There's that homophobic obtuseness again. The topic is gay people who want to be able to marry like anybody else and Cornflower wants to blab on about de facto gay couples on Centrelink benefits.

Personally, I'm inclined to give more weight to the opinions of gay people like woulfe or jason84 on this issue, than to that of a disingenuous old straight.

Cornflower:
"If you read the link provided by another poster you will find that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, do not want government to be horning in on their private lives and determining their 'couple' status as de factos."

That's utter nonsense as an argument against same-sex marriage. Many homosexuals, like heterosexuals, do want the same right to get married, and while heterosexuals have that choice, homosexuals do not have that choice.

For the ones who do not like marriage: They don't have to get married!

Great post, Pynchme! Hypocrites indeed!

Valiant posts Celivia, CJ Morgan, welcome Jason84.

Davidf

I agree that marriage (or not) should not be any of the government's business, however when property, illness, wills and visiting rights are only available to heterosexuals, the government is involved by default.

Cornflower

Could you please make the exact same arguments, but instead substitute 'inter-racial' for homosexual or 'inter-faith' for homosexual? Thank you.

As for Centrelink's policies, the government believes that people who are having sex and living together can do so more cheaply than people sharing accommodation but not having sex. That this is a completely illogical policy is the reason gays, lesbians and other de-factos try to evade the "couples are couples" rule - who can blame them? It is a rusted on piece of anachronism dating from when males were expected to financially support their female partners. It's a load of bollocks and hardly a strong argument against same sex marriage. If it even counts as argument.

>> The story woulfe linked to describes the collateral damage
>> from unnecessary State interference in and disruption to
>> private lives from changes to family law:

No it doesn’t. It shows that even though equality with heterosexual de facto couples has come with financial setbacks and personal discomfort for many, welfare recipients in same-sex relationships are embracing it.

>> Similarly university students and old people sharing digs
>> can be subjected to the moral judgement of Centrelink
>> and to their detriment.

No they can’t. Centrelink acts within the law, as it is required to do. Where a welfare recipient is residing at the same address as another person, Centrelink is obliged to satisfy itself that benefits are being paid at the appropriate rate. The relevant policy can be found here: http://www.facs.gov.au/guides_acts/ssg/ssguide-2/ssguide-2.2/ssguide-2.2.5/ssguide-2.2.5.10.html

Note in particular, about half way down the page:
>> “A thorough investigation is to take place before a decision
>> is made, and where possible all evidence is to be verified
>> by external sources in writing. Unless evidence is available,
>> the decision-maker should not form an opinion that a person
>> is a member of a couple.
>> Note: Moral judgements or suspicions are not relevant to
>> the decision.

Determinations by Centrelink employees are subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal http://www.aat.gov.au/

It hasn’t been easy for welfare recipients in same-sex relationships to adjust to their new circumstances. Lies spread by homophobic blowhards don’t help.

Maybe now we can get back to the topic.

woulfe, "Maybe now we can get back to the topic."

Never you mind, huh?

I guess that in the sort of totalitarian State imagined by the Left and the Greens it would be possible to avoid discussion of the widespread community angst about serious anomalies resulting from
the ham-fisted botching up of Family law.

I have already pointed to examples where the de facto ('cohabiting') provisions cause bureaucrats to make moral decisions about the previously private and boringly normal lives of ordinary citizens. What can be more ordinary than young students enjoying the pleasures of student life or sharing digs because they cannot afford their own place? However such students can be required to 'prove' they are not co-habiting and can even have their later income and assets at risk from opportunist interpretation of de facto law.

This is the inevitable result of political deals done in back rooms, without reference to the electorate.

Portugal has retained its previous laws regarding adoption and that is reason enough to oppose any change in Australia, right? Never you mind you say, the cherry picking in this case is concerned exclusively with gay marriage.

Let's cut the crap, shall we?

Cornflower - why shouldn't those gay couples who wish to marry in Australia be allowed to?

Please try and stick to the topic.