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.