Married Service Couples [MSC]

[tree hugger]

So, if Mrs. Timbit decided that the military thing would be a good gig, would you

a) stay in and welcome the addition a Mrs Timbit into the CF
b) get out and let her have her turn, or
c) "forbid it".

Fortunately, I've met Mrs. Timbit and I don't think she has any immediate plans of joining the CF. 

CF members will continue to reflect the general population in the sense of meeting, falling in love and marrying people in their workplace.  If, heaven forbid, the CF no longer allows service couples, there will be more people living common-law and not claiming it or service couple babies growing up without the benefit of 2 parents posted at the same base... neither which would benefit the members involved.

 

[TimBit]

You are oh-so right, tree hugger  She's not interested  ;D

But of course she could do what she wants! Her life is 99.9% her own (hey, we ARE married... which means 50% of mine is mine). As I said though, if 18 months later Lenin was to rise from his mausoleum (you never know) and untold hords to pour through Fulda Gap, I would look at my children and go : oopsie.

I am not saying in any way that it should be forbidden. Simply hoping that non-service couples, who constitute the overwhelming majority still, are not forgotten.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I knew someone would clip me on the "traditional" bit... wrong word, I admit. Especially considering enlisted members couldn<t even marry...what was it, only 60 years ago, I think?

Whether it's a "rant" or a "buttress" to your argument, most of your proposition (or the basis of your "question") appears to be based on items similar to the above highlighted, fallacies, hearsay and poor conclusions.

While individuals attempting to join the permanent establishments of the "Canadian Forces" (the legal term used to generically describe the RCN, RCAF and the Canadian Army together) were expected to be unmarried at time of enrolment (whether they were officers or other ranks) there was no restriction (other than obtaining CO's permission) on an individual marrying.  The prohibition against married men joining was also waived during times of national emergency or when attesting for overseas service such as (60 years ago) those who enrolled for Korea.

Even obtaining the CO's permission to marry was based primarily on the authorization for additional allowances or availability of married quarters and had little to do with attempting to keep soldiers focused solely on soldiering.  While it predates your "60 years" by a decade or so the following extract from "The Manual of Military Law" (a British Army publication but reprinted for use by the Canadian Army in 1941) discusses the subject:

Chapter XII

RELATIONS OF OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS TO CIVIL LIFE

3.  In the case of civil rights, duties and liabilities, there is a difference between the position of a soldier and that of an ordinary citizen.  The former cannot whilst in the service change his domicile, or acquire by residence a status of irremovability from, or settlement in, some parish other than his own.  Again, he cannot be punished for deserting or neglecting to maintain his wife and family, or leaving them chargeable to any area or place.  Although his legal liability to maintain them and any ******* children remains, it cannot be enforced against his person, pay, or equipment, but provision has been made for deducting limited sums his pay for the maintenance of such dependants.  A soldier can without any official approval contract a legal and valid marriage; but claims to "marriage allowance" or "married quarters" are governed by regulations.

By the 1970s all such requirements for "CO's permission" had been removed, save for those posted overseas contemplating marriage to a foreign national.  That was still in effect into the 1990s.  And such restrictions on married persons enrolling were not solely limited to the Forces; the RCMP had a similar regulation as well as other uniformed organizations, such as (up to the early 1970s) the Newfoundland Constabulary (they weren't yet "Royal" back then) and the St. John's Fire Department and likely many other municipal police and fire services.


edit - original mention of "overseas" was made due to (from personal experience) this being more common when greater numbers were stationed in Europe

 

[mariomike]

And such restrictions on married persons enrolling were not solely limited to the Forces; the RCMP had a similar regulation as well as other uniformed organizations, such as (up to the early 1970s) the Newfoundland Constabulary (they weren't yet "Royal" back then) and the St. John's Fire Department and likely many other municipal police and fire services.

I don't recall them hiring anyone much over the age of 25 back then ( the early 1970's ). They would enroll you right after Grade 12 graduation ( even then, you had to have Grade 12 ) and send you to the academy, so most of us were still a few years away from getting married.
I know they warned us in advance that due to the nature of the job, there could be an impact on both your personal and family life.

RCMP:
Age:
"Prior to the early 1980s, the RCMP was aiming to recruit new members aged from 19 to about 25. The practice was relatively customary of those days, and also grounded on three precise beliefs from the RCMP. First, policing could not be the second career of an individual. Second, young men were more moldable than older individuals to the police subculture. Third, criminal activity was linked to adulthood. By hiring young adults, the RCMP secured more chances that those individuals would have a crime free background."

Marital status:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCMP_recruiting#Marital_status

 

[TimBit]

Whether it's a "rant" or a "buttress" to your argument, most of your proposition (or the basis of your "question") appears to be based on items similar to the above highlighted, fallacies, hearsay and poor conclusions.

Hmm well then please point out other "fallacies", I'm curious.

 

[PMedMoe]

I am a service member.  So is my spouse.  I have one child, who is 19, so I wouldn't consider her "orphaned" if I were to be killed.  She lives with her Dad, anyway.  He is a civilian but has been to Afghanistan more than I have.

My spouse and I both deployed on the same tour.  We were from different units.

 

[cesare753]

Hello,

My question is in regard to Canadian Armed Forces Service Couples; Rules, Definitions and any information pertaining to having a spouse also serving in the CAF with you.

I've had little luck finding this information so far, so perhaps some of you could provide me with the info or point me in the correct direction.

Thanks in advance

 

[mariomike]

My question is in regard to Canadian Armed Forces Service Couples; Rules, Definitions and any information pertaining to having a spouse also serving in the CAF with you.
I've had little luck finding this information so far, so perhaps some of you could provide me with the info or point me in the correct direction.

This may help.

"Service couples"
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:army.ca+%22service+couples%22

"Service couple"
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:army.ca+%22service+couple%22

 

[Colta]

Howdy... not sure if this is the right place for the question, so feel free to close or move this thread if it isn't.... but here it goes.

Is there anyone on the boards who are in relationships where both members are in the Canadian Forces? I ask because my husband is putting in his application for Weapon's Tech Land soon and I will be reapplying late this winter (vr'd during BMQ for reasons I won't get into) as a Medical Tech. We're both very certain that career's in the military are for us and are willing to do whatever we have to in order for us to have fulfilling career's (providing we are both given an offer), we're just unsure of how it works as a married couple.
I understand we'll be apart for quite some time due to BMQ, SQ and QL3's... but is there something in place to help married couples with being posted with one another? Outside of holidays and vacation time (providing we're approved for travelling the distance to see each other), what sort of chances are there for seeing each other? Are there any restrictions for couples with regards to one being in, say QL3's while the other is in BMQ?
In general.... just what were your experiences?

 

[PuckChaser]

The term you're looking for is called "service couples". The CAF will attempt to find posting for both of you at the same base, but the needs of the service sometimes (sometimes a lot) override you being posted together.

I believe there's a mega thread here with a lot of personal stories, etc.

 

[George Wallace]

"Dual Military Couples" has some serious connotations.

 

[Colta]

"Dual Military Couples" has some serious connotations.

I'm not quite sure I understand. Is it bad to use that term? I apologize if it is, that was the only term I knew for people in a relationship who are both in the military. If possible, I will edit this post or it can be removed. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm not quite sure I understand. Is it bad to use that term? I apologize if it is, that was the only term I knew for people in a relationship who are both in the military. If possible, I will edit this post or it can be removed. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

Dual = Two
Couples = Two

'Dual Military Couples' is redundant or two (2) military Couples.  Swingers?




Anyway....Moving on.....Go the the HOME FRONT Forums and read some of the topics there on military couples.

 

[Colta]

Well... I feel mildly stupid now. I didn't even realize... it's been a long week.  :facepalm:

 

[PuckChaser]

'Dual Military Couples' is redundant or two (2) military Couples.  Swingers?

It is a new CAF....  >

 

[Shamrock]

The CANFORGEN on polyamorous service couples is awaiting draft.

 

[Loachman]

It'll be in translation for years, so don't be making too many commitments just yet.

 

[HCA123]

Med Tech is a trade that could easily be co-located with a weapons tech. You are right, you'd likely be away from each other for a while during your qualification training, the chances are very high you'll be posted together afterwards. It is normally more difficult for the system to post you in different locations unless you are in element specific trades. Med Tech is purple and makes life easier. Plus, Field Ambulances are always looking for new Medics. Just say Petawawa or Edmonton at some point along the way and I'm sure you won't have any issues getting posted together.

 

[Mortar guy]

I am one half of a service couple and can offer some advice. In the 7 years my wife and I have been together, we've been posted to the same city for 1.5 of those years - and that wasn't a continuous 1.5 years. While the CM system and our respective Regiment/Corps does make the effort to post us to the same place, nothing is guaranteed. Of course, we are both senior officers so our options are extremely limited! Two NCMs in relatively "purple" trades should have an easier time of it.

MG

 

[eliminator]

My wife and I have been a service couple for over a decade and have always been posted together (3 going on 4 postings now). The only time apart has been for courses and deployments. These days, career managers have to do an administrative review if they post the two members to different locations. Specifically Career Managers, from what I've witnessed over the last few years, deal with service couple postings first each APS in order to have the best chances to co-locate the two members.