Marital status- whose business is it?

[JLM]

I notice quite often on newscasts, when identifying people the reports read something like "Joe Blow and his common law wife Mary Puff" What is wrong with just saying "his wife"? (For the record the wife and I have papers) I think the aura of "naughtiness" there may have been 40 years ago no longer exists, hence nothing is added to the story.

 

[talloola]

the media will always reach for the 'negative', and that is what they do when they say 'common law' wife,
as it is creating something out of nothing, which is what they thrive on.

 

[AnnaG]

So people should be choosy about what they tell reporters. It isn't rocket science.

 

[karrie]

Perhaps because so many commonlaw couples don't identify themselves as husband and wife? I know at least two couples who never 'married' and don't call eachother husband and wife but rather partner. It would be disrespectful of their choice to refer to them as husband and wife, like implying that they've merely been too lazy to make it official.

 

[JLM]

So people should be choosy about what they tell reporters. It isn't rocket science.

Absolutely correct, Anna..........................up to a point. Quite often news worthy events are quite unsettling and people at these times can be vulnerable and are apt to blurt out stuff they normally wouldn't. Reporters however, since it is their livelihood should know better and try to protect people's interests in vulnerable situations.

 

[AnnaG]

Absolutely correct, Anna..........................up to a point. Quite often news worthy events are quite unsettling and people at these times can be vulnerable and are apt to blurt out stuff they normally wouldn't. Reporters however, since it is their livelihood should know better and try to protect people's interests in vulnerable situations.

Should is one thing, reality is another. Reporters want to sell stories. Period. And not all of them have their shyte together either. If you don't want the world to know you have a mole on your butt that looks like Hitler, don't say it. lol

 

[JLM]

Should is one thing, reality is another. Reporters want to sell stories. /QUOTE]

Yep, and dope dealers want to sell dope!!!!!!!!! :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Curiosity]

I keep hoping one day the forms will all read: Non-specific gender word like "Partner"

This avoids all kinds of explanations which are nobody's business when a couple choose to live together in any capacity.

 

[JLM]

I keep hoping one day the forms will all read: Non-specific gender word like "Partner"

This avoids all kinds of explanations which are nobody's business when a couple choose to live together in any capacity.

I think we already have a better one in place that does the same thing and is a little more definitive and that is "spouse". "Partner" can mean darn near anything like in a card game or in a bank holdup........................:smile::smile::smile:

 

[Curiosity]

JLM

You are way too bright this early morning!

I see your point - I was concerned about two issues of people cohabiting these days:

Some are not married (ie - spouse indicates marriage doesn't it?)

Some are same sex (ie - spouse indicates marriage doesn't it?).

The legalities of "spouse" are what's boggling the issue now....

Agree partner isn't the best choice - perhaps soon we'll be able to find an all-inclusive
name...

 

[JLM]

JLM

You are way too bright this early morning!

I see your point - I was concerned about two issues of people cohabiting these days:

Some are not married (ie - spouse indicates marriage doesn't it?)

Some are same sex (ie - spouse indicates marriage doesn't it?).

The legalities of "spouse" are what's boggling the issue now....

Agree partner isn't the best choice - perhaps soon we'll be able to find an all-inclusive
name...

I think "spouse" is appropriate where it is a "romantic" union, regardless or gender or having legal papers. "Partner" would be good where two people are cohabiting for reasons purely of convenience. (Five years ago I would have been dead against the term "spouse" for same gender couples, but have to accept the way it is)

 

[karrie]

I keep hoping one day the forms will all read: Non-specific gender word like "Partner"

This avoids all kinds of explanations which are nobody's business when a couple choose to live together in any capacity.

Absolutely. For example... if I were to lose my husband, and my best friend and I were to move in together for support, why on earth would I have to call her my 'wife'? Why would we be less deserving of benefit as a support system, a family, simply if we are not a couple having sex, but instead, simply a partnership? Why should I have to try to explain a system whose inner workings are no one else's business?

 

[JLM]

Absolutely. For example... if I were to lose my husband, and my best friend and I were to move in together for support, why on earth would I have to call her my 'wife'? Why would we be less deserving of benefit as a support system, a family, simply if we are not a couple having sex, but instead, simply a partnership? Why should I have to try to explain a system whose inner workings are no one else's business?

You're a smart kid there Karrie. One thing I could never figure out is why a "subordinate" member of a household has to prove he/she is having sex to qualify for medical coverage etc.

 

[AnnaG]

Personally I don't care what people want to refer to themselves as. It isn't any of my business.
And no-one has put a copyright on the term marriage and marriage has been around a lot longer than the Bible so there's no rational excuse as to why couples can't use the term.

 

[talloola]

Absolutely. For example... if I were to lose my husband, and my best friend and I were to move in together for support, why on earth would I have to call her my 'wife'? Why would we be less deserving of benefit as a support system, a family, simply if we are not a couple having sex, but instead, simply a partnership? Why should I have to try to explain a system whose inner workings are no one else's business?

that is a complicated question you ask, because so many would take advantage of that situation, and work
hard to create live-in situations 'just' to get money from government, when they actually are not deserving.
The inner workings are not anyone's business, untill you 'ask' for handouts from the government.

 

[karrie]

... 'just' to get money from government, when they actually are not deserving.
The inner workings are not anyone's business, untill you 'ask' for handouts from the government.

I think more often than not it's used as an excuse to keep your own money rather than as an excuse to get money, so, if some abuse it a bit less goes into the coffers I don't really see a need for a whole lot of prying into the lives of those who are being honest.

 

[JLM]

that is a complicated question you ask, because so many would take advantage of that situation, and work
hard to create live-in situations 'just' to get money from government, when they actually are not deserving.
The inner workings are not anyone's business, untill you 'ask' for handouts from the government.

I have to disagree a little bit here Talloola. If you are married and you are working, the spouse automatically gets benefits. If I'm not married, but working and cohabit with my dysfunctional brother, I can't really see any reason he can't get the same benefits a spouse receives.

 

[AnnaG]

I have to disagree a little bit here Talloola. If you are married and you are working, the spouse automatically gets benefits. If I'm not married, but working and cohabit with my dysfunctional brother, I can't really see any reason he can't get the same benefits a spouse receives.

A dependent is a dependent. Good point. There are benefits income-tax-wise for dependents.

 

[VanIsle]

Perhaps because so many commonlaw couples don't identify themselves as husband and wife? I know at least two couples who never 'married' and don't call eachother husband and wife but rather partner. It would be disrespectful of their choice to refer to them as husband and wife, like implying that they've merely been too lazy to make it official.

Hmm - maybe. I bet if they have a medical form or income tax or the like they refer to themselves as "common law" because it does not ask if you have a partner. It asks if your spouse is "common law" and if so - for how long.

 

[JLM]

Hmm - maybe. I bet if they have a medical form or income tax or the like they refer to themselves as "common law" because it does not ask if you have a partner. It asks if your spouse is "common law" and if so - for how long.

Indubitably.