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