Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Janx]

We may have a language problem. Here, a "couple" is just a pair of people dating. It carries no formal or legal status.

Some states have a concept of "common law marriage", where the couple has lived and represented themselves as married for long periods of time without actually having signed the legal documents. But the vast majority of "couples" here don't fit that definition. Here, you can be a couple for years, even cohabit for years, and not be legally bound in any real sense.



In the US, marriage is not just a ritual. It includes the signing of a legally binding document which carries with it a number of rights and responsibilities.



Here, it does. Specifically, in this case, the matter of child support is determined as part of divorce proceedings. There are no such proceedings for a couple.

To quibble a little bit on US Marriage:

child support being mandated can happen regardless of marital status. Get a girl pregnant and identified as the father, and you are on the hook for child support.

Though otherwise, you are correct. Marriage entitles you to inheritance should your partner die. As well as insurance benefits (can't list your roommate on your health insurance). It also entitles you to access and information (as the Supreme Court case was about). You can get shut out of the room when your partner goes into the hospital, and under HIPAA you don't get told what's going on. Marriage solves that.

 

[Kramodlog]

We may have a language problem. Here, a "couple" is just a pair of people dating. It carries no formal or legal status.

You sure? I checked merriam-webster.

two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired

Married people can be couples and so can unmarried people.

Seems you can be a couple without being married and unmarried couples are discriminated by the state since they aren't treated equally. Seems the state forces couples to get a state recognized license to have rights that you should enjoy even if not married.

 

[billd91]

child support being mandated can happen regardless of marital status. Get a girl pregnant and identified as the father, and you are on the hook for child support.

But if you're a homosexual couple raising children without being married and the relationship breaks up, whichever parent is keeps the children can be left twisting in the wind. And that's the current state of the law in many states.

 

[Janx]

You sure? I checked merriam-webster. Married people can be couples and so can unmarried people.

Seems you can be a couple without being married and unmarried couples are discriminated by the state since they aren't treated equally. Seems the state forces couples to get a state recognized license to have rights that you should enjoy even if not married.

You guys aren't actually disagreeing.

I think Umbran was specifically calling out people pairs who are married and deducing that when you said "couples" that you meant unmarried people pairs. Using Couple to mean both, might be correct, but it does little to keep communication clear.

Regardless, his point (that you originally did not appear to agree with because of this ambiguity of the definition of Couple) is that unmarried people pairs do not have the same rights as married people pairs in the US. I iterated examples of said rights in my post.

Now to rewind back to you and Canada...

Is Canada different than what I outlined (which is what Umbran was likely thinking by his reading of your original words)?

Does a married people pair in Canada have more rights than an unmarried people pair?

 

[Janx]

But if you're a homosexual couple raising children without being married and the relationship breaks up, whichever parent is keeps the children can be left twisting in the wind. And that's the current state of the law in many states.

Things can get complicated for an unmarried hetero couple with children as well if they get married. Sure there's no divorce proceedings, but there's also no legal framework for how stuff is divided (which is what divorce proceedings are).

 

[Nagol]

You guys aren't actually disagreeing.

I think Umbran was specifically calling out people pairs who are married and deducing that when you said "couples" that you meant unmarried people pairs. Using Couple to mean both, might be correct, but it does little to keep communication clear.

Regardless, his point (that you originally did not appear to agree with because of this ambiguity of the definition of Couple) is that unmarried people pairs do not have the same rights as married people pairs in the US. I iterated examples of said rights in my post.

Now to rewind back to you and Canada...

Is Canada different than what I outlined (which is what Umbran was likely thinking by his reading of your original words)?

Does a married people pair in Canada have more rights than an unmarried people pair?

Canada has different treatments across its provinces, but generally married people have more rights than common-law -- mostly around asset division when splitting up and inheritance ( a married spouse can't inherit less than an equitable divorce settlement in Ontario despite what a will says, for example). There are also some tax differences (both for and against marriage), but they tend to be minor or niche.

The social safety net provides a minimum care standard which alleviates the "must share health insurance" scenario. A will and living will can help maintain information access during crisis events that the married state enjoys automatically.

 

[Umbran]

child support being mandated can happen regardless of marital status. Get a girl pregnant and identified as the father, and you are on the hook for child support.

If you weren't married, you must establish paternity (maternity being established at birth, usually) and get a separate court case dealt with, and it does not apply if the person isn't the kid's biological parent. I'd call this "no guarantee" area.

As opposed to being married, where child support considerations are automatically part of the process, and will apply to both biological and adopted children.

 

[tomBitonti]

As opposed to being married, where child support considerations are automatically part of the process, and will apply to both biological and adopted children.

In the US, if you are married, you are responsible for your spouses child, pretty much regardless of any later determination of actual biological parentage. This really is an issue only for men, since the mother's relationship is usually fixed. There is a limited time period in which to contest parentage:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/paying-child-support-for-a-non-biological-child.html

How Can a Parent Be Legally Responsible for a Non-Biological Child?

State law differs, but in most cases, people have between 2 months and 2 years to get a DNA test to remove their name from the birth certificate. If the person fails to do so in the required time period, they will be legally responsible for child support until the child reaches the age of majority, usually 18. The only way they will be excused from child support payments is if the biological parent (or another responsible individual in the court’s discretion) steps up and claims support for the child.

If the person’s name does not appear on the birth certificate, and the child has not been adopted, there is still another way a person may be held liable for child support payments: the theory of "detrimental reliance through promissory estoppel." Basically, when a person holds themselves out to society as the parent, the child comes to believe that she is the child. The child relies on the person, and stops searching for her biological parent. If the person suddenly renounces their parenthood, the child will be psychologically and socially damaged.

A court decision puts it thus, "There is an innate immorality in the conduct of an adult who for over a decade accepts and proclaims a child as his own, but then, in order to be relieved of the child's support, announces, and relies upon, his bastardy."
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...on-biological-child.html#sthash.GBq0P3C4.dpuf

Thx!
TomB

 

[Umbran]

You sure? I checked merriam-webster. Married people can be couples and so can unmarried people.

We usually refer to a pair who is married as a *married* couple, and a pair who is not married as just a couple, without the modifier, to avoid the ambiguity.

Seems you can be a couple without being married and unmarried couples are discriminated by the state since they aren't treated equally. Seems the state forces couples to get a state recognized license to have rights that you should enjoy even if not married.

Nope. Because adopting a child is *not* a right. It is a privilege. You are asking the state to turn over custody of a child to you, and that child has rights, too. The state, acting as advocate for the child, is setting some minimum standards for the environment they'll allow the child to enter.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Also in this space, issues relating to recent changes made by LDS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hp-top-table-main_mormons-12am:homepage/story

Don't like presenting without offering a view of my own: I find both to be quite offensive. Especially troubling is how much power the decision makers have in either case.

Thx!

TomB

To be honest, I don't see it as much of an issue if the LDS doesn't want to baptize the kids of gay parents. It's a church. They have their beliefs, regardless of backward and wrong as I consider those beliefs to be. We shouldn't be pushing people or groups to believe certain things. We should be pushing and groups of people to not harm others. What the judge did in the previous article? That's harmful to kids. What the Mormons are doing? Not a big deal. If a kid really wants to become a Mormon, he/she can. He just has to turn 18 and turn against his/her parents. That's not likely to happen. More than likely, the LDS church is just alienating these kids and their families. That means there'll be less people that'll join the LDS church. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. A very good thing.