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