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