Should there be any difference between common-law and married couples?
No, and I am shocked beyond measure that the Supreme Court has approved this archaic and misogynistic law.
Gaile McGregor, Toronto
Yes, there should be a difference between common law and marriage; otherwise, what is the point of bothering with marriage at all? If common-law couples want the privileges of marriage, then get married. It's as simple as that.
Ailina Court, Calgary
Yes. That is the point of common law, being that you do not have the state dictate the terms to the relationship. For children, the state must dictate through legislation in order to protect their rights as they are not adults, so fine with statutory child support. But as an adult I want the total control over the type of relationship I choose to enter into. No state intervention please.
Louise Capp, Montreal
It is wrong to impose legal obligations in people when they have specifically decided not to enter into this kind of contract. Child support is taken care of, as a matter of course. Good decision.
Jessica Wise, Montreal
If there are children, and/or the common law relationship has continued over a number of years, for example, the three years that Revenue Canada uses – then perhaps there should be financial obligations and responsibilities comparable to those couples who are married. All parents should seriously look at civil union and co-habitation agreements, joint ownership of property, as part of their duties as parents.
Maggie Foran, Elliot Lake, Ont.
Yes. And in Quebec we have a third option, civil union, by which men and women can agree on what sort of support they will get if they part. If the Supreme Court had said that the Quebec law on marriage was unconstitutional, the next step would have been to say that the Civil Code was so. Quebec is not better, it is different.
André McClure Dolbeau, Que.