No it isn’t - you just accurately summed it up in three paragraphs. I just wish some reporters could be so concise and accurate on this topic!
Also, there is in fact a court-case working its way up the judicial ladder in Quebec right now:
Court Revisits Gay Marriage Question. Back in 2002, the Quebec Superior Court held that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the Charter, on much the same reasoning as the more recent cases in Ontario and B.C. However, the Quebec case hasn’t got as much press time as the Ontario and B.C. cases, since it’s a trial level decision, not the highest court in the province, and because the trial judge suspended the operation of the decision pending appeal. Even though the feds aren’t trying to appeal the case, in light of their decision to accept same-sex marriage, some of the interveners from the trial who oppose it are trying to carry the appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal. It was argued back in January and is on reserve.
You may want to recheck that legal advice you gave. A few years ago the Legislature of Saskatchewan passed a law to recognise common-law relationships (both same-sex and opposite-sex) and to confer legal rights and obligations. Whether your friends qualify under those amendments I couldn’t say, as it would depend largely on the facts of their case. (Standard disclaimer that I am not your lawyer, or their lawyer, or anyone else’s lawyer, and you’d be foolish to rely on stuff posted on a message board, and so on and so forth.)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…
Otto, the court has not yet ruled finally in that case. Meanwhile, the federal government should be dealing with it in the fall sometime so that the entire country is on the same page.
I know that. Hamish posted that there would need to be a court case in Quebec. I posted merely to point out that there is one already before the court of appeals.
Personally, I’m kinda partial to The Onion’s take on it:
Mass. Court Orders All Citizens to Gay Marry
As much as The Onion has declined in recent years, every once in a while they manage to pull together a complete satirical gem.
Oh, no. I meant that because he grew up in another province, he assumed there was common-law marriage in Quebec. He met his girlfriend here in Montreal, and they’ve always lived here.
Of course, now that I know that common-law marriages are recent in Saskatchewan, it puts a whole other twist on things…
Sorry, forgot to log my roommate off (usually, it’s the other way around).
The above post by matt_mcl is actually mine.
Thank you. I’d forgotten about that case.
But it looks like the federal government will probably beat them to the punch.
The friend in question grew up in Saskatchewan, but is now living in Quebec.
Blap. And now for a complete posting pileup. (Happily, it’s actually me this time.)
I’m confused. No common-law spouses in Quebec? What? I think I’m missing what’s being discussed. But anyway…
To be recognized as common-law spouses in Quebec, you have to be living together at the same address for one year, and I assume in a conjugal relationship.And this applies to same-sex couples as well.
The federal government uses the same definition of common-law spouse/partner, at least for tax purposes. I’ll be doing my 2003 tax return this weekend, and I’ll be able to claim Jeremy’s tuition, education amount, and (I believe) some kind of common-law partner amount.
But no, simple common-law status doesn’t really confer much on the couple in terms of rights.
Although Jeremy is now on my work medical/dental/vision/etc. insurance plan, and sole beneficiary of my life insurance.
What we’re discussing is two women who are being told by the government that they are committing welfare fraud because they are allegedly involved in a same-sex relationship which exists only in the government’s mind.
As for common-law spouses in Quebec, it has been pointed out that unlike other provinces, Quebec uses a civil system of law, not the British common-law system. Therefore, it is impossible to recognize common-law marriages per se in the Quebec legal system. Kind of like someone claiming to be King of the United States. So Quebec uses a different term for those relationships. It’s semantic quibbling, really.
Not quite semantic quibbling, kfl. As it was explained to me, if you live in a de facto union in Quebec, you don’t get any status the same way as you do in the ROC. There are some laws that deal specifically with de facto unions (as with some companies), but it doesn’t exist as a specific status.
I could be misunderstanding, though.
Ahh. I gotcha.
The whole de facto thing strikes me as unfair too; “You’re only a spousal couple if it makes/saves us money.” Gee, thanks.
Now I’m more confused. I did say that common-law spousal status doesn’t really confer much on you in terms of rights. But please explain to me how the Status of Evil® will treated differently on my federal tax return because we live in Quebec and not the RoC. Or are you talking about provinces individually?
I was going to take a break from the SDMB for awhile, but this was important, so I thought I’d respond.
I’m not a lawyer, I’ve just read up on marriage law lately, so it would be best to double-check this with a lawyer. But here’s my understanding:
Full marriage is a shared power, but common-law and civil unions are (I believe) purely provincial. I don’t know if the federal government has its own definition of common-law partners for tax purposes, or if it uses the province’s definition. If it uses the province’s definition, then you might be in trouble because that would mean, frankly, that you have all the responsibilities of being a couple, and few of the benefits.
That page you posted is strangely translated into English – not surprising for Quebec’s government website. What they call “common law” on that page, they call “union de fait” on the French equivalent. That term is usually translated as “de facto marriage,” to avoid confusion with “common law marriage,” which is not the same thing.
If you scroll down on that page, you’ll see a list of modified laws. I may have done the Quebec government a disservice by stating that you get no benefits for being a de facto couple. Clearly, you get a few – you can claim him as a “common-law spouse” on your provincial tax return, and you’re eligible for each other’s pension. But that’s about it.
Quebec civil unions were introduced to be an equivalent to real common-law marriages in other provinces. They carry all the rights and responsibilities the province can legally offer. Here is the province’s information on civil unions. It’s much the same process as a marriage.
This leaves an interesting question: what happens when full marriage comes in, can people who’ve already had a civil union get one? The government said awhile back that they would introduce legislation to make it possible to “upgrade” a civil union to marriage, just as soon as the federal government got around to changing the definition of marriage for the whole country. I’d worry that the government would take forever to introduce such legislation – not from homophobia, just from sloth – and couples in civil unions might be stuck in legal limbo for awhile.
Anyway, that’s all I can think of. If you want to talk about this more, you know the number. I’m planning on taking a one or two month break from the boards, because I’m getting behind on my novel
Well, for the record, the definition used for common-law spouse for federal tax purposes is the same across the board. That is, they don’t fall back on the provinces’ own definitions.
And in terms of my benefits through work, they can be extended to one’s “spouse, legal or common-law”. The insurance company I’m sure uses the provincial definition and its requirements, which we fulfil. I had no problem whatsoever adding Jeremy to my insurance plan. In terms of beneficiary for life insurance, that’s where there’s some provincial legal stuff that’s particular to Quebec, but anyway it’s not important to this discussion.
For the record, if you are looking at the Quebec gov’t’s website on same-sex de facto union status, the page says that the federal government does not recognize same-sex common law spouses. That is no longer true (the page is a copy of a brochure from 1999). The federal government now recognizes same-sex common-law spouses.