A 'Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures)' bill before Parliament will change the law so that people in de facto relationships, including same-sex relationships, will be treated exactly the same as married people if their relationships break down.

The big difference, it seems, is that currently for de-facto couples the courts only divide the property based on an assessment of the parties' contributions to that property (including contributions as a homemaker). For married couples, the court also looks at the future needs of each partner and their financial resources.

Now I think if people have chosen not to get married, and not mix their finances, it's outrageous to forcefully marry people off who decide to live together for 2 years or more.

If your son or daughter shacks up with someone less well off, or with health problems, your inheritance could well end up paying for their ex-partner's future needs. A convenient short term living arangement of an 18yo, is now considered marriage. And each party is responsible for the other until death.

Why cant we accept a lot of people choose not to get married because they don't wish to accept any of this responsibility for each other?

Pity help the clogged Family Court if this gets through.

Also what about the housing shortage? No young singles will dare live together now as they will be considered married.

You're making the assumption that people don't want to get married BECAUSE of financial selfishness. Although that might be true with some, I'd be willing to bet that the 'some' is the serious minority.

To a point though, what's next, prenups on the first date?. I think there is a place for it, however.

No I'm not. For a start it's a big jump from financial independence to financial selfishness. Regardless why should the government decide people's commitment to each other based on an arbitrary time frame?

A contract is being forced on people. When people move in together they are not making a contract that they will spend the rest of their lives caring for each other (That's what marriage is for), and it's plainly wrong to enforce this assumption on people, and enforce a contract based on an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

The government is now forcing people to break off relationships if they don't agree with the assumed contract. That's just an unacceptable intrusion into peoples private affairs.

where in the Bill did you find 2 years as defining what is a de facto relationship?

I see it quite differently after reading the Bill word by word

Here is my submission to the Senate, on upper right at http://www.ablokesguide.com

US, you don't like the amendment? Tough luck. All the whinging in the world won't save you.

"Some" better off partners, both married and in de facto relationships, have tried all the various methods to financially screw the other partner upon separation. This "screwing" often also extends to their very own children. Various laws, over long periods, have been enacted in attempts to counter balance this obvious unfairness.

This amendment, is but a mere continuation of that process.

The whingers won't like it, but they'll be BOUND by it. Too bad for them. This is 2008.......not 1808.

philips that was a very sad response. It does not speak well of you. It's not a simple issue and people get ripped off on both sides, your posts suggests that the only ones who's concerns should matter are the users.

US, the idea of contracts which sneak up on people concerns me. In an attempt to protect some we seem to put in laws that support exploitation of others. Not an easy call.

R0bert

RObert, oh goodness gracious me, you have just mortally wounded me with your magnificently intelligent personal comments (but please don't give up your day job for comedy writing).

The topic is extremely complex, requiring a diversity of complex laws in order to deliver fair equity to all sides, whether the protagonists are married or in de facto relationships.

One side will sometimes whinge and tell lies about the other side, and tell lies about financial matters, access matters, abuse matters.....the list is almost endless; that's why we have "LAWS" enacted to deliver as much fairness as possible. When a decision at law is made, often at least one side proceeds to "WHINGE" about the result; this is usually in cases that are bitterly contested.

RObert, if you don't like the rule of law.......move to a country of your dreams; one that enables a partner to do what they like, and to treat their ex and their children as they choose; and good luck living in the year 1808, instead of 2008! Paradise awaits you. Go for it.

gosh!

Crikey!

It's important that, upon separation, fairness and equity be delivered to the often "3" parties involved: The 2 partners, plus any children.

Very often, but not always, the partners themselves are the LEAST able to correctly judge "fairness". If people could be relied on to treat each other fairly, there'd be no need for any laws regarding relationships. Fairness to "all" parties is important.

Phillips, several ranting posts and nothing but mindless ad hominem and vitriol in any of them. At least you're maintaining what passes for your standards, I suppose. [cue sock puppets]

US, having discussed this topic yesterday with a few people, I found that your comments were reflective of the consensus view. All of the people I spoke with had experimented with de facto relationships in their young adulthood and only 1 had ended up in a long-term relationship with the same person she had first lived with. All the others, including myself, I might add, had several relationships of a few years that broke down more or less amicably, with no further consequence for either party. All the people I spoke to, without exception, said they would not have done so in the knowledge that they may be held responsible in the long-term for what was only ever a short-term arrangement.

This proposal smacks of cost-shifting to me, as well as the obvious social-engineering appeal to the religious Right of making short-term relationships less palatable and marriage less daunting by comparison with the alternatives. If the burden of paying for indigent former partners can be shifted to those in work, the Govt can wipe their hands of it. I recommend Prof Patrick Parkinson's take on it in yesterday's SMH as well http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/de-facto-choice-deserves-respect/2008/08/03/1217701846384.html. As the person responsible for the current amendments to the Family Law Act, he knows a thing or two about the topic and he's not impressed.

philips, you should seek some help for those abusive traits. Totally uncalled for but after reviewing some of your other posts I realised I'd been mistaken when I expected a better standard from you.

Antiseptic, a former girlfriend went through hell when a bloke she was dating for a while (not me) started a claim for a big cut of her property based on a claimed defacto status. He propoably never had a case but the rules were fuzzy enough that she could not just dismiss it. She had to engage a solicitor, spend many nights digging through old paperwork trying to find evidence of when the relationship started and a lot of tearful times dealing with the possibility that her hard work to re-establish some financial security could be destroyed by someone who knew how to play the game. Someone willing to manipulate that complex web of laws for their own advantage.

It seems that a lot of relationships end 1 1/2 to 2 years in. The initial enfatuation has had time be replaced with a more realistic view of the other party. The short term tough time a person was going through has had time to show itself as a long term pattern etc, it becomes more difficult for someone to keep up the pretense of being what they are not.

Contributions should be considered, kids from the failed relationship should be catered for but the players should not be able to use that for personal gain at someone elses expense.

R0bert

Philips:
You are unreal to condemn anyone else for "whingeing" after the amount that you did over the NT speeding thread! You whinged about everyone and everything as you canned ALL the NT drivers!.....apparently you are the only "perfect" driver in the NT!...(look at me I am the only one in step!)

I`ll bet that we don`t see you ever helping to claen up the bed of the Todd River!

Usual Suspect, thanks for this, I hadn’t read about this yet.

I agree with US, antiseptic, and RObert that this totally wrong and unfair. It’s simply outrageous.
Why not simply allow same-sex marriage?
I would have no objection if this were merely an option people could register for. How can this simply be imposed on people?

I wonder how they’re gonna figure out what is a de facto relationship and what is not. Many people live together as flat/house mates just so they can afford rent that they could not manage paying alone.
Do they come in and snoop around the house, looking at people’s wardrobes and beds?
Do people need to start moving around more- finding a new place to live before the two years are over?
Will young people remain living with their parents even longer?

I wonder how they’re gonna figure out what is a de facto relationship and what is not.

Cevilia, you hit nail on head

0.1.93. So at the new s 90RD, if a Respondent wants nothing
to do with a property/maintenance claim, he [normally he] will ask
the court to declare there was not a de facto relationship, before
even getting to the substantive matter [or having the Application
dismissed].
0.1.94. So not only will depositions on both sides make
previous Barbara Cartland 50 page Affidavits pall into
insignificance, but the judge will be at a loss as what to decide,
until a whole new swag of Risotto style precedents are developed.
To use this example, after 3 days of evidence he may conclude the
parties never slept together - but so what? The legislation does
not say they have to, as s 4AA goes on to say:
(3) No particular finding in relation to any circumstance is to
be regarded as necessary in deciding whether the persons
have a de facto relationship.
(4) A court determining whether a de facto relationship exists is
entitled to have regard to such matters, and to attach such
weight to any matter, as may seem appropriate to the
court in the circumstances of the case.
0.1.95. To paraphrase Sir Winston, "never in the history of the
Family Law jurisdiction have so few words been so loosely phrased
to invite so many lawyers to suck so much blood at so many Pig
Troughs".

here are the "matters" for a judge to consider, if de facto is contested as a prelim issue

(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;
(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;
(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g) whether the relationship is or was registered under a
prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of
relationship;
(h) the care and support of children;
(i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

so there is no mention of 2 years there so looks like Adel Horin has jumped the gun and started to make her own "precedents", and of course she would consider her favourite

(j) whether bloke left dirty socks around

DD,

Obviously it's down to the judge, but 2 years is probably the minimum expected duration in most cases.

http://www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?partid=6651

'The law gives such partners rights which are similar to those of a married partner claiming property settlement, regardless of whose name the property is in. However, you usually need to show that you have lived together for at least two years. '

So divorce doctor, what is 'your' solution to property/finance/child disputes for de facto couples? It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise, without offering real world, workable solutions. What is 'your' solution. Forget about the amendment for the time being, as that's other peoples' solution.....what's 'your' solution?

To Robert - about your last comment to philips; now that's really the pot calling the kettle black. You made 2 nasty, serious personal comments to philips in your first post, then philips replied in kind but with sarcasm tinged with humour......instead of your serious nastiness. Robert, please look at yourself before you personally criticise others.

To antiseptic - contrary to your opinion, I have found philips comments to show a concern for both partners and also the children. He has said he believes in fairness for ALL, and I agree with that. He has also said that sometimes the marriage partners or de facto partners are not necessarily the best judges of what is, and isn't just upon separation, and this especially is correct. Having hate or bitter feelings towards another forum member is not good for you.

To cuphandle - you just displayed the same 'whinging' that you are whinging about. As with cuphandle, having hate or bitter feelings towards another forum member is not good for you.

In my opinion, life changes - it doesn't stay the same. Marriage changes, types of de facto relationships change and 'laws' change. I suppose some people are scared of ANY change that doesn't fit in with their narrow view. Not all people scared of change have narrow views, many do though. It's all just a part of being 'human'.

samsung, thats not how I saw my original comments to philips. I had genuinely expected better of him or her. The comment at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2031#42156 surprised me, it seemed out of character. I endeavored to comment on the post although in hindsight the point about the post reflecting badly on philips could be taken as a personal insult. Not intended that way rather a comment on what seemed a very poor post.

Just as you appear to consider that my responses to philips reflect badly on me I thought his or her post did not do him or her credit. Whilst I don't agree with your comments about my post you did pretty much what I tried to do, pointed out what you considered to be a flawed post worthy of reconsideration. Fair enough, now compare that to the tone of philps posts on this thread.

Philips hardly replied in kind to my post, suggesting I need to move overseas to "a country of your dreams; one that enables a partner to do what they like, and to treat their ex and their children as they choose; and good luck living in the year 1808, instead of 2008"

This is a complex issue, there is probably no perfect solution but the complexity and vagueness of the criteria for what constitutes a defacto relationship is damaging to all, both those with significant assets and those without. A situation which will primarily benefit scammers and lawyers. A specific clearly consented to legal contract is possibly the best solution we have to this issue.

R0bert

From my earlier post: "[cue sock puppets]". And here's the first one, right on cue.

Samsung:"I have found philips comments to show a concern for both partners and also the children."

Riiight...

samsung: "He has said he believes in fairness for ALL"
"He has also said"

So, we've had "phillpis" and "samsung", I wonder how long before "panasonic" and "sony" and "jvc", et al will be along?

Don't you think it's a bit sad to have to invent imaginary friends to "agree" with you?

I agree, a precise and clear legal definition on what is a 'de-facto' relationship is a necessity. After that necessity, it should be full steam ahead with the amendment in my view.

I read 'undertones' to 'some' peoples' views here. It's as if they reject the amendment on religious, political, past personal bitterness or ideological grounds - it's as if there's something more going on than just an 'intellectual' objection to the amendment.

Antiseptic, I guess when one runs out of all ideas, one needs to invent conspiracy theories: Good on you, I'm sure this keeps you busy and occupied during the day, and hopefully off the streets.

Just how many people do you despise on this forum? Opps, sorry I forgot, they're all one person and they're all out to get 'you'. Been taking the meds lately?

samsung,

'I agree, a precise and clear legal definition on what is a 'de-facto' relationship is a necessity. After that necessity, it should be full steam ahead with the amendment in my view.'

It would help, but that doesn't address my concerns in any way.

Marriage exists. People who want to be tied in this way, can choose to get married. Why are we deciding people who have chosen not to make a commitment to each other really do 'owe' each other for the rest of their lives?

' It's as if they reject the amendment on religious, political, past personal bitterness or ideological grounds'

None of the above!

De-facto was put in place to deal with the past of a relationship, to deal with the splitting up of any resources obtained by input via both parties. I have no problem with that.

De-facto has NO place in the allocation of future resources. By it's very nature it will always be based on pure speculation, whatever laws you use to define it, as the people involved have made no future commitment. There is no contract, and it's nonsensical to make one where none exists.

No matter how strong your definition of De-facto, all you're really going to achieve is a situation where people are forbidden from entering a relationship and keeping their financial resources independent. So all you're achieving is limiting the freedom of the populace to define their own relationships and levels of commitment, but at least now telling them in more concrete terms when they must seperate to avoid a life long commitment.

You forget one very important thing - children. A child is a future commitment for 'both' partners in a failed de facto relationship (or failed 'any' type of relationship). If one parent is non-custodial, that parent STILL needs to be a parent as much as possible under the circumstances and STILL needs to assist with the financial support of the child. In this way, future allocation of resources for child food, clothing, accommodation etc etc etc are essential for the well being and development of the child. I have no respect for parents who use their children as 'ammunition' by refusing to provide adequately for them.

As in marriage, in de facto relationships often one partner compromises their financial well being as part of a conscious decision between the two partners, for various reasons. If the relationship ends, the wealthy partner does not have the moral right to keep more than 50% of that wealth, and even less when children are involved.

If two people don't wish to be bound by the law, all they need to do is not live together. Then the wealthy partner can take everything, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. So the solution is easy, if people don't like the marriage or de facto laws, then nobody is forcing them to get married or to live together or to even have a relationship. They have freedom of choice. But with some of those choices, they bear 'responsibility'. That is as it should be.

There should be no problem here.

I have to agree with you US. There is a big difference between a couple who have been married for 20 years and who have raised children in a 'defacto' type marriage as opposed to a young couple without children who might flit in and out of relationships a few times prior to legal marriage or long term relationship.

How is one to differentiate? A blanket law like this with no exemptive considerations is a bit dangerous.

Example: a young 18 old might inherit a house and then have his/her partner move in, break up in six months time and the partner having a legal share in the property. That does not sound right.

Is there any consideration of age and duration of relationship?

As Celivia said why not just allow same-sex marriage or civil unions.

samsung,

Children is a different issue, and I agree with CSA for de-facto couples. I never challenged that. Only if the child is a product of the relationship though, I don't agree with forced adoption.

As it says in my link, if children are involved that trumps how long the couple have been together. If you have children together, you're going to be linked together for life regardless anyway.

'in de facto relationships often one partner compromises their financial well being as part of a conscious decision between the two partners, for various reasons'
This is already part of the de facto law, in dividing up the resources both parties have helped the couple attain. That's only fair. My problem is with the future possible earnings and future costs part. If you want to be taken care of for the rest of your life, ask your partner to marry you. That's what marriage is for. What is the need to enforce marriage on people who don't wish it?

'If two people don't wish to be bound by the law, all they need to do is not live together.'
So you're saying people should not be able to live together, and see how they get on first, before they decide that they will commit to marriage? I see this as a totally unnecessary restriction of freedom, and a recipe for increased divorce. We're living in a supposedly free, secular country here!

'They have freedom of choice. '
Yeah, like women in some countries have the freedom of choice to go outside without a male chaperone, or be stoned to death.

We will never agree. Your world view is obviously of government/religious control over people's private relationships. Of forcing a contract between two people to be responsible for each other for the rest of their lives onto anyone who happens to cohabit for a couple of years in their young and free (supposedly) years.

Maybe if you convinced me of any need or justification for this state of affairs I would be interested in continuing to debate this.

US, in these modern times, when the VAST, VAST majority of childless married people finish their relationship, the property and finances are distributed AND THAT'S THAT. End of story.

If children are involved, their future needs till they are 18 are taken into consideration, if necessary via the legal process.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I really have to wonder what century you're living in.

You, for whatever religious, political, sexual, personal or ideological reasons (whichever applies to you I couldn't care less) would like de facto relationships to be free from mutual responsibility regarding property and financial distribution upon termination of that relationship. That's the crux of your attitude. You then add the ol' "strawman" argument by falsely "implying" that under the amendment ALL de facto partners will be obliged to support the less well off partner FOR LIFE! What hogwash! That DOESN'T apply to modern divorce in the vast, vast majority of cases, and the scenario will be no different under the new amendment regarding de facto separation.

The proponents of anti amendment sentiment here have been VERY careful with their "language"......Very careful to NOT give the impression that this is a "sexually" based, male vs female issue for them. They know that if they slip up on that in writing, then their true motivations for their attitudes would be obvious. From my observations from their writing "manner" I get the distinct impression they (and most of them are male) feel deep resentment when a "man" loses a certain percentage of what they consider to be "his" money in a divorce property settlement. They will , of course, deny it till the cows come home, but it seems clear to me it's probably a "male vs female" issue for them. Either that alone , or possibly in addition it's also a political "freedom" issue for them.....they want the "man" to be free to do whatever he wishes with the money they believe is "his". That's why they sound so paranoiac in their opposition to the amendment. That's why they rarely mention children, unless prompted.

philips,

What a load of Hogwash. Can you spell projection? All the males are out to screw females huh? And they're so clever with their words, that they don't actually say what you know they mean. Ah what a fantasy world you have created for yourself.

' the property and finances are distributed AND THAT'S THAT. End of story.'
Yes, but it is distributed taking into account the future needs and earning capacity of both parties.For de facto couples the property and finance are distributed based only on sharing the wealth created during the relationship.

'would like de facto relationships to be free from mutual responsibility regarding property and financial distribution upon termination of that relationship.'
I've said more than once I agree with the division of property on termination, I don't agree that distribution should take into account future needs and earning capacity. If you want to misrepresent my argument, by all means go for it.

'the scenario will be no different under the new amendment regarding de facto separation.
'
If that's the case, why bring in the law then?

phill...samsun..which one are you this morning? Either way, your rantings and ad hominem aren't adding to the discussion, but you knew that already.

Have you read the article by Parkinson that I referenced in an earlier post? Do yourself a favour and do so, as you may be able to avoid looking like quite such a twit in future.

As an aside, why are you so anti-male, may I ask? Every one of your posts is an attack on men or on what you assume are male attitudes, regardless of how your assumption fits with what has actually been said.

I love the way all these threads quickly get right away from the OP question and into what lawyers specialise in doing, which is to go off at tangents in all directions, ending up, up the rear quarters of Prof Parkinson, the very person responsible for kneecapping the FLAct and CSAAct under Howard [after his Towards Healing job to save Catholic pedophiles from justice]

US, I'll defend ALL partners in separation proceedings.....male, female and children. As I have previously stated, which you have "conveniently" ignored, fairness FOR ALL SIDES is paramount.

You seem not to realise, or don't care, that "some" partners sacrifice earning potential, education and employment training, as a conscious "mutual" decision based on current relationship needs. If that relationship breaks down **OF COURSE** the future needs of the disadvantaged partner need to be considered in the final property settlement. It's a little thing called **FAIRNESS**. All these things need to be considered regardless of which protagonist is male, and which protagonist is female......and that is the case, that's what happens now in law. When a protagonist does not get their "desired" result, they sometimes whine and whine and whine, and "some" "men" are fantastic whiners and some of them attempt to turn the decision around to **IMPLY** that the system is anti-male. This sentiment seems to have something to do with "some" peoples' opposition to the amendment, at least it appears that way to me from the writing manner of certain contributers.

In fact, I've just done a quick check on a link provided by divorce doctor, and **YES** you guessed it folks....... he has an ENTIRE WEBSITE devoted specifically to the defense of "blokes" in divorce commentary......blokes ONLY: Not interested in FAIRNESS to "ALL", only interested in getting results that advantage men. I'm glad I checked that link. I rest my case on that damning evidence alone.

Come on you guys.......stop "PRETENDING" that you are all interested in "fairness for ALL people". Why are you so ashamed to admit your sexual and political bias? Come out and admit it, and be done with it........then the debate will be in a position to actually progress.

To poor old antiseptic, I see you still think you can gain some type of "advantage" by propagating your conspiracy theories about who is who is who is who. No, I'm not samsung, but you already know that. Stick to the topic, if you can't then move on.

phillips,

'You seem not to realise, or don't care, '
I do realise this, and care. That's why we have..... Marriage. People who want this protection, should get married. That's what it's for. People who would like more independent lives choose not to get married. Now the government is going to retrospectively move the goal posts, and marry them off.

'sacrifice earning potential, education and employment training, as a conscious "mutual" decision based on current relationship needs'

Why would this be necessary if there are no children to care for? Where is the 'need'? If one party chooses to neglect their career, it's not the other party's concern in a de facto relationship. Now, if they were married, you could possibly make a case for a more mutual decision, as they've committed to a shared goal. There is an explicit contract in that case, but a de facto couple have committed to nothing.

'Come on you guys.......stop "PRETENDING" that you are all interested in "fairness for ALL people". '

Here you go again with your delusions. Why cant you just argue against people's stated position, rather than inventing one to argue against based on your own prejudices against men. You have addressed DD's web site, and fair enough if you think it's biassed or 'unfair', but there is no evidence that any other male poster agrees with the content in that website.

My comment regarding "sacrifice" was specifically in relation to situations where children are involved, or any other situation where one parter needs, by mutual consent, to reduce their training or earning capacity.

By the way, "marriage" is not there for the financial protection of the people involved, as you erroneously believe. There are many societies where "marriage" offers no such protection whatsoever, especially for women. In our secular society ( thank goodness it IS secular) that protection comes NOT from "marriage", it comes from "secular laws" that marriage is subject to. "Some" of those laws will apply to de facto relationships if the amendment is successful. If it is passed, you will be obliged to OBEY THE LAW, whether or not you philosophically agree with it. If you don't approve of any law, you are quite entitled to try to change the law.

You mentioned your "opinion", that I "have a "prejudice against men". You say this DESPITE the **FACT**.......that I have repeatedly stated that all relationship settlements need to show equity and fairness towards **ALL** participants..... FYO this means "MEN" and women and children: That's plain English, the words are simple and short...... I can't make it clearer than that for you, or anyone else here. If you can't understand that, then "so be it"! Have a nice day.

'My comment regarding "sacrifice" was specifically in relation to situations where children are involved'

Which I have already said is outside the scope of my grievence with the proposed law. We agree on this.

'If you don't approve of any law, you are quite entitled to try to change the law.'

Which is what the post is all about. duh.

'You mentioned your "opinion", that I "have a "prejudice against men". You say this DESPITE the **FACT...'

My opinion is based on your baseless asumptions of the 'real motives' of all male posters, with no evidence to back this up (except for DD's web site). It's pretty clear you pre-judge all the male posters, based not on the content of what they have contributed to the topic, but based on your imagination of their motives. This obviously must come from an issue with men in general.

'have repeatedly stated that all relationship settlements need to show equity and fairness towards **ALL** participants'

Yes you have. And I agree. But that doesn't change my opinion of where you're coming from. Basically you want equity and fairness to all, but believe all the male posters are 'pretending' one thing while writing the opposite. With no evidence for this, I can only assume you think badly of the male posters, because they are men. That's prejudice.

"If you don't approve of any law, you are quite entitled to try to change the law."

"US, you don't like the amendment? Tough luck. All the whinging in the world won't save you."

"The whingers won't like it, but they'll be BOUND by it. Too bad for them. "

"RObert, if you don't like the rule of law.......move to a country of your dreams; one that enables a partner to do what they like, and to treat their ex and their children as they choose; and good luck living in the year 1808, instead of 2008!"

" I rest my case on that damning evidence alone." (the advocacy of one person apparently dams us all).

Pretty much summed up in yet another (slightly amended) quote
"stop "PRETENDING" that you are interested in "fairness for ALL people". "

R0bert

Sorry for appearing very ignorant, but I'm getting confused.

With these new de facto laws, what is the difference between a married couple and a de facto couple?

Ain't it strange that people who object to same-sex marriage always claim that this would devalue marriage?
I think that these laws devalue marriage more than anything. What would be the use of getting married if a de facto relationship forces people to accept the same rights and obligations as marriage?

In my opinion, it should be people's choice whether they want these same rights and obligations.

I really don't see this as a 'battle between the sexes' thing- rather as an 'imposing on people's freedom' thing.

I agree for a great deal with US at this point since I value freedom and choices are being limited with these new laws.

Cevilia

essentially nothing has changed, except the taxpayer's dollar will be to a fed court instead of a state court [ie judges will move from one juris to another]

it is said that under previous state law that the dreaded s 75(2) factors did not apply, that is fantasy

as the courts continue to tell us, 95% of cases are "property settlements" and not "property determinations" ie by a judge, where everything is in the open and the court must record exactly what was for contribution and what was for future "maintenance" ie s 75(2) goodies.

so for the 95% who got done over under what lawyers call House & Garden, there is just one conglomerate percentage, ie 80% to Buttercup and 20% to bloke, AND IT MATTERED NOT if the House & Garden was Fed or State

so all that will happen for the 95% [married or not] is that nothing changes

that is the stupidity of this deal - one sees a system that is totally broken and inequitable for married folk but says "hey I want a slice of that"

lemmings to the sea

Philips, the fact is that under today's marriage laws, marriage
can be far more lucrative as a business, then earning wealth by any
other means. What is "fair and just" is open to debate.

I think that is a great shame, as it has devalued the meaning of
marriage. Sounds like its going to do the same for relationships.

Who stands to benefit hugely? Well lawyers of course.

We need some basic principles to apply in all these cases. For
instance, each partner keeps what they brought into a marriage,
but split what they accumulated during the relationship. This
could be altered, where there are kids involved etc.

The present system, where some judge can at the stroke of a pen,
give away millions of $ of one person's assets to another, even
if the recipient had nothing at all to do with earning that income,
is basically flawed.

Sadly, what all this means, is that a girl can accumulate far more
tax free wealth on her back, marrying the right partner, then
she ever could standing up. That kind of devalues marriage in
my books, but that is just my opinion

Be careful what you wish for girls. A nanny state can be no better pimp than it is a parent.

Yabby said

Who stands to benefit hugely? Well lawyers of course.

We need some basic principles to apply in all these cases. For
instance, each partner keeps what they brought into a marriage,
but split what they accumulated during the relationship. This
could be altered, where there are kids involved etc.

The present system, where some judge can at the stroke of a pen,
give away millions of $ of one person's assets to another, even
if the recipient had nothing at all to do with earning that income,
is basically flawed.

You start off correctly saying lawyers benefit [ie the $20 billion pa winfall from people stupid enough to use a lawyer to lose their property]

then you go off and blame the judge, even though he is only involved in 5% of cases [according to the court]

I agree it it true that if you went before a judge using a lawyer, he/she will tell the judge you WANT to give Buttercup 80% and the judge will say OK, if that's what he wants ....

but hey, YOU yourself could go to the judge FREE of cost and depose the fact Buttercup simply lay on her back [and thanked the Queen] and argue YOU should get 95% [applying Crawford 1979, Pierce 1998 etc]

he would then say OK

no lawyer will help you mate, it is YOUR money so YOU must protect it

it's all KISS

philips:"I see you still think you can gain some type of "advantage" by propagating your conspiracy theories about who is who is who is who"

There's no conspiracy since there's only one person posting over both handles. That's against OLO rules, dear, do try to keep up. If you can't make your case by properly arguing your point, then inventing an imaginary friend won't help.

philips:"I'm not samsung"

Suuure you're not, and Santa is coming down the chimney in a few short months. I do believe a quick message to the administrators is in order. IPs will tell the story.

Now, how about answering the questions I put to you earlier - either handle will do for that. Why are you so anti-male? Every post you make is based on the assumption that men are bad and determined to do women and children down. What on Earth made you so bitter and twisted? That's a serious question, BTW, I'm genuinely interested. Have you had some terrible experience at the hands of a man or men? If not that, what?

Well this is simply just forcing another wedge into the already declining rate of relationships between young men and women.

I read somewhere that there is an increasing trend for young blokes to forego a relationship as it is becoming all to hard.

Many of them now earn in excess of 100K per year, live the life or Riley, go out with their mates, get drunk, maybe get laid and if they don't, who cares cause they just visit the brothel on the way home.

No misses. no kids, no commitments, and it's all been brought on by the 'do-gooders' of our society who just can't leave well enough alone.

Now if this insane law gets passed we will see lots of cases whereby a flat mate will try to screw a former flat mate by trying to prove a relationship existed, while the lawyers will once again rub their hands together with joy!

And of cause it will most likely force the rents up as landlords who rent their rooms out will no doubt require a legal document to be signed to protect their rights.

Who ever conjures up these laws need to get a life!

My guess is the impact will be larger on the relationship opportunities of those who've already been through the mill once. Those who either managed to keep some assets or who have busted their boiler to rebuild knowing that time is short will find it that much harder to find partners without placing their future at risk. Those left with nothing after a bad ending will find it harder to get a chance.

The risks during the "getting to know what kind of person you really are stage" are dramatically increased if defacto laws touch assets accumulated prior to the relationship.

Many older singles find the process difficult enough as it is juggling responsibilities with children, more demanding employment roles, the signs of age in a world that places so much value on youth.
We often don't really know what kind of person we are dating until we have got our lives well entwined, entwined enough that defacto laws may apply.

R0bert

very true RObert

and also many Buttercups who came out of their first marriage with their 80% are dead keen not to marry a bloke who got the 20% [plus child support debt], especially as we dont have a "proper" pre nup deal in Oz as they do in USA.

In fact I came across this problem myself 20 years ago with several putative partners/spouses and in reality that is the only reason I got past that initial desire to jump back to the frying pan, and live a life free of any person at all telling me what to do, as I do now [and thank my lucky stars every day]

In other words "If the Massey is signed, only love is in mind" [George Clooney as Miles Massey] does not apply here, and I have no idea if it applies in USA to the extent depicted in Intollerable Cruelty [nor do I want to know, as it is a full time job being an expert on Oz Fam Law]

Divorce Doctor, it's not just the Buttercups who win these. I know of enough cases of women being thoroughly done over by unscrupulous ex's that I'm strongly of the view that the systems work to help those most willing to do the wrong thing. The support and advice networks for women are more established than for men and the maternal bias in the system skews the outcomes. My impression is that overall an honest fair person dealing with someone willing to lie and play the system for unfair advantage has little chance.

Most of the women I know with assets are ones who have built them up post divorce. The ones who've tried to use divorce to build wealth that I know of have tended to blow those assets by bad choices fairly quickly. A small sample and probably not indicative of the whole but I find it interesting anyway.

I take a different tack to you on this, I want the gender divide out of the debate as much as possible. When the focus is on that people stop looking at causes, start ignoring lies from their own "side" and focus on any negative of the other. That just entrenches the problem.

There are enough gender warriors around convinced that their side has been harmed more than the other, I don't choose to be one of them.

R0bert

*but hey, YOU yourself could go to the judge FREE of cost and depose the fact Buttercup simply lay on her back [and thanked the Queen] and argue YOU should get 95% [applying Crawford 1979, Pierce 1998 etc]
he would then say OK
no lawyer will help you mate, it is YOUR money so YOU must protect it*

DD, thankfully it hasn't affected me personally, but I know of alot
of very sad cases.

Yup, alot of people know zilch about the law, so trust a lawyer.
They might not be up with Crawford 1979 or Pierce 1998,
as you are. Of course many lawyers act in their own self interest,
rather then in the interest of the client.

I disagree that judges simply agree with what lawyers suggest.
Judges are fallible, like anyone else. If the judge had a bad
hair day, fancies the wife or whatever, would all be part of it.

What we have now is law where judges can really do as they please
with other's hard earned assets. How fair that is, is rather
questionable.

I know of cases where farms were built up over generations. Land
is to a farmer, as a law degree is to a lawyer, they need it to
operate their business.

If a young farmer makes a bad judgement and marries the wrong girl,
after a few years, in the courts, he can lose half of that land
and go out of business. The lawyer on the other hand, won't be losing
half his law degree.

That is why my suggestion that assets accumulated outside of a
marriage be kept separate from assests accumulated during that
marriage. Why assets accumulated outside of a relationship should
be included in the spoils now, hardly sounds fair and just to me.

Yabby said:

If a young farmer makes a bad judgement and marries the wrong girl,
after a few years, in the courts, he can lose half of that land
and go out of business. The lawyer on the other hand, won't be losing
half his law degree.

well there is plenty of case law on what is termed "income poor, asset rich", eg Le Sterre in property and Dwyer and McGuire in child support departure determination, so if that farmer lost 50% it is HIS fault for using a lawyer. THAT is why I wrote the book for gods sake

Yabby said:

That is why my suggestion that assets accumulated outside of a
marriage be kept separate from assests accumulated during that
marriage. Why assets accumulated outside of a relationship should
be included in the spoils now, hardly sounds fair and just to me.

as I say in the submission, the new rules for de factos are so identical to those of s 79 and s 75(2) one could almost accuse the legislature of plagiarism, AND s 79 says assets accumulated outside the marriage [or more correctly the period of cohabitation] are NOT included. Once again I explain all that in the Property chapter of the book so there is no excuse for just throwing money at a lawyer.

Do you really think a lawyer has read any court cases??

most of them would not even know where the court is, as they simply send the consent orders [after extracting 50 grand from their client]to the filing desk via their clerk

that's the way it's done, and yes I KNOW and have DEALT WITH over 1,000 cases, so I am not just quoting Adel Horin or Judge Judy

I've purposefully stayed away for a while , in order to not be a distraction and let you "males" (I won't use the word "men"......because "men" you are not.......whiners you ARE), COME OUT.

And "come out" you surely have. Remember when I earlier stated there's probably an anti-female bias on this topic? Thanks guys, you've just proven me correct. You've stated that women only make money by lying on their backs, only make money from unjust divorce settlements, and one idiot even said if a judge fancies your wife he'll likely rule in her favour. And that's just a tiny, little bit of the magnificently stupid, anti- female sentiment you guys are now coming up with. You couldn't help yourselves could you.

Gee, the overtly sexist DD can't even bring himself to refer to women as "women"......they're just "buttercups" to him: Totally moronic! DD now boasts there's nobody in his life now to tell him what to do..........sounds like he's very much still an adolescent emotionally, even though he's a grown adult.

Oh deary, deary me..... those nasty, nasty women are only out to exploit you poor, kind, gentle innocent males who have done nothing except love and worship your horrible, evil "female" partners and children.

Many of you sorry excuses for men, are mere whiners.....weak, bitter and resentful.

"REAL" men, like myself, make a success of their life and relationships, and if something doesn't work, we put in place workable solutions. When a relationship ends "real" men and "real" women ensure fairness and equity ensues regarding property settlement and child support. It's about fairness for **ALL**......not just revenge for men! I don't run away, trying to avoid my responsibility. But let's face it.......nobody whines like a bitter, resentful man who despises women, and you guys sure know how to whine, and whine and whine!

Err Philips, I can't see any whining, simply some blokes making
some valid points.

If you think that how a woman looks in court, has no bearing on
the judge's decision, you clearly know sweet f**ckall about human
behaviour :)

Perhaps what is needed is more real women. Rather then trying to
use the family law act to gain money which they have not earned,
if more just named their price for services rendered, would be
far more honest!

I'd prefer honesty any day.

Thanks yabby old boy, you just proved my point.

Ah this has degenerated.

Thanks Robert for trying to keep it gender neutral. Phillips I think you and DD are as bad as each other. The difference is DD isn't judging all the female posters as buttercup, but you judge all male posters by DD, or else DD just happens to re-inforce your pre-existing opinion of men. I think the latter.

The sad thing is, De Facto's will now be dragged into this kind of environment of the family court under the new legislation, with all the resultant bitterness it seems to foster, evidenced here. There's no avoiding it and remaining independent financially and being able to walk away from a bad relationship, as we've been retrospectively married off.

Robert once said it would be best to untangle the finances of broken families. Here he makes another good point about 40-50 yo people trying to have some companionship without being put through the ringer if it doesn't work out again. Too bad their options have been reduced, and a lot will probably choose to stay alone for their old age.

If the bill is correctly depicted then I agree the bill is absurd.
- How come married people don’t get the 2 year grace period?
- It is nonsense to suggest as an absolute that a married couple have any more chance of success at a relationship that the Defacto couple.

It seems that some law makers don’t seem to understand that this is a secular state. The state should stay out of the personal relationship functioning as a registry “Social Contracts” (Marriages) and as arbitration in dissolution conflicts like any other contract.

Those with extraordinary methods of prognostication or religious inclination can go to a church and have the union performed and/or blessed.

Parties enter into (business) partnerships with an inventory of their level of financial investment and a contract. Some last a lifetime and others fail miserably. At the dissolution each party takes in accordance with a previously agreed percentage or input.

It seems to me that Defacto relationships are equivalent to the above partnership except without the contract and therefore unregulated. To me it’s an act of considerable daring if not stupidity to enter into any partnership without intelligent preparation. The state isn’t there to provide for safety nets for individuals who choose such a relationship and do so under the principle of CAVEAT EMPTOR.

It is therefore up to the people involved to enter with an inventory of inputs proving ownership. (These lists of assets/property should sensibly already exist for insurance purposes.) In the absence of proof of ownership, lists or contract the court should rule 50/50.

The state should be only involved when children are involved. Custody should be 50/50 unless there are court agreed reasons why not. The mother bias is highly questionable when applied as an absolute. Both parties are obliged to maintain the well being of the children but not necessarily that of the ex-partner. Clearly this structure allows for the desired flexibility and encourages more legal guarantees of marriage thus making frivolous less likely.

>>Those with ... religious inclination can go to a church and have the union performed and/or blessed.<<

If I am rightly informed, this is not the case in Australia: A priest is not allowed (by the secular authorities) to marry you (as far as the Cannon law is concerned), unless he marries you also according to the secular law.

Germany does not officially have a separation of State and Church, but from 2009 on you can be married by a priest only. Your marriage will be recognised by the Church (you are "kirchlich geheiratet") but not by the state (there is no official status of de facto relationship in Germany). The partner (whom you have married only "kirchlich") is not legally considered your spouse, so for instance if the bride was a widow she would not loose her widow's pension, whereas if she legally remarried she would (see e.g. http://www.kbwn.de/html/deutschland.html.)

Usual Suspect thanks. I bite more than I'd like to. One good thing that may come out of this, the point that I've been making for some time that paternalists play a big part in the creation and support of an injust family law system is being demonstrated fairly well here under the rational of protecting less than capable women from nasty men. We've been over this before but I think the warfare with feminists which some persist in is misplaced, the extremists are a problem to all as are the paternalists. Neither group has respect for the other gender or other members of their own gender who don't think like them. In the middle are the majority who respect and value the other gender but see some areas where their gender is disadvantaged.

Some want to provide a safety net over every area of life for those they deem less capable of making adult choices for themselves. The women I value are live and work in the adult world and are just as capable of making their own decisions as any male I know.

R0bert

it was a matter of time before Gay Rights got a run, per Phillips

"Many of you sorry excuses for men, are mere whiners.....weak, bitter and resentful.

"REAL" men, like myself, make a success of their life and relationships, and if something doesn't work, we put in place workable solutions."

The song is called Real Men, remember the punch line

"So don't call me a faggot
Not unless you are a friend
Then if you're tall and handsome and strong
You can wear the uniform and I could play along
And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are"

full lyrics here http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/toriamos/realmen.html

hence my comment in the book

4.1.2. De facto provision [which I don't cover in this book] as
it is called is covered under state laws [and courts] and I have no
idea or interest in "de faggoto" provision, mainly because the
taxpayer will already be pouring out millions of dollars into such
boo hoo groups that cover such matters. That is once again no
reflection on "people who take it up the arse" per se, but simply to
say this is a book for the race of blokes who "do it the usual way"
as I detail in an earlier chapter, and get done over in the usual way
once Buttercup starts on her DIP.

the only reason this Bill is happening so quickly [when there is REAL discrimination out there] is the fact so many in power [politics/law] are faggots and control the pursestrings

George perhaps I didn't make it clear. My piece was preparing the ground for the religiously inclined in a regime one I was proposing. I thought made more sense, that as I understand the laws today and under the system that is being proposed.
The central registry would be the govt as it is now but it is not up to them to moralize on peoples emotions and decisions with regard to their relationships.
For practical reasons I favour defacto as a flexible arrangement with minimal statutary remedies outside equity court. And marriage as contractual (gender mix is therefore irrelvant) arrangement.
Hope that helps.

examinator,
>>For practical reasons I favour defacto as a flexible arrangement with minimal statutary remedies outside equity court. And marriage as contractual (gender mix is therefore irrelvant) arrangement.<<

I completely agree and I find the proposed legislation, if I understand it properly, absurd also from the religious point of view given the separation of church and state.

What I, as a legal non-expert, find too restrictive is the coupling of the sacrament of marriage with a purely secular marriage, a “contractual arrangement” . Why cannot somebody ask a priest to get a sacrament (of marriage like, e.g. baptism or communion) without the state getting involved? Of course, the priest could still act also “as agent of the state“ to perform the civil marriage, if the bride and groom wished so, but why should this be compulsory? This would be more consistent than the status quo with the fact that the Church can REFUSE to marry (as a sacrament) homosexual couples or polygamous groups or what you have, but could - like anybody else - only ADVISE the state against practices that IN HER OPINION are not beneficial to the society as such. The Church might not like couples living together without being married, i.e. “irresponsibly”, but it has no power to punish them for that. And neither should the state.

yes indeed the song Real Men was NOT in fact a Gay Pride song

it was in fact essentially a thought provoking song, and as we all know the act of thinking conceptually [as Kirby J said in his Keynote address to austlii] vacated the planet circa 1985

so a key word in the 3 times chorus is "wonder"

"And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are"

maybe he should have said we SHOULD wonder

but in the final verse, just before the chorus, we have

And if there's war between the sexes
Then there'll be no people left

IMHO this observation of what was to unfold in the war of the sexes [and what that would MEAN to society] was just as clever as Cohen's Hallelujah at that very same time in 1980s, correctly predicting the rise of SNAGs [like Phillips] in our society

please view at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rf36v0epfmI

this Bill is all about the totally fu**ed society we are left with AFTER SNAGism was accepted by entities previously called men and everyone is totally confused, so just resort to "tit screaming" about "MY rights"

and the lawyers larf all the way to the bank

Some people may not realise this but in current federal law a same-sex couple is not reconised in any form which causes discrimination, its only the states which reconise a same-sex couples as defato, the bill tabled in parliment is designed to remove discrimination, not create discrimination for defato - gay or straight couples. Unfortunatly some people have not learnt from history and want to live in a society filled with discrimination and they are attempting to create confusion about the bill as they have a hatred for gays.

Divorce Doctor - You have taken TORI AMOS - "Real men" song out of context. Do you actually know who orginally wrote and what the song means to the orginal artist ?

jasonb I suspect that more most of us were not even thinking in terms of gay rights on this issue. Using defacto status to try and achieve some of the legal protections of marriage could be a very risky approach. Defacto status can creep up on people during that stage of a relationship when you are still finding what the other person is really like. It's not an agreement clearly and specifically entered into as is marriage.

Same sex couples should have the same legal rights as other couples (inheritance, hospital access and say etc) but making defacto relationships more like marriage is not a good solution.

R0bert

>>>Same sex couples should have the same legal rights as other couples (inheritance, hospital access and say etc) but making defacto relationships more like marriage is not a good solution.<<<<

Spot on R0bert.

The proposed changes to existing de facto legislation sounds like:

Marriage by Stealth.

Marriage is a choice that people make and should continue as such.

Divorce Doctor - You have taken TORI AMOS - "Real men" song out of context. Do you actually know who orginally wrote and what the song means to the orginal artist ?

I would be very interested in your interpretation of the song [ by Joe Jackson] as displayed at

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=41FNXkY9VZY

where I ask some questions

"really interesting to now read all the lyrics and it is not really a gay pride statement as I thought back in 1980s [or was it late 1970s?]

Tory Amos sings guys and not gays and it changes meaning of second verse, and in fact I seemed to remember it was mid 1980s before pillow bighters hijacked that formerly lovely word "gay"

anyone know some history of song, like this is only version I ever heard but did Amos write it?

consider this along with Cohen's Hallelujah"

I then said

"to answer own question, this dude wrote it but Amos sang from female perspective

wonder why she changed changed gay

but there's a lot in the song, eg don't call me a faggot unless you are a friend is very true that fags call each other fags but in our Politically Correct circus one could be in court for using the word fag [and UTube will probably delete this - lol"

I have many "what does it all mean" videos on UTube so always interested in the views of others. Unfortunately not many people actually think anymore

jasonb,

The intention of the Laws has nothing to do with the effects of the Laws. Just because one objects to the effect of a Law does not mean they object to the intention.

Marriage by Stealth sums it up. Another point to consider is whether they can retrospectively inforce this?

"Marriage by Stealth sums it up."

You're welcome, U-Sus

:-)

Marriage by Stealth sums it up. Another point to consider is whether they can *retrospectively* inforce this?

that is always found in the Transitional & Savings part of a Bill

take a look

Something tells me this has to do with feminism and giving freebies to 'single mums', but I will refrain from it until I read more. If I'm right then that's how predictable and thinly disguised this has become.

R0bert - There is a huge difference between defato and marriage and in my opinion if this bill passes its not going to make much or a difference. The bill was tabled in parliment as a promise by the Labor party to remove discrimination which this bill does. I note that other bills which give defato hetrosexual couples the same rights are married couples have been passed or introdued in parliment and did many other people create a hugh fuss over it ? No they did not - they are only creating a huge fuss is because they dont want to see a same-sex couple classed as defacto in federal law even though he states and in most western coutries it is not a problem. I can see though the smoke screen and I know most people are opposed simply because of the gay factor.

Fractelle - Marriage is only a choice for opposite sex couples IE hetrosexual couples. Now one of the problems with federal law in Australia is that you need to be married or in a hetrosexual defato realtionship to recieve certian rights and benefits. The bill tabled in parliment removes some discrimination and classes a gay couple as a defacto couple - I do not see what the huge problem is.

Same-Sex Relationship (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-Superannuation) Bill 2008, Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008.

"The inclusion of same-sex relationships within this new concept of couple relationships is not intended to change the treatment of married or opposite-sex de facto couples. It removes same-sex discrimination but does not change or re-define any other indicia of a relationship" - Attorney-General's Department.

Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008 - Info below regarding the bill:

Family Court access for gay couples
Written by Andrew Shaw
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Gay and lesbian rights advocates have welcomed a federal government initiative to allow property disputes between former same-sex de facto partners to be resolved by the Family Court.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesperson Corey Irlam said that the move will mean partners in same-sex relationships which have broken down will no longer be required to resolve their disputes in state Supreme Courts.

"Equal access to the Family Court will mean disputes can be resolved with less expense, less trauma, and greater privacy," Irlam said.

"Same-sex partners already have access to the Family Court in disputes over child custody, and they have full access to WA’s state Family Court, so allowing access to resolve property disputes is simply an extension of an existing principle."

"We applaud the Rudd Government for its continued commitment to equal legal treatment for same-sex partners."

In 2003 and 2004 the states and territories referred their powers over de facto property disputes to the federal government to ensure national consistency, but the Howard Government failed to act.

The current federal government has a commitment to removing discrimination against same-sex de facto couples across all federal laws based on a report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which found discrimination in a wide range of laws including Family Court access.

The commission's recommendation that this discrimination be removed was backed up by former Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson in a letter to the government last month:

"It is just as imperative that same-sex couples have access to the Family Court for resolution of their relationship disputes, property division and maintenance as it is for heterosexual de facto couples to do so,” Nicholson stated.

http://sxnews.e-p.net.au/news/family-court-access-for-gay-couples-3340-2.html

jason, how did you get 4 posts on one thread in a short period? Is there a trick?

Back to topic, just because government claims that they are not altering definitions I'd not be desperate to believe them. If it really does not alter those definitions then I've got no real concern except that the existing stuff is a mess anyway. As for taking the word of Nicholson - a long term proponent of a very messed up system which destroyed the lives of thousands of people.

It's possible that some who are opposing this are doing so from anti-gay biases but assuming thats the only reason to do so is about as helpfuul as seeing a feminist or patriarcal conspiracy behind everything.

Reasonable access to resolving property issues is important but allowing pooorly specified criteria to determine the nature of a relationship and how property is divided may lead you to find that the main division of property is with lawyers. As they say - be careful what you wish for.

If Rudd was serious about removing discrimination against same sex couples he'd start with the marriage act.

R0bert

robert said

Reasonable access to resolving property issues is important but allowing pooorly specified criteria to determine the nature of a relationship and how property is divided may lead you to find that the main division of property is *with lawyers*. As they say - be careful what you wish for.

exactly robert (ie House & Garden), and exactly as I wrote in my property chapter of my book 2 years ago, for married and "others" alike. http://www.ablokesguide.com

but surely the horse has bolted here if you no like. The democratic way is to do a Senate submission, as I always do just to be on the record, so how many folk here did a submission?
http://csacalc.com/book/defacto.pdf well my submission was not published, but that to me is more the victory of having "sprung em"

and yes, most of the submissions read like a gay pride parade/mardi gras (so they were the ones published because they were the ones the gummt wanted to hear)

bottom line as always is perceived votes, and this one is for fag vote and not J Doe, ie note how Financial Impact Statement is almost non existent

JasonB

As R0bert stated, all Rudd has to do is make it legal for same sex couples to marry. Leaving de facto status as is, with the exception that same sex de factos have the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples.

This mucking around with existing de facto laws has an odor about it - smelling exactly of what I'm not sure. However, I do know that it is not making any inroads on acceptance of gay marriage, nor does it sound particularly advantageous for straight relationships.

PS, What R0bert said: how did you get 4 posts?

Fractelle and R0bert, this is what it says in the box above the text entry box when posting to the General section:
"Please Note

* Maximum of 10 posts in any given 24 hour period.
* No more than 4 posts per article in any given 24 hour period."

The Article section limit is half that.

Antiseptic thanks I'd not noticed that. I thought it was three posts in the general section per day. Always read the not so fine print as they say.

R0bert

Heh heh

Of course you're quite correct, Antiseptic.

Cheers

(Note to self: have more caffeine BEFORE posting on OLO)

R0bert - You state “If Rudd was serious about removing discrimination against same sex couples he'd start with the marriage act”

The Labor government back in 2007 made a pre election promise that it was NOT going to look at gay marriage but it was going to remove discrimination for same-sex couples - now in my opinion I think that fair and common sense to remove discrimination. Even the Australian Christian Lobby agreed with the removal of discrimination and gave there support to the government. Even if Rudd wanted to legalize gay marriage he would not be able to as the Liberals have the power in the senate and they are against gay marriage. Also a number of people don’t want gay marriage to become legal as they state it will undermine marriage, yet when the government tables bills in parliament to remove discrimination people then complain that placing a same-sex couple as defato will undermine marriage - do you see the problem ?

At the end of the day if gay marriage was legalised in Australia a number of laws would still need to be changed to remove discrimination against same-sex couples and there children. In my opinion all the concern over the defato law changes is a storm in a tea cup.

If you actually compare the proposed bills to the current law as it stands you will notice there is virtually no difference apart from it includes same-sex couples and there children.

Sadly a number of homophobic people AKA Divorce Doctor, have successfully created confusion over the bills (which they wanted to do in my opinion) So a number of confused members have added there comments without thinking things though, and do not fully understand what the proposed bills tabled in parliament are all about. They don’t seem to understand that the bills tabled in parliament are for the removal or discrimination for same-sex couples.

Divorce Doctor - I note your concerns in a previous post regarding the Transitional & Savings part of a Bill. The proposed gay law reform is actually going to SAVE tax payers $66.0 million over four years.

Below is some information regarding the proposed gay law reform which I have copied from the 2008-2009 budget: http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp2/html/expense-03.htm

Removal of differential treatment of same&#8209;sex couples and their children — law reform:

The Government will prospectively remove differential treatment of same&#8209;sex couples and their children from Commonwealth laws (except where they rely on the Family Law Act 1975 definitions and presumptions) in the areas of Australian Government (defined benefit) superannuation schemes, social security, veterans' entitlements, workplace relations, workers' compensation, taxation, health (including Medicare, pharmaceutical benefits and hearing services) and immigration and citizenship. The measure is expected to result in net savings of $66.0 million over four years.

The majority of the expenditure in 2008&#8209;09 will be to implement changes to Centrelink's payment systems.

Legislative changes are expected to take effect on 1 July 2009 with the exception of Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Nets (1 January 2009) and Fringe Benefits Tax (1 April 2009). Amendments to the Australian Government (defined benefit) superannuation schemes will commence on a date to be set by proclamation, with amendments related to superannuation and taxation of death benefit payments having effect from 1 July 2008.

This measure delivers on the Government's election commitment.

J said:

If you actually compare the proposed bills to the current law as it stands you will notice there is virtually no difference apart from it includes same-sex couples and there children.

Don't follow, why do same sex dudes have "there" children while non same sex have "their" children

sounds like discrimination to me

and I am not homophobic, as I just love those fags whose "toilet" type sex acts have wiped out half the population of Africa

Jason,
I agree that same sex relationships should have the exact same rights as heterosexual relationships. That should include the right to get married.

I am not against same rights for all, but what bothers me is that these new laws are imposed upon all relationships whether they like it or not.
Why can't it be a choice for all couples, why can't people who want this just register for it if they want to have these financial obligations?

I can imagine that there are same sex couples as well as heterosexual couples who do not want these laws to apply to them.

C said:

I am not against same rights for all, but what bothers me is that these new laws are imposed upon all relationships whether they like it or not.

firstly you must always include responsibilities whenever you say rights, as it must be a 2 way street [as JFK said] or we end up no better than lawyer activated feminists, fags etc, screaming their lungs out for "my rights", while at the same time infecting a billion people with AIDS

but secondly this legislation only applies if you separate, then only if at least one wants a "settlement", then only does a judge come in if you can't agree

even for married folk, only 2% actually go to court. The State cant force people to litigate, hence my words about chose in action in my submission [which I trust you read]

DD
"you must always include responsibilities whenever you say rights"
I agree.

As for the rest of your post, I find it quite disrespectful the way you talk about 'fags' and feminism.
There's nothing wrong with women wanting the same rights as men, or with homosexual couples wanting the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Rights always come with responsibilities also, at least in my opinion.

Aids in Africa was mainly spread by heterosexuals like soldiers visiting prostitutes, then taking the virus back to their own wife.
Blame the Vatican also for not encouraging sex education about condoms.

A friend of mine works in Africa as a counsellor for AIDS victims.

Still, these new laws are imposed on couples' freedom.
There is a reason why couples do not want to marry. That reason is nobody's business but theirs.

Homosexual couples once again are being treated as second rate citizens because they do not have the choice about getting married.
They should have the same rights AND responsibilities as heterosexual couples.
Why should they have to be happy about having less choice and rights as others?
Not good enough.

Unfortunately, the price we pay for having an "opinion" forum is that while we have many well thought out, intelligent contributions from many people, there always comes a time when an ignorant buffoon says what's "really" on his mind. A great example is the homophobic Divorce Doctor with his written belief, "I just love those 'fags' whose 'toilet' type sex acts have wiped out half the population of Africa". It's hard to imagine a more inaccurate, misinformed, ignorant, biased, prejudiced and just plain dumb, dumb, dumb false statement as that quote from Divorce doctor.

When it comes to sheer stupidity, I'm afraid the homophobic Divorce Doctor rules the roost.

"I just love those 'fags' whose 'toilet' type sex acts have wiped out half the population of Africa".

The homophobic Divorce Doctor's ignorance needs to be highlighted. His opinions on this thread can now be seen in context.

Thanks Samsung & Celivia, I tried to have a normal mature debate with Divorce Doctor however this user has proven to me that they have little intelligence and they are not worth the time and effort. One has to wonder why they even bother to log onto onlineopinon.com.au, I mean with an attitude like Divorce Doctors who is really going to want to have an online conversation or debate with them when you cant even communicate normally with them. Or maybe users like Divorce Doctor log onto onlineopinion.com.au because they have no life or friends. Until Divorce Doctor learns to communicate with other users with respect my adivce is to simply ignore him.

gosh

"Gosh"?

Hmmmm! Gotta love it. That's DD's way of saying, "nothing gets to me"; pretty immature. It's his way of giving an answer, when he has no answer.

At least he finally showed his hand, in as much as the amendment gives more legitimacy to gay and lesbian de facto couples. So, not only is he anti women (we already knew that), he's now revealed as very much anti homosexual.

Maybe we'd understand him a bit more if he'd work on his English language skills and syntax. I guess the education system just fails some people.

Has anyone visited his website? Gee, if you want "kooky", then go there; he's his own worst enemy. Talk about Doctor Foot In Mouth!

Not only gosh but golly

Homophobia hey?

Is this not a Don Watson Weasel Word, going forward, at the end of the day, towards closure

and friends, we must always have closure

So:

Homo = A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans

Phobia = A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous

Are you saying I have a fear of the extinct and extant species of humans

Speak you miserable cretin

If you are trying to say I hate fags because of discrimination against "normal" people, then just SAY it, Fag

Yes I hate you, so you need to learn to live with that, BUT my hatred has nothing to do with the fact you take it up the arse [and insist on rubbing it into our faces] but because of the discrimination of fags against men

Catch ya!

golly gosh

DD, nasty stuff. As you appear to be having some trouble with meaning I'll provide some links.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobic
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]

Plenty of other resources but they all come back to the same basic definitions, I'd not be to worried about having a fear of "extinct and extant species of humans", rather you could be asking yourself why you are so bothered by what others do and why you are putting your face in the middle of it.

And a book from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Homophobia-History-Lesbian-Experience/dp/1551522292

There are other sources but I doubt that you'd like the ones I found.

R0bert

Divorce Doctor - I would just love for you to say your homophobic comments to my face so I can drag your arse into court on the basis of vilification. Vilification is where you incite (encourage, urge or stir up) others to hate, have serious contempt for, or have severe ridicule of you or a group of people, because of race, colour, nationality, descent, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), HIV or AIDS status or transgender status. This includes vilification because you are thought to be lesbian, gay or transgender, or to have HIV or AIDS. Sexuality vilification is Illegal here in Australia - So come on I challenge you to say your ugly homophobic comments to my face instead of hiding behind a computer.

P.S I could do with $100,000 dollars right around now

Thanks for the laugh Divorce Doctor - I mean you "Normal" hahahaha

to all my fans, I think this thread has reached its Use By Date and I will now unsubscribe as I have too many urgent cases

but at about page 10 it became clear that the thread [and the Bill] is simply a gay rights agenda

but I had already said that in the book in 2006

Good riddance. I hope I never meet anyone in my life time like you.

I second that, Jason.

Right now lets get back onto the topic................

An Update:

From http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2008/08/20/rudd-pushes-on-with-equality-plan/1297

The term “marital relationship” could remain in federal superannuation law as the Rudd Government looks to get Coalition support for the first of its same-sex equality bills before Parliament resumes.

The compromise, unopposed by GLBT lobbyists, is one of a number of minor terminology changes that would allow the Coalition to save face with its conservative members, while keeping its principled support for removing same-sex discrimination.

The issue of interdependency and recognising non-couple and carer relationships will also not further delay the equality bills, with consensus now that the issue is more appropriately dealt with by a separate House of Representatives committee inquiry.

But the way the Government wants to protect superannuation inheritance rights of children in same-sex families is a much larger concern for the Coalition and no easy solution has appeared.

Since the Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee held public hearings into the same-sex superannuation bill two weeks ago, Sydney Star Observer has been told negotiations are under way to ensure bipartisan support.

One Labor staffer said dropping the new term “coupled relationship” and reverting to “marital or de facto relationship” would not impact on the purpose of the reform to remove same-sex discrimination.

Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby co-convenor Emily Gray said that was true as long as same-sex couples are explicitly included in the definition of de facto relationships.

“We would prefer ‘coupled relationship’ because it is equal and applies to both heterosexual couples, whether married or de facto, and same-sex couples,” Gray said.

“But because of the importance of the other issues involved, this is not a sticking point.

“This will not affect substantively the rights of same-sex couples. Whether or not they’re called married and de facto couples still means they’re substantively equal. It is less important than if they were lumped in with interdependency.”

Since the inquiry hearings the Lobby is now confident that same-sex couples will be recognised as de facto relationships, not as interdependent.

The inquiry is due to report by 30 September, but could be finalised as early as next week when Parliament resumes.

jasonb, I'm trying to sort through the spin. This looks like they are extending the definitions of defacto relationships to avoid the political downfall of accepting gay peoples human right to choose to be in a committed relationship normally called marriage.

If thats just a matter of including gay and lesbian couples in then it's not an issue except that the existing system is already a minefield. If the legal strength of defacto relationships is being extended to make them legally more like marriage then that is as was said earlier "marriage by stealth".

I've not really sorted through the various claims but what I've read on this looks dodgy.

R0bert