Philips:

Your definition of a de facto couple does not comply with the government definition. You should address your objections to the government definition of de facto couples since it is government distribution of rights we are talking about.

Why can't de facto couples also make pledges? Is marriage the only form of 'pledge'. That sounds discriminatory.

Dear phanto,

I was not aware that I had provided much of a definition of ‘de facto’.

<<Your definition of a de facto couple does not comply with the government definition.>>

Nevertheless, the federal government defines a de facto relationship per s 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01106

I am not sure how what I have said conflicts with this definition, though.

<<You should address your objections to the government definition of de facto couples since it is government distribution of rights we are talking about.>>

If you could inform me of where the conflict lies, I may indeed do that. I do not see a problem with their definition as it stands, however.

<<Why can't de facto couples also make pledges?>>

They can. If they would like to have legal recognition of that pledge, then they can achieve that by getting married. If, however, the couple has some strange aversion to the concept of marriage, then they can have lawyers assist them in drawing up contracts to mimic the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage, or have it tailored to their wants and needs if they so desire.

Considering the sheer costs involved in attaining the latter, however, they would need to be rather passionate about their refusal to get married.

Philips:

Why should government rights be dependent on making a pledge? How does such a pledge make a relationship any more deserving of government advantages? Pledges prove nothing about the relationship nor are they in any way binding. Any two people can make marriage pledges without meaning it so how does the government prove that such pledges are in any way genuine.

What pledges in particular do you have in mind?

Dear phanto,

I am not sure how else it could be done.

<<Why should government rights be dependent on making a pledge?>>

Do you have something else in mind?

<<How does such a pledge make a relationship any more deserving of government advantages?>>

Because it demonstrates an agreement to certain terms and conditions, as would a custom set of contracts drawn up by with the assistance of a lawyer.

<<Pledges prove nothing about the relationship nor are they in any way binding.>>

Not by themselves, no. This is why signatures are required.

<<Any two people can make marriage pledges without meaning it so how does the government prove that such pledges are in any way genuine.>>

They do not need to. The government only requires the signatures to enforce the pledge. If the pledge was not genuine, then the parties should not have signed the paperwork.

<<What pledges in particular do you have in mind?>>

Well, contracts: marriage or otherwise. I am not sure how that was in any way unclear.

Hey Paul1405,
"I don't think the poofters would give a toss what you do."

- I dunno hey, I reckon they'd go full Nazi on anyone just for wearing a vote 'No' badge. They think they're justified in acting that way because they believe everyone else is already a Nazi towards them + they're mentally deranged and have no ethics or principles of decency.

But hey I'm not the one openly showing signs saying 'Burn Churches' or teaching Grade 4 kids about oral and anal sex.

What exactly would happen to me I protested with signage saying 'Burn Synagogues' or 'Burn Mosques'.

Don't act all innocent, your mob are the ones organising, promoting and resorting to violence.
...Headbutting the ex PM pretty much spells out the ideology of the people on your side of the fence.
No offense.

Philips:

“Do you have something else in mind?”

By using the definition of a de facto couple for all couples married or de facto. This would give everyone equal rights in the eyes of the government which should be their intention.

If marriage is a contract between the couple and the government what is in it for the government? If the couple break their ‘contract’ then how does that impinge upon the government in any way? Why would the government insist on a contract when there is nothing to be lost or gained by them?