Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the reference!

While nearly all abnormalities were already solved, a handful remains and these too should and will be addressed very soon.

Apparently, as a vestige from the past, having a marriage recognised legally still has a handful of benefits - but also disadvantages: both should go.

All references to personal relationships, be it "marriage" and its grammatical derivatives or "de-facto", should be erased from all legislation.

Now I shall endeavour to address the particular points from Charis Chang's article one by one:

“If you look at the case law, you could have a will that leaves everything to your partner, but you can have siblings or other families that refuse to accept it was a defacto-like relationship.”

So? a will is binding, no matter what family-members refuse to accept. Even if a couple was married, family-members might still refuse to accept that marriage (this also applies to heterosexual marriages). Taking the deceased's assets without permission is theft and is recognised as such by the criminal code.

"...may be less likely to be invited to family events like weddings and graduations..."

Whether married or otherwise. You cannot force anyone to invite you to their event.

"Superannuation funds are problematic because a trustee determines who gets the money and they don’t have to follow wishes expressed in a will"

Easy to fix that one: change the law so trustees must follow the deceased's will. Regardless, superannuation should be merged with the estate. Are you aware that under some circumstances superannuation-beneficiaries might have to pay taxes, whereas when the superannuation is paid into an estate, no tax applies!?

[continued...]

[...continued]

"people in relationships for 30 or 40 years denied defacto status by superannuation trustees"

You shouldn't have to tell trustees why you want a certain person to be your beneficiary: change the law so they must accept whoever you elect, no explanations required. However, better not elect anyone because taxes might be incurred.

"there were still resistance among conservative members of families to recognise these relationships at the time of death."

In that regard, legal marriage would not make any difference.

"Some states have introduced reforms so that same-sex couples can register and be recognised legally as being in a defacto relationship"

This is a good and practical idea for a transition period, but ultimately no relationships should be legally-recognised, including de-facto.

"But unlike heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners don’t have the option to clarify their relationship status via marriage."

Nor should heterosexual couples have the option to clarify their relationship using a state-issued document.

"Everyone should have the same status"

What about "human"? or "citizen"? Nothing else is required.

"partners can be excluded from hospital visiting rights or exercising automatic medical power of attorney for one another."

This also applies to heterosexual couples who choose not to be legally-married. The situation can be fixed and there are quite a few ways to address this.

"“I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write ‘spouse’ on incident reports”"

No reason why one should not be able to write the truth. So long as there is no fraud and one honestly believes that the other person was their spouse, this should be good enough.

"“I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room, ‘She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!’”"

Once state-based marriages go out the window, that lady will no longer need to yell.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There was a case recently on TV where a same-sex couple
had purchased a unit together in a retirement village.
The unit was in one of the couple's name. That partner
died and left a will leaving the unit to his partner.
The company that owned the retirement village did not
recognise the will and the partner was forced to buy
the unit if he wanted to live there despite the fact
that his partner had left it to him in his will and
the unit was already bought and paid for by his
partner.

You can argue all you like about what should or should
not be - however under the current legislation couples
who are not legally married will have to face legal
problems and that is what this postal survey is all about.
Giving same-sex couples equal rights with the rest of us.

It is not about what should be happening - it is about
what it currently is - as far as marriage laws are
concerned.

Dear Foxy,

So ...... the company didn't pay out a refund on the unit already bought to the beneficiaries of the deceased person's will, including his partner ? So they would have been happy to sell it twice ? How can that be legal ?

Is this common in old people's homes, by whatever name ? Is this more to do with property law and the loop-holes that those sorts of companies can use rather than any law to do with marriage ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Foxy,

Yes, this is bad. Lucky I have no television so I don't get to see these things!

This is robbery and I do hope that the partner is successful in court to get back what is his.

Nevertheless, the village's poor excuse is that the couple was not legally married, rather than that they were of the same gender. That could similarly affect any other couple that doesn't invite the government to their wedding, or in some cases even cannot, such as a brother and a sister, or in the case when three or more people wish to live together (remember, neither living together nor marriage require sexual relations).

«under the current legislation couples who are not legally married will have to face legal problems»

Under current legislation, some couples face legal problems because they are not legally married while other couples face legal problems because they are. Removing all legislative references to the word "marriage" should solve both.

«It is not about what should be happening»

But it is: the proponents of same-sex legal marriages want the law to be changed in a particular way.

I want the law to be changed in a different way which will only simplify life. BOTH ways will lead to marriage equality, but the currently-proposed way will also increase bureaucracy, cause hardship to others and take us in the wrong direction. What I hope for, is that once the 'No' vote wins, all this young energy will find its way and be channelled into my alternate solution.

I hope that the 'boycotters' and 'discarders' of the opportunity to vote on changing the Marriage Act are those who think it is OK to wreck tradition and turn Australia into another Gomorrah.

That's the petulantly, childish sort of thing they would do.