Search

This paper contributes to feminist debates on cohabitation by studying judicial discourse after legal reform. It examines how Canadian judges speak about cohabitation and decide whether cohabitants qualify as “spouses” for the purposes of property sharing. Judges assess cohabitants against an ideal of companionate marriage with gendered and class overtones. A contrasting tendency is to disavow moral judgments by declaring openness to a diversity of relationships. It seems difficult to operationalize cohabitation as a relationship form distinct from marriage. Indeed, the cases undermine assertions that reform makes married couples and cohabitants equal. Efforts to “modernize” family law appear to give new life to traditional ideals of the good marriage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast with prescriptions for law reform for unmarried cohabitants, this article studies legislative inertia on the subject. It compares France and the Canadian province of Quebec, drawing on theoretical treatment of boundaries from critical geography, queer theory, and sociolegal work on law reform. Abstinence from legislating for cohabitants has not secured legal stasis. Informally and indirectly, ad hoc responses to cohabitation have amended the boundaries of marriage and fundamental legal categories. A conservative approach to marriage and cohabitation has failed to conserve marriage. We identify a gap, not between law and social life but between law and its prevailing justification, that cohabitants are free to choose to marry or to conclude contracts. Legislative and judicial developments show that this justification fails to persuade. Finally, we read France and Quebec’s approach to cohabitation as symptomatic of an impoverished misreading of the civil law tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]