I suppose I really should mention...

[tcpip]

... that I suggested to caseopaya that we get a civil union in accordance with Victorian law.

She said yes.

(I "blame", in part, airiefairie's excellent proposal for ending state-sanctioned marriage in favour of civil unions for all, and beagl and kimeros for cutting a similar path. Thanks for the inspiration.)

Comments

[seedy-girl.livejournal.com]

Most excellent news!
Congratulations!

[ehintz.livejournal.com]

Well... I dunno how progressive it really is... :) Rules are (or were, when we lived there anyway), commonlaw == cohabitate for 6mos, introduce eachother as husband/wife at 2 social functions. That's it. I think it may date back to shotgun weddings or something. :)

[shadow-5tails.livejournal.com]

Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest that it was.

I was simply curious because it conflicted with the information we'd recently been given by accountants, estate lawyers and the like. I like to know when the information I'm basing my decisions on might be out-of-date.

Though when you respond to the (granted, smiley-faced and presumably less than serious) question "Do you have to get civilly united?" by giving only it as a reason, I trust you can see why one might think that it could be a significant consideration, if not the significant consideration? *smile*

[allyn.livejournal.com]

congratulations!!

[claudine-c.livejournal.com]

A belated yay!