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.