As expected, the Supreme Court supported Quebec's ban on palimony lawsuits this morning, but only by a slim 4-3 margin.
So we're still the only place in the Can Am where "I don't see a ring on this finger" still actually means something significant.
The irony is that marriage is widely considered passe and uncool in Quebec.
About one in three Montreal couples lives out of wedlock in Montreal whereas in Toronto it's one-in-12. (Based on 1996 census stats, will update).
Thousands of otherwise-intelligent Quebec women approach the vital wedlock issue as if they were wide-eyed teen runaways taking gifts from a guy with low-hung jeans.
The law discouraging marriage also infantalizes men and rewards them for running away from responsibility.
Quebec's reigning refus globale mythology looks down on the old school folks of the grand noirceur.
But those greatest generation men were mostly stand-up guys who worked hard, went to war and raised big families, whereas the next generation of supposedly-enlightened flakes was a lot less keen on embracing responsibility..
The prevailing hippie ethos, as embodied by this law, encourages men to remain perpetual adolescent Peter Pans by making it wise to cohabitate without commitment.
One could argue that the current system even hurts children because unmarried couples are statistically more likely to separate than married couples and that leads to harmful family splits.
Elsewhere, both unmarried partners are recognized as stakeholders in the household, if one partner goes out and builds a huge financial empire while the other is giving tips and watching the fort at home, it's rightly considered a shared success.
But Quebec law says unmarried couples are just free-agents who happen to be sitting around in the same place.
As a result, a financially-dependant unmarried spouse will be eligible for no support cash other than the pittance that Quebec courts offer in child support.
This is not exclusively a women's issue because it can apply to both sexes but women are victimized by the rules more often than men.
Now why on earth doesn't the Quebec women's movement address this?
Linda Guilbault of the Council on the Status of Women once explained to me that the women's movement, in the 1980s, debated this issue but decided not to pursue the right to palimony, in other words they didn't want to go to bat for the financial security of unmarried women in couples.
She couldn't say why that decision was taken but they have stuck to it. Nobody heard a peep out of any women's group during this whole time.
Up until quite recently - and I'm not fully sure that this has been rectified -- an unmarried spouse would not even be recognized by the courts, so when when your co-shack-up-ee finally shuffled off into that fiery incinerator, various and sundry relatives would be entitled to every last nickel while you - in spite of scrubbing his socks, fetching his Glenfiddich and flattering his sexual abilities - were legally considered a stranger.
I believed they've changed that rule and it's time that they legislate a change to the palimony law here as well.
An old rhetorical question asked, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Well the milk is pretty cheap in Quebec and will remain so.
Until that changes, whether you consider marriage uncool or outmoded, it could very well be in your interests to insist on getting that ring here in Quebec.