Another Example of Why Canada Still Needs Full Marriage Equality

We have said repeatedly on this blog that a consenting adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any other domestic partnership or civil union offered), and any of those things without the others, with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Here's another example of why Canada still needs to make progress to that goal. The report is from Cassie Williams at cbc.ca...

For 38 years, Betty Wilsack has shared her Caribou Island, N.S., home with her sister Margaret Renouf. They've split all expenses, living as a family while raising Renouf's son.

The pair are now in their 70s. But when one of them dies, the other won't be entitled to the survivor's pension, either from CPP and OAS or their employer pensions.

This is senseless.

In Canada, husbands and wives, common-law couples and same-sex couples are entitled to a spousal pension after the death of a partner, typically about 60 per cent of a full pension.

But people who are part of other types of families, for instance siblings living together, are not given the same treatment.

It's discrimination based on someone's birth.

Wilsack said their situation is not unique. 

"I know many, many people — sisters living together, parents and an adult healthy child that are sharing expenses. In my career as a nurse I came across this many, many times," she said.

Yes. Everyone knows people in such situations.

"We worked all our lives and we paid into the economy, we paid taxes, we're active in the community and the church and … I just think it's grossly unfair. I'm hoping that people will come forward that are in a similar situation."

Wilsack said if she died it would not be easy for her sister to pay the bills.

This has to be corrected soon.

Wilsack feels the only difference between her situation and that of romantic couples is that there is no sexual relationship.

"We're not going to get married, hello!"

If they don't want to get married, they shouldn't. But other people should not be denied their right to marry. And of course, they should be allowed a domestic partnership, if that is what they want.

As far as the sex, they may or may not be having or have had sex. I wouldn't expect them to say they were having sex in an article like this. They say they aren't, but it shouldn't matter if they are or aren't. That's between them. There are marriages and relationships between unrelated people without sex or that no longer involve sex. It isn't just couples, of course. There are many people in polyamorous relationships. And there are siblings, and adults with their parent(s), and other close relatives who are in similar situations who are having sex, and some of them want to get marred. Some would be prefer a domestic partnership. Nobody should be denied their rights.