... I'm not sure what the point of FIRE is if you don't have someone to spend it with ...
This is pretty mean and harsh, not to mention uncreative. :)
There is an extremely pervasive societal narrative that being alone is sad and that people need romantic relationships, or at least other close relationships, to be happy. I like to think I'm largely immune to messaging in the popular media, but even
I am affected by this one from time to time -- that's how thoroughly this idea is integrated into our culture. But despite any propaganda to the contrary, one of the great things about being human is that
we construct our own meaning in life. Each individual person is free to decide whether they need a partner to be happy. Sometimes there might be a dissonance between what we want to make us happy and how we actually feel, but I view that as a personal failing, rather than as a reification of social narratives about happiness and romance.
I personally think "living in sin" is a better way to go...
In some of my posts in this thread, I did use the word "married" specifically, but most of my arguments actually pertain to romantic relationships in general. Although there might be certain advantages unique to marriage in certain jurisdictions, those advantages aren't the main thrust of my posts. There's also no special significance to the partnership having exactly two people. Presumably a larger romantic relationship could be even more effective, if it had some or all of the positive characteristics that I described in my earlier posts.
... in Canada where cohabitation is treated exactly the same as marriage by the government ... without having to spend a bunch of money and go to court if you decide to split.
Neither of those claims is true.
Under the Constitution of Canada, provincial legislatures have exclusive plenary jurisdiction over "Property and Civil Rights in the Province". Constitution Act, 1867,
30 & 31 Vict, c 3, § 92(13). This power includes the regulation of unmarried relationships, including the rules relating to the dissolution of relationships.
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage,
2004 SCC 79, [2004] 3 SCR 698 at ¶ 33. Therefore, as an initial matter, one cannot make a generalised statement about "Canada", because the rules relating to the dissolution of relationships are different in every province, not just as a matter of theory but actually of practice.
For example, in Alberta, property acquired during a marriage is generally split "equally between the spouses" upon the dissolution of the marriage, subject to certain exceptions (Matrimonial Property Act,
RSA 2000, c M-8, § 7(4)), but on the breakdown of an unmarried relationship, the former partners are only entitled to what they can prove is theirs under a theory of unjust enrichment or constructive trust. In Alberta, there is no equal division presumed by law for unmarried couples because "it is not the purpose of the law of unjust enrichment to replicate for unmarried partners the legislative presumption that married partners are engaged in a joint family venture".
Mailhot v. Galbraith,
2014 ABQB 396 at ¶ 19 (quoting
Kerr v. Baranow,
2011 SCC 10 at ¶ 84).
Although the exact rules vary by province, a marriage is not "exactly the same" as an unmarried partnership in any province. This is because "[m]arriage and civil unions are two
distinct ways in which couples can express their commitment and structure their legal obligations".
Reference re Same-Sex Marriage at ¶ 33 (emphasis added).
Even if you think you've mastered the law of your current province of residence and you are satisfied with how it treats unmarried couples relative to married couples, that law could change at any time, and, more interestingly, you don't know for sure what state's law will actually apply to the dissolution of your relationship, especially if you travel as frequently as you and your boyfriend do. Depending on all the facts,
chocie-of-law principles can sometimes result in law being applied that you did not expect, especially in the absence of written agreements.
Your second claim, that remaining unmarried allows the partners to avoid "spend[ing] a bunch of money and go[ing] to court if [they] decide to split", has no evidentiary basis. Unmarried couples assert legal claims against each other on the breakdown of relationships all the time. I actually cited a few examples above, but these cases are not rare. The character of the proceedings at the end of your relationship will depend in large part on how litigious your partner is, how willing the two of you are to compromise, the lack of ambiguity in written agreements, the quality of the counsel that you retain, and other such factors.