the picture. Fair enough, so I think in situations like this, the burden of proof should be on the government as well to prove YOU are actually in an intimate relationship if the both of you decide you don't want to be forced to be married. Tit for tat is what I say.



edit on 30-3-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
If you haven't heard of Common-Law marriage before.....wow.


The fact they bumped it to 2 years from the previous 6 months is actually better.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Well, um.....this isn't much different than the law has been for a long time. Basically, after 6 months of living with someone, half of everything belongs to the other



From what I understand, its it like this already in a lot of places in the world.
If you live together like man and wife for a certain time, the man has to remember that if she ever leaves then she can get your stuff just like if it was a real divorce.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
If you haven't heard of Common-Law marriage before.....wow.


The fact they bumped it to 2 years from the previous 6 months is actually better.


Sure, everyone knows about common-law, but the thing is, Monday morning of the 18th, those who thought they were just sharing rent and having "benefits" woke up to discover to their horror they were married.

That's just not cool.


In B.C., there were more than 160,000 common law couples in 2011, and that number was growing at a rate three times faster than the number of married couples. Statistics Canada estimated that the number of common law couples across the country was growing four times faster than the number of marriages.


You see, people don't want to be married anymore. Times are changing. There is a reason why there were 160,000 common-law couples.
edit on 30-3-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well now...
Mislead much?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
According to wikipedia,


The Marriage Act of 1753 also did not apply to Britain's overseas colonies of the time, so common law marriages continued to be recognized in the future United States...


And since this thread specifically deals with BC...


Common-law marriages have been recognized in the District of Columbia since 1931.


---

I'm quite sure this thread sets an all time record for the lateness of this BREAKING NEWS.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



On March 18, 2013, the new BC Family Law Act comes into effect, replacing the current Family Relations Act. The new Act makes some substantial changes to the current regime dealing with division of property.


So um, 3/18/2013 was last monday to yea...it's a new law thus breaking.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well, obviously they are committing polygamy and should be jailed without trial, or possibly hung outside the house as a warning that society has rules!

I fail to see why you asked such a question that had such an obvious answer. Where are your morals! Off to a private penal prison with you for asking such an anti social question. Jeez, will it never end. You may not question your masters!

P



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

On March 18, 2013, the new BC Family Law Act comes into effect, replacing the current Family Relations Act. The new Act makes some substantial changes to the current regime dealing with division of property.


So um, 3/18/2013 was last monday to yea...it's a new law thus breaking.




There may very well be "substantial changes", but thats not what this thread is about.

This thread, and the blog post that inspired it, was specifically ranting against the idea that after living together for a while, the Government considered you to be "married" for various legal purposes.

That aspect, the idea of common law marriage, has not changed at all.

From the old "Family Relations Act" 1(1):

"spouse" means a person who
(a) is married to another person,

(b) except under Parts 5 and 6, lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship for a period of at least 2 years if the application under this Act is made within one year after they ceased to live together and, for the purposes of this Act, the marriage-like relationship may be between persons of the same gender...


So there may very well be things in the new Family Law act which are "Breaking News", but this particular aspect of it, isnt one of them.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Lets bring up an example. They talk about 2 years as if its always been in place, but people were in trouble in courts, separating assets after 6 months, living together, for the last 20 years, but perhaps that is because of a baby.

Now, here is something quite shocking. The new law requires someone you have lived with, 2 years, to also pay child support, even if its not the actual biological parent. The changes seem to reflect a merging of biological and non biological in an attempt IMO for government to gain more rights over children. A lot of people will be very hesitant to extend living with someone for any length of time. For if you are suddenly on a disability, the government would take the person to court who lived with you and your biological child for more than 2 years, and then left, for child support.

There could be child support battles between non biological special friends, and it would really depend on the wording of guardian, its so loose even a regular baby sitter could qualify.

Again, taking a deep breath, because they have gone far over their boundaries in doing this, they state this is "changes to the law", yet they are not the higher courts and merely creating acts or legislational changes, which ARE NOT LAW.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 




Now, here is something quite shocking. The new law requires someone you have lived with, 2 years, to also pay child support, even if its not the actual biological parent. The changes seem to reflect a merging of biological and non biological in an attempt IMO for government to gain more rights over children. A lot of people will be very hesitant to extend living with someone for any length of time. For if you are suddenly on a disability, the government would take the person to court who lived with you and your biological child for more than 2 years, and then left, for child support.


That was always in there. I lived with a guy for 5 years, who was lazy and didn't contribute to the mortgage, or anything, and tried to sue me for half my house (when i got sick of supporting him), which was an inheritance from my father.
My lawyer said we could counter sue for child support, even though he wasn't the biological father.
He dropped suing for the house and I didn't do the child support thing.

That was about 20 years ago.

The lawyer told me that there were women out there collecting multiple support cheques from men that were not their baby's fathers, just from living with the poor fellow for 6 months. :shk:
I didn't even collect support from the bio dad.

If the guardian parent was, or is on welfare at any time, welfare will sue for child support, so they don't have to provide government assistance.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Well there doesnt seem to be a lot of major changes then, though I have to say, one thing that is in there, is that all properties that belonged to the individuals prior to the relationship, remain the individuals. And that is a good thing. Because I have heard some very bad stories over the years.
edit on 31-3-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So they don't actually dictate the day of your wedding, they just consider you married as they have in the past, right? Nothing new really?

ETA: I don't know her politics but Chrisy Clark is cute as hell.
edit on 31-3-2013 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So they don't actually dictate the day of your wedding, they just consider you married as they have in the past, right? Nothing new really?

ETA: I don't know her politics but Christy Clark is cute as hell.
edit on 31-3-2013 by intrepid because: (no reason given)


I suppose, I suppose...common law is nothing new. Us men in Vancouver (and women too) are a little bit cranky over here when it comes to disrupting our non-committal ways.

As for Christy Clark? Ya, Richard Branson thinks so too.

After meeting B.C. Premier Christy Clark, he offered to take her on a kitesurfing ride with one caveat: She has to be naked.

Link
edit on 31-3-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join