Canada: Dangerous case study in the perils of same-sex marriage

[Asher]

That's why I'm waiting for a case with a gay man do that to a straight man. Will be interesting.

I know tons of long-term roommates...gay/straight, male/female. None of them have ever taken their roommates to court after a couple years when one decides to move out.

Why wouldn't a straight man do it to a gay man? Why must the gay man be evil in your completely ridiculous scenario?

[Asher]

I did. Ontario says that they are a spouse, just as if they were otherwise married. Gives them rights and responsibilities.

Ben, you ****ing ******. You are a mentally disabled Christian nutjob living illegally in the USA, and you are arguing Canadian Law with a Canadian Lawyer. Shut the **** up.

[Flubber]

Doesn't matter how they have the same rights and obligations, only matters that they do.

Flubber that's like quarrelling with the inch. The cite recognizes that the spouse has an obligation for support. A couch is what? A couple grand? Support is much more.

and a house is much much more-- Ben only you could still argue when I cite the freaking attorney generals office with a quote that directly supports exactly what I have been saying

[Flubber]

Ben Bottom line

1. They never magically declare people married-- Instead if a court is asked, it may find that parties have conducted themselves in such a fashion that legal obligations arise
2. It is ridiculous to think that a court would hold that a gay and straight man were a couple for these purposes unless they had acted to hold themselves out as such-- Judges are familiar with the concept of friends sharing an apartment and NOT being a couple.
3, Even if some twosome are found to have been spouses for one purpose or another, it is equitable principles that apply. I lived with Mrs Flubber for 2 years in MY house unmarried-- she acquired exactly zero interest in it-- At all times we treated it as mine so she had no fairness argument that she was entitled to a share

[Ben Kenobi]

Why wouldn't a straight man do it to a gay man? Why must the gay man be evil in your completely ridiculous scenario?

Why would a gay couple try to get married in a Catholic church and sue them? Money, dear boy.

[Flubber]

Oh ben lets see if this is the watershed moment__ I have the AG of Ontario siding with me that marriage and common law relationships are not the same--- Can Ben admit he is wrong---

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, you ****ing ******. You are a mentally disabled Christian nutjob living illegally in the USA, and you are arguing Canadian Law with a Canadian Lawyer. Shut the **** up.

And your point? I'm not entitled to argue things with people who know more than me? What's the point of arguing with stupid people who know nothing? I surely can't learn anything that way.

[Ben Kenobi]

2. It is ridiculous to think that a court would hold that a gay and straight man were a couple for these purposes unless they had acted to hold themselves out as such-- JUdges are familiar with the concept of friewnds sharing an apartment and NOT beiong a couple.

If money were involved, and depending on the judge? Absolutely could happen. Absolutely. Plenty of people get steamrolled by the court of family law.

[Flubber]

Doesn't matter how they have the same rights and obligations, only matters that they do.

Flubber that's like quarrelling with the inch. The cite recognizes that the spouse has an obligation for support. A couch is what? A couple grand? Support is much more.

Ben you are laughable.. I said repeatedly that there are mechanisms in provincial statutes that in some cases treat common law relationships sinmilar to married folks in some instances. and the rules differ province by province for common law folks-- but they are never married.

[Flubber]

And your point? I'm not entitled to argue things with people who know more than me? What's the point of arguing with stupid people who know nothing? I surely can't learn anything that way.

But you don`t learn and never admit you are wrong even when it is so patently obvious-- Or do you have a better source than the AG of the province you were referencing

[Flubber]

If money were involved, and depending on the judge? Absolutely could happen. Absolutely. Plenty of people get steamrolled by the court of family law.

Ben you are now relying on the anything can happen argument. Like I can sue you for raping my family pet here in Calgary and by bribing enough witnesses and passport control people win a judgnment against you -- You may say thats ridiculous but if I have an idiot judge, who knows



OH and I will acknowledge some people feel steamrolled by the courts but I had occasion to see more objectively some of those cases and often the great story about how someone got steamrolled is only that, a great story and they omit the real reasons. ( Many people are like my neighbor who one day gave me great detail about how the police railroaded them with respect to this hit and run that they never did-- I nodded and smiled and would have been far more sympathetic if I had not been one of the witnesses to when he crashed his car into another and then drove off.)

Sometimes crazy things happen in court but the reality is that 98% of the judgements would be supported by 98% of the people 98% of the time. The exceptions are mainly when the judge does something that is correct in law and unpopular or controversial. ONly rarely do the judges get it totally wrong.

[Flubber]

hmmm -- no admission yet-- Why am I not surprised

[Ben Kenobi]

But you don`t learn and never admit you are wrong even when it is so patently obvious-- Or do you have a better source than the AG of the province you were referencing

My argument is simply that the AG confirms, as do you that cohabitation for 3 years creates a burden of spousal support. Same as with marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sometimes crazy things happen in court but the reality is that 98% of the judgements would be supported by 98% of the people 98% of the time. The exceptions are mainly when the judge does something that is correct in law and unpopular or controversial. ONly rarely do the judges get it totally wrong.

I've been on that two percent enough times to be wary of a lawyer arguing that the court is 98 percent right and 2 percent wrong. I'll file *that* under bias that needs to be taken under consideration.

I've been involved in cases that I thought were wrongly decided, because the decision was decided long before the case came to trial. Which is unfortunate. Cases which I'm sure you would believe had been decided correctly, and would side with the court.

[Flubber]

Uh, division of property. Hello? Court treats it just like a real marriage.

Oh I see-- In your world talkingabout division of property is how you assert something about spousal support.

next-- you should argue that medical decision-making is the same as a way to prove that child custody rules do not differ materially