Traditionally man marries woman for life and they raise their children together, inheritance law reflects this, normally when the man dies his wife gets at least half or even everything -- as she was supposed to be the mother of all his children and was supposed to then pass his stuff to them when she dies.
In addition to straights having had step families for decades now, we have gay families now, either a gay or a lesbian couple raise a child with their life partner that's adopted, from a prior relationship, or surrogate, or one life partner has a co-parent relationship with someone else -- e.g. Rufus Wainwright has a child with Leonard Cohen's daughter.
Japan has rejected gay marriage as same-sex couples do not reproduce AS straight people do and I agree, but but they should recognize civil unions or easy way for people to give non-blood family visitation rights, medical decision, burial, and family benefits in case of death. There are gay and lesbian members of Ukrainian forces who wants those rights now because they are at risk of dying with no benefit to their life partners or no visitation rights if they are hospitalized: old.reddit.com/r/zelensky/comments/vvs24s/petition_supporting_lgbt_marriage_equality_gets/
We need something other than traditional marriage or traditional marriage inclusive of gays, because of family situations where the life partner is not the co-parent and vice-versa. Right now, marriage actually automatically voids a pre-wriitten will (at least in Canada) If someone in a gay couple or a lesbian couple goes out to have a child with someone else, this isn't just a matter of Love, it's Resources, and given all the cheating going on this concern the straights as well: If Red has been paying half or even over half of expenses for the house/business co-own with life partner Blue, and then Blue gets a kid, how is child support calculated?
Jaxon Jenkins
People should think before they get married or have kids or do anything that could co-mingle assets or add a co-expense (the kid), since it's not as simple as man and woman marry and have kids together anymore (not even for straights, now that we have DNA tests).
...maybe we should stop using marriage as a legal term, leave that to churches, and just recognize "family unions", with an option for "life partner unions" like marriage, with no assumption of shared kids< and "co-parentships" that people can register together: biological mother, biological father -- kids always have a right to know, it's a medical history, all custodial parents involved and the life partnerships they are currently in, so there is a formula on child support, spousal support, and inheritance.
Isaiah Taylor
The people pictured in the OP pic is a member of the Ukrainian army plus a boyfriend he just "married". Traditionally if it was a woman he just wifed up and then he dies, she gets his body and I think his pension or compensation -- as it is, they are not actually legally married, so if he dies fighting for his country, his parents or even uncle or aunt gets his body, his life partner doesn't get the body or any compensation or recognition as a widow -- this would then be his dying worried.
The easy thing to do is to Just Legalize Gay Marriage as west has done -- but what about his co-parent? Since same-sex people can't have children with each other, there should be a co-parent, if he ends up in the hospital, shouldn't a woman he has knocked up have the right to visit him as well as his husband?
Joseph Gonzalez
Logically this seems a proper conclusion but I'm so sick of the fucking faggotry and I feel as if this will hurt marriage or fuck up ways to benefit traditional families. Regardless they have their fag marriage now, so unless SCOTUS decides to fuck around more there's more important things to be worried about.
Nicholas Bailey
Let's supposed the service member in OP pic has a woman he is co-parent with as well has his 'husband' in the picture...traditionally the spouse gets life benefits because its assumed they are raising the kids of the guy killed OR they have kept house for the killed-in-service all their lives and can't be expected to work outside the home again -- the civilian husband in OP pic probably has his own job and career. Their life partnership should be recognized so if the service member gets killed, his husband could be recognized as a widow with widow benefits to tide over the hard times, grief counselling -- but since they are young the civvie husband will probably remarry --- they have no children together.
...in that case, the woman the service member knocked up should be the one that gets the life benefits as she is raising his kids and will have trouble working in the meantime, she should be officially recognized as "mother of his kid or kids" while the civvie husband is recognized as "life partner"., separate categories.
...and given how messy straight relationships have gotten, this applies to them too, in a benefits situation.
Asher White
>Regardless they have their fag marriage now
There only a handful of countries that have same-sex marriage -- Ukraine definitely doesn't -- but they are talking about it now, since they do have gays and lesbians fighting in their armies, even trannies, I think trannies are just mentally ill and should be lumped with the mentally disabled community rather than LGB, but if they are fighting Russians I will call them by their preferred pronouns even if it's Your Majesty, not because I really believe a man who identifies as a woman is really a woman, but hey, if you are willing to die for something I believe in, I will tolerate.
As mentioned, simply adding legalizing queer marriage is problematic, because queers do NOT have children with the people they are love-married to.
...and immigration, this gets messy. Traditionally a log of gays and lesbians actually get into "lavender marriages" with each other to have children, and they then both have lovers on the side.
...but now, what to do about immigration and benefits when the co-parent of your children is not the same as your life partner? This is a problem that straights are having now too, so we need to reform family law and stop assuming life partner = mother/father of shared children so we can have a fair formula for child support and inheritance.
Marriage is a public record to prevent people from marrying more than once -- as this affect spousal support division of property, etc -- considering how messy people are nowadays, number of children and with whom should be record made known to interested parties as well. Like if you are dating someone and they say they haven't had kids yet, you should be able to go to city hall and with them and get this verified!
Anthony Hill
You don't have to be gay faggot
Justin Nelson
Nah, this sounds gay and like trying to make some kind of homosexual non-nation-state out of Ukraine. The people there should pass their own laws and you should stay the fuck out of it.
Carter Carter
...Family Law Reform can actually benefit straight men a LOT, if we leave the definition of marriage to the church and so the state ONLY deals with "life partnership" and "co-parent unions".
This kind of stuff is based on the assumption that she's the mother of his children that she has given up her career to raise, but hey, it's Current Year, it's really unfair to him, or her, to lose half retirement to the first person you were married to.
Get government out of "marriage", only recognize "life partnership" "co-parentships" and separately (even if some overlap). Criminalize "parenthood by thief" (e.g. poking hole in condoms).
Jack Hernandez
Ukrainians will vote for whatever the heck they want.
As for us, both Canada and America have already legalized same-sex marriage but I think we still need to reform our family law which is running on of outdated assumptions that leads to a lot of unfairness. It's unfair to the man to always make him pay, but it's also unfair to the woman if it makes the breadwinner pay the home parent and lets home parent have more custody if she's the one who worked out of home. I think custody should always be split 50/50 regardless or who took care of the kids more -- the one who work more can leave kids with their parents so the kids is close to both side of the family, and in some cases I think couples should be ordered to stay in the same house until the youngest kid is 16. I can't stand straight people who break out right after the birth of the baby or when their kid is not even highschool yet because "they fell out of love" and they want to fall in love agian (with someone else) and they fucking can not wait till the kids they chose to have is done weaning. Same house, finish your parental duties, or get stoned.
Luke Smith
Let's suppose Skippy has a childless wife and a lot of baby mamas, he dies fighting for his country, his childless wife should be recognized as his widow and get a one-time payout so she can take time off work to grief -- with no children she should be working -- the baby mamas should have lifetime compensation divided upon them, and they can be recognized as "baby mama of a hero" but something more dignified sounding.
Cameron Reyes
>leaf >unbelievably gay and abhorrent post poetry
Christian Green
>The easy thing to do is to Just Legalize Gay Marriage as west has done What the hell are you talking about? legalize it where? in the east? in LATAM?
Cameron Sullivan
TLDR: Family Law has not kept up with changing families, they keep adding stuff like divorce, recogntion of domestic partners in some places, and same-sex marriage as well -- but family law across the world or the west (the part I care about) doesn't deal with changing status of women, our lifespans and working years, and family status. Laws that assume two people marry for life or at least in good faith would be married for life, raising kids together, is flawed.
My ex-neighbour became a single mom after launched a failed baby trap on a musician she's not married to who already has kids with two different women... Elon Musk's second baby mama Grimes might be going lesbo...-Elon is rich but Grimes has her own money and her income is less risky than his.
There are women with many different baby daddies and her baby's daddies hare many different baby mamas of their own...stoning is the simple solution but we live in the civilized modern age so we need to figure up and updated formula -- and registry. Have a registry of children someone have and is paying support to that interested party can access.
Mason Taylor
...and one reform that I think is fair but will be controversial is that if a woman carry to term a child without the shared consent of the baby's daddy then she's entitled to less child support, if she cannot make do without child support from the father after he had said he did not want the child but she had it anyways, the government should give her a mix of grants and loan to raise that child. If a woman keeps having children she can't afford to raise then she should be put in debtor's prison and the children rehomed with a couple who could afford them -- this will solve the single mother epidermic.
Asher Hughes
>is flawed Sounds like a problem with your people user. At this rate, I would rather just get married in my church and not have that marriage recognized by the government since it's looking to cause problems that never needed to be there, like making up laws just because they are under the assumption marriage doesn't last forever.
Henry Butler
>Sounds like a problem with your people user. At this rate, I would rather just get married in my church and not have that marriage recognized by the government
(b) have together entered into a marriage that is voidable or void, in good faith on the part of a person relying on this clause to assert any right. (“conjoint”) R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 1 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 25 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 27 (1, 2); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1, 2, 4); 2014, c. 7, Sched. 9, s. 1; 2020, c. 25, Sched. 3, s. 1.
....OR...
...and even people who are not married are entitled to spousal support from the other now...most people don't know this.
Levi Jackson
>this will solve the single mother epidermic.
You can't solve that. It's a relatively new and temporary phenomenon. Children raised with single parents lose the likeliness of reproduction as the generations carry on. Eventually, fatherless children will end up either not having children due to never being raised correctly or they will end up having a child and not raising them which inevitably ends up producing an outcome similar to the first scenario I described. After they burnt their genealogy to the ground, the more stabilized families will repopulate and thus eliminating the epidemic.
Unless Quebec changed it, everywhere in Canada except for Quebec there is common-law marriage -- a couple that lived together for around a year, or they share something significant like a child or a business or a real property -- doesn't have to be something they live in together -- a businessman who moved his girlfriend around different properties for over a decade has to pay her support when they broke up, it's complicated, it's not fair if she got a free ride, but if she did help him out at social function, etc. Things should be spelled out and kids need to be taught the legal consequence of marriage, having children together, and having business partners, more than they do 50 genders or slavery which ended at least a 100 years ago.
The big difference between legal marriage and common-law-marriage is that when legally married, a parent has to suppose their disabled child even after that disabled child reach adulthood.
Christian Smith
Are you referring to Section (b)?
Jace Bailey
Wait...did they changed it, because I remember the one year from 5 years ago, or maybe it was at least one year.
Probably...I just remember talking to this Family Law professor who said what Mike Jagger pulled with Jerry Hall wouldn't work in Canada. At least, even if the marriage is illegal, with multiple spouse or underage spouse, the party applying for spousal benefit may still get it.
Anthony King
Faggots are fucking disgusting Kys and fuck off faggot leaf cunt
Jason Baker
You realize a Christian marriage needs nothing contractually written right? Standing with your wife before a priest performing the sacramental rights would be good enough as marriage between the two spouses but that would never hold as a real marriage in the court. Common law requires the two parties to recognize that they are in a common law before the rules apply to them.
//TORONTO, CA –A wealthy businessman from Toronto Canada has been ordered by the courts to pay his ex-girlfriend more than $50,000 a month in support for the next decade. The court determined this after they verified that the two were never married and never lived together.//
//Michael Latner, a reported multi-millionaire, had been in a dating relationship with List Climans for almost 15 years. When the pair had gotten together, Latner was a divorced father of three and Climans was a single mother of two.
In Ocober of 2001, the pair began dating but kept separated homes. The pair stayed together for 14 years and would often stay with each other at their houses. They also vacationed together and Latner would provide Climans with expensive gifts.//
Even Reddit was upset about that.
James Allen
They wouldn't because the court would view the party looking for spousal benefits as exploiting the system with an unrecognized marriage.
Joshua Gutierrez
TL:DR version:
1. Remove the term marriage from law, let churches decide what a marriage is.
2. State should legally recognize and set rules dealing with "life partnerships" and "co-parentship" in regards to spousal support, child support, inheritance, visitation rights, medical decision when someone is in a coma, and child custody in case of disputes and death without a will
It's easy to say, just shack up, but what happens when two people get together and one person work in the other person's business? Or they both contribute to the mortgage of a home -- this one is tricky too, in China the man and his family often have only his name on the title as it is their money, but the woman is the one who buys groceries etc and pay the daily expenses.
I don't even thing no-fault divorces is a good idea, but if one party beats or cheats the other should be able to separate and property should be fairly divided.
