I have to agree with you US. There is a big difference between a couple who have been married for 20 years and who have raised children in a 'defacto' type marriage as opposed to a young couple without children who might flit in and out of relationships a few times prior to legal marriage or long term relationship.

How is one to differentiate? A blanket law like this with no exemptive considerations is a bit dangerous.

Example: a young 18 old might inherit a house and then have his/her partner move in, break up in six months time and the partner having a legal share in the property. That does not sound right.

Is there any consideration of age and duration of relationship?

As Celivia said why not just allow same-sex marriage or civil unions.

samsung,

Children is a different issue, and I agree with CSA for de-facto couples. I never challenged that. Only if the child is a product of the relationship though, I don't agree with forced adoption.

As it says in my link, if children are involved that trumps how long the couple have been together. If you have children together, you're going to be linked together for life regardless anyway.

'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'
This is already part of the de facto law, in dividing up the resources both parties have helped the couple attain. That's only fair. My problem is with the future possible earnings and future costs part. If you want to be taken care of for the rest of your life, ask your partner to marry you. That's what marriage is for. What is the need to enforce marriage on people who don't wish it?

'If two people don't wish to be bound by the law, all they need to do is not live together.'
So you're saying people should not be able to live together, and see how they get on first, before they decide that they will commit to marriage? I see this as a totally unnecessary restriction of freedom, and a recipe for increased divorce. We're living in a supposedly free, secular country here!

'They have freedom of choice. '
Yeah, like women in some countries have the freedom of choice to go outside without a male chaperone, or be stoned to death.

We will never agree. Your world view is obviously of government/religious control over people's private relationships. Of forcing a contract between two people to be responsible for each other for the rest of their lives onto anyone who happens to cohabit for a couple of years in their young and free (supposedly) years.

Maybe if you convinced me of any need or justification for this state of affairs I would be interested in continuing to debate this.

US, in these modern times, when the VAST, VAST majority of childless married people finish their relationship, the property and finances are distributed AND THAT'S THAT. End of story.

If children are involved, their future needs till they are 18 are taken into consideration, if necessary via the legal process.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I really have to wonder what century you're living in.

You, for whatever religious, political, sexual, personal or ideological reasons (whichever applies to you I couldn't care less) would like de facto relationships to be free from mutual responsibility regarding property and financial distribution upon termination of that relationship. That's the crux of your attitude. You then add the ol' "strawman" argument by falsely "implying" that under the amendment ALL de facto partners will be obliged to support the less well off partner FOR LIFE! What hogwash! That DOESN'T apply to modern divorce in the vast, vast majority of cases, and the scenario will be no different under the new amendment regarding de facto separation.

The proponents of anti amendment sentiment here have been VERY careful with their "language"......Very careful to NOT give the impression that this is a "sexually" based, male vs female issue for them. They know that if they slip up on that in writing, then their true motivations for their attitudes would be obvious. From my observations from their writing "manner" I get the distinct impression they (and most of them are male) feel deep resentment when a "man" loses a certain percentage of what they consider to be "his" money in a divorce property settlement. They will , of course, deny it till the cows come home, but it seems clear to me it's probably a "male vs female" issue for them. Either that alone , or possibly in addition it's also a political "freedom" issue for them.....they want the "man" to be free to do whatever he wishes with the money they believe is "his". That's why they sound so paranoiac in their opposition to the amendment. That's why they rarely mention children, unless prompted.

philips,

What a load of Hogwash. Can you spell projection? All the males are out to screw females huh? And they're so clever with their words, that they don't actually say what you know they mean. Ah what a fantasy world you have created for yourself.

' the property and finances are distributed AND THAT'S THAT. End of story.'
Yes, but it is distributed taking into account the future needs and earning capacity of both parties.For de facto couples the property and finance are distributed based only on sharing the wealth created during the relationship.

'would like de facto relationships to be free from mutual responsibility regarding property and financial distribution upon termination of that relationship.'
I've said more than once I agree with the division of property on termination, I don't agree that distribution should take into account future needs and earning capacity. If you want to misrepresent my argument, by all means go for it.

'the scenario will be no different under the new amendment regarding de facto separation.
'
If that's the case, why bring in the law then?

phill...samsun..which one are you this morning? Either way, your rantings and ad hominem aren't adding to the discussion, but you knew that already.

Have you read the article by Parkinson that I referenced in an earlier post? Do yourself a favour and do so, as you may be able to avoid looking like quite such a twit in future.

As an aside, why are you so anti-male, may I ask? Every one of your posts is an attack on men or on what you assume are male attitudes, regardless of how your assumption fits with what has actually been said.

I love the way all these threads quickly get right away from the OP question and into what lawyers specialise in doing, which is to go off at tangents in all directions, ending up, up the rear quarters of Prof Parkinson, the very person responsible for kneecapping the FLAct and CSAAct under Howard [after his Towards Healing job to save Catholic pedophiles from justice]