Sep 13.

Stefan Molyneux

1 comment


Couple has no home, kids together but still considered spouses, Ontario’s top court rules

A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled.

Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found…

▶️ Donate Now:
▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter:

Your support is essential to Freedomain, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at:

▶️ 1. Donate:
▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up:
▶️ 3. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast:
▶️ 4. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms

🔴 Bitchute:
🔴 Minds:
🔴 Brighteon:
🔴 Steemit:
🔴 Gab:
🔴 Facebook:
🔴 Instagram:

Amazon Affiliate Links
▶️ US:
▶️ Canada:
▶️ UK:

  • Marriage insurance is a horrible idea. Women will just lie about their notch count, get married to the richest man they can snag, than promptly divorce him to get the payout. Insurance companies will try to screw eligible recipients out of money they’re legally entitled to.

    Instead we need to bring back voluntary relationships between individuals. If two people want to live together and/or have sex that’s their business. Neither of them owes the other anything. If a bastard is born then the woman has a bastard but no money. The man has a child but no ability to spend time with him. The solution for the woman of course is to not whelp out illegitimate children like a feral animal. Which is cheaply and easily accomplished considering the amount of birth control currently available to her.

    If they want to enter into a legally enforceable contract that creates obligations between them they should be able to do that also. That contract should be allowed to be customized to meet their unique situation, needs, and wants. That contract should also be enforced in a neutral manner the same as any other business contract. As for “marriage” that’s a religious ceremony between the couple, their religious institution, and God. It should have no more legal significance than any other religious celebration. Which is to say none at all.

    Harvey Polanski / 4:24 pm /
  • Comments are closed.

Sign up for the Freedomain Newsletter to receive previews of upcoming shows, exclusive presentations, invitations to private call in shows and much more!