Are they truly protected as a group by the federal law compared to heterosexual couples who are able to enjoy certain privileges in matters concerning:

1) Marriage
2) Superannuation
3) Assisted reproductive technology
4) Discrimination
5) Decisions on an incapacitated partner's medical support.

if you're young and queer, this might seem a pressing question.

being straight and too old to care much one way or another, i'm inclined to say it's not an important question. what is important is discrimination against anyone for irrelevant matters.

this is the natural result of living in a feudal society, where one's only protection from persecution is to blend in with the crowd. no bill of rights here, because there can be no rights, until the citizens of australia pledge mutual defence of each by all. that's why a democratic constitution will begin "we, the citizens.."

until that day, we all have the 'freedom' of one among many sheep in a paddock. gay and lesbian sheep may achieve legal parity someday, if the 'votes gained' vs 'votes lost' equation our masters are continually computing comes up 'progressive', but it will have nothing to do with rights.

DEMOS is right.

I made a comment in another discussion thread under the SAME topic. it was Created by the same user!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=698
"Homosexual couples...discriminated by federal laws??
Thread started by chelle89 on 13/6/2007, at 10:50:31 AM."

Demos has a good point. Australian identity politics gets very Catherine Tate in an absurd game of political correctness over equal rights. It has to begin under the assumption of one Charter of Rights for all Australians. "We, the people of Australia, affirm to be equal in humanity...." or some-such. The assumption cannot tack on special rights for some, which by nature, will only cause a reaction to a special action. The circus of special-mess goes on.

I mentioned the need for one Charter of Rights to glue the country together with relative sanity, in my other thread ironically stating why we could even need Prince William as GG.

I'm not sure if OLO'ers have cottoned onto what I'm on about yet.

If not, never mind, just have a laugh at Catherine Tate's comedy on this kind of absurd political correctness. You have to see the funny side to all these dogmas:

"what are you insinuating...how very dare you!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hfZqbZtT6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfdsNNJ7vls

As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" my issue is what is constitutionally appropriate!

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

Previously, homosexuuals were, so to say, scream murder that they should be left alone as to what they did as adults in their own privacy. Well, is that changed, as now they are flogging it everywhere and now seeking to forge even that they get the same provisions as HETROSEXUALS.

Come on, if you cannot create a child between the two of you naturally, as this is biological impossible, then forget about a marriage or its benefits.
The Framers of the Constitution intended a marriage to be between a man and a woman and that is it. It is not relevant if they can or cannot conceive a child or desire a child but ordinary (apart of medical problems) they are considered being able to create a child. Two men together or for that two women together cannot do so and as such forget about marriage status or its benefits.

No one is preventing a Homosexual to have a heterosexual relationship with all the benefits of those associated with a marriage.

Perhaps to simplify it a bit. if I were to drive a push bike, I can get darn wet in the rain but do not have to pay road taxes, do not need to get a drivers licence, do not need to pay for Petrol and by this no GST, etc. However I cannot demand then to get the luxury being without any rain by demanding that the government provide overhead shelter for kilometres on end so I do not get wet or that somehow I get the luxury of car facilities without having the burden to get a drivers licence or the cost.

With other words, if you choose a certain lifestyle then you have to accept what is associated with it.

Those who desired to be left alone in their right to pursue homosexuality must then leave the hetrosexual alone to their rights and benefits and not demand the benefits of the other