"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Saturday, 2 April 2016


OAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "CURIOSITY KILLED THE CAT BUT SATISFACTION BROUGHT ...": 

We have statistics for all sorts of families that have gone through divorce of male and female gender, and government is still trying to figure those out and remedy the problems that come with divorce through legislation and government support programs. Government in the not too distant future is going to have to deal with another set of problems. Won’t those be “sunny days”. 

Posted by Anonymous to  Our Town and Its Business at 2 April 2016 at 08:33


A man living with a woman and dependent children is deemed principle family provider whether or not 
he is the biological father.

 In that circumstance, the single mum is ineligible for social assistance. 

At least that's how it used to be until the nineties,when welfare was changed to workfare. 

Apart from nomenclature, It's hard to see how it could be different. Otherwise, every mother with dependent children would be eligible for assistance even with an employed Dad living with the family.

A question arises, if both spouses are women, does a gay relationship create entitlement despite an employed spouse in the house? 

How is entitlement determined? How can there be consistency in legislation? 

Maybe the problem doesn't exist.  

Maybe all gay spouses are in comfortable financial circumstances and the children never become persons in need. 

How does government write legislation to a suit every exigency? 

The answer is, they don't. Not efficiently. 

I hung out laundry this morning. It's as good a way as I know to celebrate Spring. 


Anonymous said...

Family law has and still is a disgrace in this country. It will never be corrected or changed because it's one of the most lucrative areas of law in the industry. More than half of the MP's in this country are lawyers or are funded by lawyers. Nothing will change with same sex divorce with or without kids, except more money will be made. Kids will be continue to be the middle people tossed back and forth and one of the partners will get screwed financially.

Anonymous said...

I recall when the baby bonus money would arrive. I knew it was for ME to use for the family without having to include it in the budgets so carefully kept. It was always ear-marked well in advance for exactly where it would go. And the kids were aware of the importance. Now we have a generation of youngsters unable to even make change. Some are only familiar with passing a credit card to a teller. I cringe when behind someone who produces a raft of those cards and has to weed though them to find one that works.

Anonymous said...

My mom used to show me those cheques when I was a little girl. I was the oldest of 3 kids. As soon as I was able to count, she wanted me to learn about our household budget. I thanked her when I got older for all that she taught me about budgeting a home. She told me she was taught by her mother at even a younger age. In her generation, parents prepared their kids early in case anything were to happen to one or both parents. Financial responsibilty and independence is something that todays parents don't have on their radar for themselves or their children.

Anonymous said...

This is the third post in a row on gender. Time to change the subject.

It has just come to the public's attention in B.C. and Ontario that dining with the premier involves a multi-thousand dollar contribution to the governing political party. Both premiers have undertaken to present legislation that will put an end to this heinous practice.

Should there be an upper limit on what a meal costs, and are these tax deductible?

Anonymous said...

20:23- These practices have been happening since God knows when. Anyone thinks that legislation is going to stop funding big $$ to a political party is mistaken. Politicians have the best creative accountants in the business.

Anonymous said...

"Creative accounting" can be interpreted as theft. Should and must be investigated by the Auditor General.

Why are creative governing and governance not at the top of the list?